6
6ft4Neurosurgeon
Iron
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2024
- Posts
- 8
- Reputation
- 32
Is that they are rare. If you are a 9/10 you are most likely going to settle with a 7 or 8 since finding a 9 who also matches your personality, etc will be unlikely.
This is particularly true for stacies since women on average are better looking than men and attractive women are far more common than attractive men.
Niggaz on this website say shit like "if you want a stacy you need to statusmaxx" and "chad doesnt get stacy irl", they forget that couples irl tend to be statusmatched, particularly regarding education (prestige of highschool and university since that depends strongly on your family background), and that, as I said above, very attractive people are rare. THOSE STACIES ARE STILL DATING ATTRACTIVE MEN EVEN IF THEY MOG THEM.
Here is a little blackpill: NO AMOUNT OF MONEY WILL GET YOU STACY
"attractive people tend to accrue many extra benefits in life, including better occupational success (see meta-analysis by Langlois et al., 2000); therefore, an association between women’s attractiveness and men’s earning prospects could emerge if attractive people simply marry other attractive people (see Buller, 2005). In other words, it could be the attractiveness of certain men (not their accompanying income and success) that successfully attracts good-looking women. In fact, Stevens, Owens, and Schaefer (1990) assessed the attractiveness and education levels (an indicator of earning prospects) of recently married women and men and indeed found that, after controlling for the fact that attractive women marry attractive men, the apparent association between men’s education and women’s attractiveness disappeared. In short, there is no strong evidence demonstrating that men and women engage in a marriage tradeoff between physical attractiveness and earning prospects."
"I use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health Romantic Pair Sample, a large (N = 1,507), nationally representative probability sample of dating, cohabiting, and married couples, to investigate how often romantic partners exchange physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status, net of matching on these traits. I find that controlling for matching eliminates nearly all evidence of beauty-status exchange"
"we collect and analyze the data from the five waves of the China Family Panel Studies (2010–2018) on beauty–status exchanges and other forms of marriage exchanges in China. We found little evidence of beauty–status exchanges in Chinese marriages and even the well-assumed exchange of “woman's beauty for man's talent” lacks sound empirical support. "
JFL, not even in fucking China can you buy a stacy
This is particularly true for stacies since women on average are better looking than men and attractive women are far more common than attractive men.
Niggaz on this website say shit like "if you want a stacy you need to statusmaxx" and "chad doesnt get stacy irl", they forget that couples irl tend to be statusmatched, particularly regarding education (prestige of highschool and university since that depends strongly on your family background), and that, as I said above, very attractive people are rare. THOSE STACIES ARE STILL DATING ATTRACTIVE MEN EVEN IF THEY MOG THEM.
Here is a little blackpill: NO AMOUNT OF MONEY WILL GET YOU STACY
"attractive people tend to accrue many extra benefits in life, including better occupational success (see meta-analysis by Langlois et al., 2000); therefore, an association between women’s attractiveness and men’s earning prospects could emerge if attractive people simply marry other attractive people (see Buller, 2005). In other words, it could be the attractiveness of certain men (not their accompanying income and success) that successfully attracts good-looking women. In fact, Stevens, Owens, and Schaefer (1990) assessed the attractiveness and education levels (an indicator of earning prospects) of recently married women and men and indeed found that, after controlling for the fact that attractive women marry attractive men, the apparent association between men’s education and women’s attractiveness disappeared. In short, there is no strong evidence demonstrating that men and women engage in a marriage tradeoff between physical attractiveness and earning prospects."
"I use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health Romantic Pair Sample, a large (N = 1,507), nationally representative probability sample of dating, cohabiting, and married couples, to investigate how often romantic partners exchange physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status, net of matching on these traits. I find that controlling for matching eliminates nearly all evidence of beauty-status exchange"
"we collect and analyze the data from the five waves of the China Family Panel Studies (2010–2018) on beauty–status exchanges and other forms of marriage exchanges in China. We found little evidence of beauty–status exchanges in Chinese marriages and even the well-assumed exchange of “woman's beauty for man's talent” lacks sound empirical support. "
JFL, not even in fucking China can you buy a stacy
