The older I get the more I realize EVERYTHING in life is about looks

[Kinger]

Even now that I'm 30yo the only factor that matter is looks. It's not just during teenage years JFL...these days girls in their late 20's act like they're 18yo. Everything changed

Everything in life is about looks, EVERYTHING. Your quality of life is completely dependent on it

It's looskmax or die trying as if you're ugly or sub 7 you're not living

 

[Luffymaxxing]

I deserve to.....

 

[optimisticzoomer]

Joined: Dec 31, 2023

 

[PROMETHEUS]

Reach 7 or die trying

 

[WayneBraaaah]

Even now that I'm 30yo the only factor that matter is looks. It's not just during teenage years JFL...these days girls in their late 20's act like they're 18yo. Everything changed

Everything in life is about looks, EVERYTHING. Your quality of life is completely dependent on it

It's looskmax or die trying as if you're ugly or sub 7 you're not living

Naaah.

Looks are the most important. A lifeline.

But nothing more.

If more the you are just putting yourself on incel retard highway

 

[blurazice]

Wealth (in all forms) is the most important

 

[Kinger]

Joined: Dec 31, 2023

Nigger I was already here since PUAhate, then Sluthate, then lookism.net and then here with many other accounts before this one JFL
And before then in PUA forums raging against that idiot of Tyler Durden in the RSD (Real Social Dynamics forum)

 

[PROMETHEUS]

Nigger I was already here since PUAhate, then Sluthate, then lookism.net and then here with many other accounts before this one JFL
And before then in PUA forums raging against that idiot of Tyler Durden in the RSD (Real Social Dynamics forum)

RSD had niggas running across their town to “unstifle”

Can’t believe I fell for their shit for year

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Looks simply imply attraction. The real gauge is preselection. Things that imply attraction. This is why being popular often translates to higher SMV and QOL. Same as with being wealthy, as money can buy and give you more options that can imply attraction. This rings true especially for men, as the top percent of men are never or rarely in the category of being "broke but good looking", but instead often "rich and ugly/mid", or "popular and ugly/mid".

The world is superficial but looks is not the name of the root of this. Im not disagreeing with you. The term your supposed to use is called preselection. Most people aren't seeing the top percent's locally so id imagine those who are on a higher tier near you who you observed are the ones who are more aesthetic than others. But ultimately in society, its all about things that imply attraction weather its a higher tier of social fraternity, media popularity, facial aesthetics, body aesthetics and height. I guess a few outliers that could have implied attraction in the past had more to do with the content of your character but those days are long replaced by more simply forms of power plays.

 

[Kinger]

RSD had niggas running across their town to “unstifle”

Can’t believe I fell for their shit for year

I even met RSDAlex while he was running a bootcamp in London JFL

 

[PROMETHEUS]

Looks simply imply attraction. The real gauge is preselection. Things that imply attraction. This is why being popular often translates to higher SMV and QOL. Same as with being wealthy, as money can buy and give you more options that can imply attraction. This rings true especially for men, as the top percent of men are never or rarely in the category of being "broke but good looking", but instead often "rich and ugly/mid", or "popular and ugly/mid".

The world is superficial but looks is not the name of the root of this. Im not disagreeing with you. The term your supposed to use is called preselection. Most people aren't seeing the top percent's locally so id imagine those who are on a higher tier near you who you observed are the ones who are more aesthetic than others. But ultimately in society, its all about things that imply attraction weather its a higher tier of social fraternity, media popularity, facial aesthetics, body aesthetics and height. I guess a few outliers that could have implied attraction in the past had more to do with the content of your character but those days are long replaced by more simply forms of power plays.

Don’t think it needs to be overcomplicated

Sexual attraction is primary based on looks

 

[Clown Show]

Looks simply imply attraction. The real gauge is preselection. Things that imply attraction. This is why being popular often translates to higher SMV and QOL. Same as with being wealthy, as money can buy and give you more options that can imply attraction. This rings true especially for men, as the top percent of men are never or rarely in the category of being "broke but good looking", but instead often "rich and ugly/mid", or "popular and ugly/mid".

The world is superficial but looks is not the name of the root of this. Im not disagreeing with you. The term your supposed to use is called preselection. Most people aren't seeing the top percent's locally so id imagine those who are on a higher tier near you who you observed are the ones who are more aesthetic than others. But ultimately in society, its all about things that imply attraction weather its a higher tier of social fraternity, media popularity, facial aesthetics, body aesthetics and height. I guess a few outliers that could have implied attraction in the past had more to do with the content of your character but those days are long replaced by more simply forms of power plays.

Having money or status qualifies you for a good betabuxx, you are to do it if you want to.

However, there isn't a single thing, word, money, status, rizz, method acting, dating strategy that elicit true chemical and hormonal attraction in a foid's brain other than looks, nothing else. It has been both scientifically and anecdotally proven.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Having money or status qualifies you for a good betabuxx, you are to do it if you want to.

However, there isn't a single thing, word, money, status, rizz, method acting, dating strategy that elicit true chemical and hormonal attraction in a foid's brain other than looks, nothing else. It has been both scientifically and anecdotally proven.

Except your wrong. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...7/do-women-really-prefer-men-money-over-looks

I used to belive this as well, but its cope. History has told us plenty of times that subpar men who have more preselection have throughout history breed more than exclusively good looking men. Im looking at results. We can say its coercion, or maybe the women had no choice and thought to be with the beta at the end, but what i will say about it being some "true" chemical women releasing some when looking at a aesthetically attractive male, they dont release when looking at a man who implies preselection, is totally false.

Im not talking about betabuxxers. The reason betabuxxers are last pick is not because they have resources, is because they invoke a feminine response. They have money or resources yet dont imply other women are sexually attracted to them due to their nature. But if you think the top % of men are not all rich or famous, then its a lie. I can guarantee you if not for behavior, the majority of men in the top percent would be betabuxxers. The idea that having resources or implying preselection makes you a betabuxxer is also a misconception in the manosphere. Im not talking about men who are so weak to give their resources to women who do the minimum for a glimpse of pussy.

The key lies into male nature and women nature. See, males are the ones who have this biological response to aesthetics in a female mate due to biological conditions. Read the study and article. This idea that looks are so supreme is often echod by males so real study does not get its due justice. But women have a different, more subtle nature. Almost lecherous. And preselection is what its dominated by due to their nature.

In history, women often had to go for the man with more resources to survive regardless if she was attracted to someone else in a lower level of society. And we see this common troupe all over today. So which one is the true evolutionary response? I have yet to see any valid examples in history or in legit study that prove women dont share an innate biological response to preselection. Im not claiming aesthetics is below or above preselection, i am hinting that preselection is just as valid as asthetics.

Theres no difference between a women being attracted to you for your popularity and a women being attracted to you for your looks. But hedge both of those cases together, and id bet you 90% of women would rather pick a popular, richer guy over a exclusively attractive guy who isnt popuar for a mate. This is the true data of what has been historically and statistically proven. A women can and will be attracted more to a person who is socially and economically at a high level.