Male Archetypes Spectrum

BucketCrab

BucketCrab

If you can't climb out, drag others down.
Joined
Dec 25, 2021
Posts
1,279
Reputation
3,293
Introduction
There is a lot of talk around here about prettyboys, mascmaxxers, ogres and the like. It becomes exceedingly complex to cleanly understand what these archetypes refer to, as posters often use different words to refer to the same concepts, or have twisted views of what an archetype is, often mistaking one for the other, or showing doubts regarding what is attractive to who.
I propose a spectrum that will simplify understanding the degrees of masculinity and attractiveness of the most common male archetypes.

The spectrum
Cutecel - Prettyboy - Robust Prettyboy - Maesthetic - Dom - Ogre

TOBKX2CG3QI6ZPWKHTDRAO6YCQ
Cutecel

Main features:
Cutecels are characterized by extremely low dimorphism and extremely high youthfulness; they usually have perfect skin, perfect hair quality/quantity, and very frail, immature physiques, and no facial hair whatsoever.
These factors make them highly appealing to teenage girls, who would be intimidated by more masculine, dimorphic and mature archetypes. They represent a safe way to be introduced to romance and sexuality, however they begin quickly losing female appeal as girls approach the end of puberty.


Male respect: ⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Finn Wolfhard


9ab785741956fd2d0cecb2a416cc0d94
Prettyboy
Main features:
Prettyboys share many commonalities with Cutecels, with a caveat; they present some dimorphic features that are unseen in Cutecels. For example, while they also have good skin and hair, their faces have slightly more pronounced dimorphic features; a more chiseled jawline, more deep-set eyes, overall sharper facial structure.
Their body, while not muscular by any means, is usually more slender than frail, and they are generally taller than cutecels as well. This combination of masculine and feminine features grants prettyboys unmatched appeal with young women, although many older women may consider them too immature for their taste.


Male respect: ⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Francisco Lachowski

2002 1443386545
Robust Prettyboy

Main features: Prettyboys that double down on dimorphic features may enter Robust Prettyboy territory; these prettyboys may present some additional dimorphic features such as facial hair (kept relatively short), but the main difference is an overall increased muscularity and sense of physical dominance. While their physique is generally still very lean, proportionate and slender, they tend to have a more pronounced V-shape and increased levels of perceived bodily dominance and athleticism than normal prettyboys. This proves to be beneficial, as their appeal is more long-lived than prettyboys, at the cost of being slightly more intimidating to very young women.


Male respect: ⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Jason Momoa


N9Csz9Z0sMWikAnvuISgOkxNruk
Maesthetic

Main features: While the prettyboys described so far generally tend towards femininity, the Maesthetic archetype is starkly masculine, with a broad face, strong facial features, and brawny proportions. Although not as "pretty" as the aforementioned archetype, the Maesthetic men are still known to present many striking features and a high level of harmony and beauty, with clear skin, thick healthy hair, and an overall groomed and respectable look.
Neatly trimmed facial and body hair is more common, although a clean shaven face highlighting a masculine, powerful jaw is a typical hallmark of this archetype's appeal.
The Maesthetic archetype is a mainstay of male attractiveness, and many Hollywood actors perfectly fit this archetype; as such, it represents the quintessential concept of male "handsomeness" and enjoys success with women of all ages, albeit their increased level of masculinity makes them less-than-ideal among young women.


Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Jon-Erik Hexum




2bb4381e03c0ff38394fe01c509445de
Dom
Main features: Unsurprisingly, Doms are all about dominance. Muscular bodies, thick beards, body hair, tough demeanour, tattoos and a tan are all very common among Doms. This archetype embodies raw masculinity and danger; it relies on a rugged exterior, a rough voice, and a commanding presence to elicit primal responses in women. Dom is an archetype reserved to older, more mature men, as many of the features that are required come with age, and as such it is very popular with older women; however, this archetype can also somtimes be perceived as low-class by women from cultured backgrounds, and its association with maturity makes it often unappealing or excessively intimidating for young women.

Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Michele Morrone


Actor hafthor julius bjornsson 125814 large
Ogre
Main features: Ogres are characterized by extreme levels of dimorphism; they are often bald or wear very short hair, almost always sport a thick beard, and have exceptionally bulky bodies. Although not all Ogres are aggressive, the archetype is extremely intimidating, and presents few appealing features for the female gaze, namely height and size. As such, the ogre is by far the least popular archetype among young women, although its unmatched social dominance proves to garner some success among older women, who are generally less interested in youthfulness.



Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Love it
Reactions: vmtb, Lonenely sigma, qazw and 95 others
Reading this while trying to log in to random people's emails to find credit cards
Good thread tho
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: oryxslams, TrueBlueRetard, OneCopDayKepRopAway and 78 others
Nothing new but still good thread tbh
 
  • +1
Reactions: thecel, Deleted member 65033 and Deleted member 52758
PSL is 100% a game at this point JFL

Gamifying looks theory experience

Gather all your PSL fragments and level up your character

Choose between your classes and dominate tinder

Become the female slayer
 
  • JFL
  • +1
  • Love it
Reactions: qazw, LampPostPrime, jelqer and 67 others
High effort thread but too many inaccuracies
 
  • +1
Reactions: Icon, Brigadinho and Soychadcell
Introduction
There is a lot of talk around here about prettyboys, mascmaxxers, ogres and the like. It becomes exceedingly complex to cleanly understand what these archetypes refer to, as posters often use different words to refer to the same concepts, or have twisted views of what an archetype is, often mistaking one for the other, or showing doubts regarding what is attractive to who.
I propose a spectrum that will simplify understanding the degrees of masculinity and attractiveness of the most common male archetypes.

The spectrum
Cutecel - Prettyboy - Robust Prettyboy - Maesthetic - Dom - Ogre

View attachment 1818522Cutecel
Main features:
Cutecels are characterized by extremely low dimorphism and extremely high youthfulness; they usually have perfect skin, perfect hair quality/quantity, and very frail, immature physiques, and no facial hair whatsoever.
These factors make them highly appealing to teenage girls, who would be intimidated by more masculine, dimorphic and mature archetypes. They represent a safe way to be introduced to romance and sexuality, however they begin quickly losing female appeal as girls approach the end of puberty.


Male respect: ⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Finn Wolfhard


View attachment 1818504Prettyboy
Main features:
Prettyboys share many commonalities with Cutecels, with a caveat; they present some dimorphic features that are unseen in Cutecels. For example, while they also have good skin and hair, their faces have slightly more pronounced dimorphic features; a more chiseled jawline, more deep-set eyes, overall sharper facial structure.
Their body, while not muscular by any means, is usually more slender than frail, and they are generally taller than cutecels as well. This combination of masculine and feminine features grants prettyboys unmatched appeal with young women, although many older women may consider them too immature for their taste.


Male respect: ⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Francisco Lachowski

View attachment 1818508Robust Prettyboy
Main features: Prettyboys that double down on dimorphic features may enter Robust Prettyboy territory; these prettyboys may present some additional dimorphic features such as facial hair (kept relatively short), but the main difference is an overall increased muscularity and sense of physical dominance. While their physique is generally still very lean, proportionate and slender, they tend to have a more pronounced V-shape and increased levels of perceived bodily dominance and athleticism than normal prettyboys. This proves to be beneficial, as their appeal is more long-lived than prettyboys, at the cost of being slightly more intimidating to very young women.


Male respect: ⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Jason Momoa


View attachment 1818511Maesthetic
Main features: While the prettyboys described so far generally tend towards femininity, the Maesthetic archetype is starkly masculine, with a broad face, strong facial features, and brawny proportions. Although not as "pretty" as the aforementioned archetype, the Maesthetic men are still known to present many striking features and a high level of harmony and beauty, with clear skin, thick healthy hair, and an overall groomed and respectable look.
Neatly trimmed facial and body hair is more common, although a clean shaven face highlighting a masculine, powerful jaw is a typical hallmark of this archetype's appeal.
The Maesthetic archetype is a mainstay of male attractiveness, and many Hollywood actors perfectly fit this archetype; as such, it represents the quintessential concept of male "handsomeness" and enjoys success with women of all ages, albeit their increased level of masculinity makes them less-than-ideal among young women.


Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Jon-Erik Hexum




View attachment 1818512Dom
Main features: Unsurprisingly, Doms are all about dominance. Muscular bodies, thick beards, body hair, tough demeanour, tattoos and a tan are all very common among Doms. This archetype embodies raw masculinity and danger; it relies on a rugged exterior, a rough voice, and a commanding presence to elicit primal responses in women. Dom is an archetype reserved to older, more mature men, as many of the features that are required come with age, and as such it is very popular with older women; however, this archetype can also somtimes be perceived as low-class by women from cultured backgrounds, and its association with maturity makes it often unappealing or excessively intimidating for young women.

Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Michele Morrone


View attachment 1818533Ogre
Main features: Ogres are characterized by extreme levels of dimorphism; they are often bald or wear very short hair, almost always sport a thick beard, and have exceptionally bulky bodies. Although not all Ogres are aggressive, the archetype is extremely intimidating, and presents few appealing features for the female gaze, namely height and size. As such, the ogre is by far the least popular archetype among young women, although its unmatched social dominance proves to garner some success among older women, who are generally less interested in youthfulness.



Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson
Guess my archetype from my averaged out face on MultiFaceBlender
1660226682965
1660226686932
1660226692913


Body type: 17% bf stocky mesomorph, 5'9.5
Age: 24
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Lonenely sigma, Suns9999, LampPostPrime and 16 others
COPE

Youthfulness is everything. What attracts prime women 16-25 is the only thing that matters. Men of ALL AGES are attracted the most to this age range. Brb attracting prime pussy as an ugly ogre, but muh male respect.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Lonenely sigma, Suns9999, Pandora and 20 others
really great thread, obviously this only applies to HTN+
I think it’s easier to generalize male respect, but a lot of girls do have up in the air preferences, I think this should be pinned
 
  • +1
Reactions: Zikel_Nut, Chadliter, LooksThinker and 8 others
a lot of girls do have up in the air preferences
Yes, this spectrum does not take into account niches as it would be far too long to go into subjective tastes.

I only focused on generic archetypes, but there are plenty of sub-types I could explore in the future. For example the "sensitive artistic musician" is a very common subtype for Cutecels, Prettyboys and Robust Prettyboys. Not so much for the other 3 Archetypes.
 
  • +1
Reactions: IanIachimoe2491, Jova, LooksThinker and 5 others
Where do soys and truecels fit into?
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Lonenely sigma, Suns9999, LampPostPrime and 9 others
Where do soys and truecels fit into?
The garbage truck.
In all seriousness, severely unattractive males do not directly fit into any of the archetypes because there is way too much variation in what makes them fucked up, but you could say that all males at least LEAN towards one of the archetypes genetically speaking.

The issue is that all archetypes are considered to be an ideal of attractiveness; soyboys and truecels are concepts of un-attractiveness.
I guess one could make an inverted spectrum of unattractiveness, but as I said, there is too much variation to create archetypes beyond major failos like birdcel, manlet etc. especially because they often overlap.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Lonenely sigma, LampPostPrime, PoopyFaceTomatoNose and 8 others
I'm just a normie dude. Where do I fit in?
 
I guess one could make an inverted spectrum of unattractiveness, but as I said, there is too much variation to create archetypes beyond major failos like birdcel, manlet etc. especially because they often overlap.
Well, this spectrum of attractivenes operates on the axis of masculinity and harmony, with the middle being both at a high level. So if we create an axis of unmasculine and unharmonious well get.

(Ugly) tranny - soyboy - truecel - DHT victim - ogre

I think ogre actually fits both.
 
  • +1
Reactions: LampPostPrime, Pandora, rileyma10 and 5 others
Well, this spectrum of attractivenes operates on the axis of masculinity and harmony, with the middle being both at a high level. So if we create an axis of unmasculine and unharmonious well get.

(Ugly) tranny - soyboy - truecel - DHT victim - ogre

I think ogre actually fits both.
Yes this is what I was thinking about when I mentioned an inverted spectrum of un-attractiveness.
However, take for example "truecel"; can you truly pinpoint the most common features of this archetype? There are way too many possible causes for it to be a useful categorization.

Where would a manlet fit in your archetype? It could be anything except maybe ogre.
Is there truly that much of a difference between "soyboy" and "DHT victim"? Many soyboys are balding, after all.

Ultimately, this type of spectrum raises more questions than it answers.
 
  • +1
Reactions: LampPostPrime, rileyma10 and Danish_Retard
However, take for example "truecel"; can you truly pinpoint the most common features of this archetype?
They have an unfixable flaw that can be considered at least a light deformity (like eyes too far apart, extreme assymetry).

Where would a manlet fit in your archetype?
Dunno. If you're a midget, it's a deformity (truecel). However out might be argued that lower height moves you away from masculinity. I'd just concentrate on the face though.

Is there truly that much of a difference between "soyboy" and "DHT victim"? Many soyboys are balding, after all.
Maybe the difference is muscle mass? Soy would have next to none, while DHT cel might be a steroid user.

Ultimately, this type of spectrum raises more questions than it answers.
"Anna Karenina" starts with a sentence: "all happy families are happy in the same way, while all unhappy families are unhappy in different ways".
Perhaps the same can be said about attractive and unattractive people.
Chads look very similar to reach other, of you're beautiful and unusual, you get what they call "striking features" and become a God, like Gandy and O'Pry.
 
  • +1
Reactions: LampPostPrime, Father47, Mr.Proper and 3 others
This thread reminds me of a different spectrum
 
  • JFL
Reactions: LampPostPrime, autisticretard, Zikel_Nut and 20 others
There's too little info, but from what I can see and following this spectrum, I would guess Robust Prettyboy.
The modal classification for me on here was "masc prettyboy" which I guess means robust prettyboy, with some "prettyboy" responses.

What are my prettyboy and robust traits from what you can see?
 
Legit thread
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 22529
@Xangsane prettyboy, robust needs more muscle/less bf
 
  • +1
Reactions: Xangsane
@Xangsane prettyboy, robust needs more muscle/less bf
I guess this makes me a slightly fat prettyboy.
Is the ottermode/ripped physique required for robust prettyboy?
 
The garbage truck.
In all seriousness, severely unattractive males do not directly fit into any of the archetypes because there is way too much variation in what makes them fucked up, but you could say that all males at least LEAN towards one of the archetypes genetically speaking.

The issue is that all archetypes are considered to be an ideal of attractiveness; soyboys and truecels are concepts of un-attractiveness.
I guess one could make an inverted spectrum of unattractiveness, but as I said, there is too much variation to create archetypes beyond major failos like birdcel, manlet etc. especially because they often overlap.
Disagree. If you looked at a random population sample, you would see slightly more subhumans, and they would still fall under normal groups, no one is special in how fucked they are except 1/1000

you could make one on a graph probably, add perceived intelligence too, so a trustworthy ethnic dork could exist with trustworthy low functioning retard
 
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard and Erik-Jón
Disagree. If you looked at a random population sample, you would see slightly more subhumans, and they would still fall under normal groups, no one is special in how fucked they are except 1/1000

you could make one on a graph probably, add perceived intelligence too, so a trustworthy ethnic dork could exist with trustworthy low functioning retard
What archetype am i
 
  • JFL
Reactions: incel194012940
"Anna Karenina" starts with a sentence: "all happy families are happy in the same way, while all unhappy families are unhappy in different ways".
Perhaps the same can be said about attractive and unattractive people.
Very acute. I've always posited that attractive people are essentially a race unto their own, as they present unique features that are similar across all races. Even people whose appeal is vastly different, like prettyboys and masculine men, are still almost always recognized as attractive without a doubt. So there certainly is some truth to this.

They have an unfixable flaw that can be considered at least a light deformity (like eyes too far apart, extreme assymetry).
Yes, but the issue is that this unfixable flaw can appear in all other negative archetypes too, which makes the "truecel" classification redundant. Or again, you've mentioned how small stature leads away from masculinity; yet there are many males who are very short but very muscular, and still look very masculine, while tall and thin males look more feminine although they're taller.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Father47 and HerpDerpson
Introduction
There is a lot of talk around here about prettyboys, mascmaxxers, ogres and the like. It becomes exceedingly complex to cleanly understand what these archetypes refer to, as posters often use different words to refer to the same concepts, or have twisted views of what an archetype is, often mistaking one for the other, or showing doubts regarding what is attractive to who.
I propose a spectrum that will simplify understanding the degrees of masculinity and attractiveness of the most common male archetypes.

The spectrum
Cutecel - Prettyboy - Robust Prettyboy - Maesthetic - Dom - Ogre

View attachment 1818522Cutecel
Main features:
Cutecels are characterized by extremely low dimorphism and extremely high youthfulness; they usually have perfect skin, perfect hair quality/quantity, and very frail, immature physiques, and no facial hair whatsoever.
These factors make them highly appealing to teenage girls, who would be intimidated by more masculine, dimorphic and mature archetypes. They represent a safe way to be introduced to romance and sexuality, however they begin quickly losing female appeal as girls approach the end of puberty.


Male respect: ⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Finn Wolfhard


View attachment 1818504Prettyboy
Main features:
Prettyboys share many commonalities with Cutecels, with a caveat; they present some dimorphic features that are unseen in Cutecels. For example, while they also have good skin and hair, their faces have slightly more pronounced dimorphic features; a more chiseled jawline, more deep-set eyes, overall sharper facial structure.
Their body, while not muscular by any means, is usually more slender than frail, and they are generally taller than cutecels as well. This combination of masculine and feminine features grants prettyboys unmatched appeal with young women, although many older women may consider them too immature for their taste.


Male respect: ⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Francisco Lachowski

View attachment 1818508Robust Prettyboy
Main features: Prettyboys that double down on dimorphic features may enter Robust Prettyboy territory; these prettyboys may present some additional dimorphic features such as facial hair (kept relatively short), but the main difference is an overall increased muscularity and sense of physical dominance. While their physique is generally still very lean, proportionate and slender, they tend to have a more pronounced V-shape and increased levels of perceived bodily dominance and athleticism than normal prettyboys. This proves to be beneficial, as their appeal is more long-lived than prettyboys, at the cost of being slightly more intimidating to very young women.


Male respect: ⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤


Pictured: Jason Momoa


View attachment 1818511Maesthetic
Main features: While the prettyboys described so far generally tend towards femininity, the Maesthetic archetype is starkly masculine, with a broad face, strong facial features, and brawny proportions. Although not as "pretty" as the aforementioned archetype, the Maesthetic men are still known to present many striking features and a high level of harmony and beauty, with clear skin, thick healthy hair, and an overall groomed and respectable look.
Neatly trimmed facial and body hair is more common, although a clean shaven face highlighting a masculine, powerful jaw is a typical hallmark of this archetype's appeal.
The Maesthetic archetype is a mainstay of male attractiveness, and many Hollywood actors perfectly fit this archetype; as such, it represents the quintessential concept of male "handsomeness" and enjoys success with women of all ages, albeit their increased level of masculinity makes them less-than-ideal among young women.


Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Jon-Erik Hexum




View attachment 1818512Dom
Main features: Unsurprisingly, Doms are all about dominance. Muscular bodies, thick beards, body hair, tough demeanour, tattoos and a tan are all very common among Doms. This archetype embodies raw masculinity and danger; it relies on a rugged exterior, a rough voice, and a commanding presence to elicit primal responses in women. Dom is an archetype reserved to older, more mature men, as many of the features that are required come with age, and as such it is very popular with older women; however, this archetype can also somtimes be perceived as low-class by women from cultured backgrounds, and its association with maturity makes it often unappealing or excessively intimidating for young women.

Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤⬤⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Michele Morrone


View attachment 1818533Ogre
Main features: Ogres are characterized by extreme levels of dimorphism; they are often bald or wear very short hair, almost always sport a thick beard, and have exceptionally bulky bodies. Although not all Ogres are aggressive, the archetype is extremely intimidating, and presents few appealing features for the female gaze, namely height and size. As such, the ogre is by far the least popular archetype among young women, although its unmatched social dominance proves to garner some success among older women, who are generally less interested in youthfulness.



Male respect: ⬤⬤⬤⬤⬤
Perceived trustworthiness: ⬤

Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤⬤
Age 40+: ⬤⬤⬤


Pictured: Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson
Imagine being a cutecel with a horse face.
 
  • Ugh..
Reactions: oxymoron
Disagree. If you looked at a random population sample, you would see slightly more subhumans, and they would still fall under normal groups, no one is special in how fucked they are except 1/1000
Yes, which is why I've said that all men are at least leaning towards an archetype. There's normies who are more masculine and normies who are more pretty-looking, and traces of this tendency can be perceived even if those who are truly unfortunate-looking.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Lookologist003 and Xangsane
you forgot the male that only lifts to get a body like fight club brad pitt thinking he is peak appeal to females
Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤
Age 40+: ⬤
 
  • JFL
  • Ugh..
Reactions: Suns9999, Deleted member 30019, EverythingMattersCel and 4 others
Would you consider jason momma now dom? I never thought of him as a pretty boy
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 20828
Would you consider jason momma now dom? I never thought of him as a pretty boy
he did well with women at all stages of his life don't fall for this autistic archetype bullshit
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Ugh..
Reactions: Suns9999, EverythingMattersCel, Deleted member 17311 and 3 others
Yes, which is why I've said that all men are at least leaning towards an archetype. There's normies who are more masculine and normies who are more pretty-looking, and traces of this tendency can be perceived even if those who are truly unfortunate-looking.
Fair enough

I was confused by the names, which imply attractiveness
What archetype am i
tbh I see fingols somewhat frequently. They are never really NT, have aspie looking eyes while having average jaws, and are taller and wider than average.

They seem to be sheltered? At least because I’m not sure who would be friends with them. Normal white people wouldn’t, blacks would never, not NT enough for a brown crowd.

Idk how it is in Canada tho
 
  • +1
Reactions: Erik-Jón
Fair enough

I was confused by the names, which imply attractiveness

tbh I see fingols somewhat frequently. They are never really NT, have aspie looking eyes while having average jaws, and are taller and wider than average.

They seem to be sheltered? At least because I’m not sure who would be friends with them. Normal white people wouldn’t, blacks would never, not NT enough for a brown crowd.

Idk how it is in Canada tho
Am I cutecel
 
  • JFL
Reactions: incel194012940
Would you consider jason momma now dom? I never thought of him as a pretty boy
Yeah he's definitely DOM now, but he was prettier-looking when he was younger.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Phillybeard1996 and Xangsane
you forgot the male that only lifts to get a body like fight club brad pitt thinking he is peak appeal to females
Female attention:
Age 16-20: ⬤
Age 20-30: ⬤
Age 30-40: ⬤
Age 40+: ⬤
You're getting more creative with posts trying to get my attention.
I'll reward you with an answer before going back to ignoring you, since you worked a bit harder this time.
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: EverythingMattersCel and softlysoftly
Good tread
The scoring system is questionable
Cutecel only appeals to women under 16
 
Which archétype is the best to attract 18-22 years old girl from uni ?
 
Good tread
The scoring system is questionable
Cutecel only appeals to women under 16
Nah, there are plenty of women who still simp for cutecels in their late teens, but yeah their appeal starts dwindling past 16.
I just didn't want to include any age below 16 or else people will call me a pedo.
 
  • +1
Reactions: IMZLEGEND and Maesthetic
If a guy has some femeine traits like eye and lips but masculine face overall what is he? What archetype?
Usually maesthetic, but it depends on a lot of additional factors, it's not always easy to say; sometimes, the overall mixture of masculine and feminine is more prettyboyish, sometimes more maesthetic. For example, Jeremy Meeks has prettyboy eyes and lips but is overall more masculine. Conversely, there are many men with masculine eyes and lips that still lean towards prettyboy.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard and Phillybeard1996
Usually maesthetic, but it depends on a lot of additional factors, it's not always easy to say; sometimes, the overall mixture of masculine and feminine is more prettyboyish, sometimes more maesthetic. For example, Jeremy Meeks has prettyboy eyes and lips but is overall more masculine. Conversely, there are many men with masculine eyes and lips that still lean towards prettyboy.
I'd consider jeremy meeks a mixture of dom and maesthetic lol
 
I'd consider jeremy meeks a mixture of dom and maedthetic lol
Yeah, I just used him as an example to showcase how eyes/lips are not necessarily the first thing you look at when you want to categorize.
Meeks presents many traits common to Doms and uncommon in Prettyboys (buzzcut, tattoos), which leads him to fall into Maesthetic (masculine, but with some "beautiful" features).
 
  • +1
Reactions: Phillybeard1996
Bro where do i stand
IMG 20220805 WA0007


 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Woah
Reactions: Deleted member 30019, LooksThinker and Xangsane

Similar threads

Thebuffdon690
Replies
84
Views
4K
Thebuffdon690
Thebuffdon690
ryanlovestolooksmax
Replies
14
Views
823
spermium
spermium
Xangsane
Replies
120
Views
1K
therealme
therealme
BinPanda
Replies
26
Views
2K
BinPanda
BinPanda
I
Replies
10
Views
499
imabetanumale
imabetanumale

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top