Why are women not attracted to body as much as guys?

[tallnegga]

Are there any studies to back this up?

I think they do:

That woman is a framecel. Her genes know she must mate with an ogre to not produce twink kids such as 99 percent of this forum.

Most framecel women go for ogremaxxed dudes.

 

[tehVigilante]

Assuming at least a normie face, good body can totally pull it off especially for short term ONS and stuff like that.
Bonus points if tall and girls know u have a big dick.

 

[tehVigilante]

height is different to body. average genetics can achieve the physique's i showed in 3 year's natty training

Delusional, people have gotta stop with this cope. You really cant.

I see your point, and where you're coming from.

That said, you have to imagine that a 6'2 guy will just always have a more commanding presence than any 5'10 guy, unless the 6'2 guy is facially deformed and the 5'10 guy is pushing into chad-lite territory.

I've said it on here before, but despite the already high value blackpill attributes to height, it is still incredibly underrated.
There's no physical feature that will get you chad treatment besides literally having a chad face or HEIGHT. Muscles gets men a fraction of attention respect in comparison to the natural respect most tall men receive effortlessly throughout their life. When a 6'2 guy is walking anywhere, people get out of their way, and that's the simplest display of this.

Not talking about you specifically, but I think a lot of people here haven't had a lot of tall friends, or they'd realize that even a normie who's 6'2 gets treated like a chadlite in club and bar settings.
If you're 6'2 / 6'3 and have a good face you literally don't have to set foot in a gym and will have more options than 99% of the male population. It's not an excuse to do nothing, or not go to the gym, but men need to stop looking at everything with the male gaze and stop acting like it's the early 2000's where Zyzz could slay every girl at the club just based on his body.

Anyone can develop a gym body. There's a small, small fraction of men who are 6'2 and above. Therein lies the value

And the true blackpill is that yes anyone can develop a gym body but 99% wont develop a gym body good enough to have an HALO from it. Meaning you either have to roid or have 1% physique genetics.

 

[Artemis]

1. study
Facial attractiveness contributes more to overall attractiveness than body, particularly in men

It was found that facial attractiveness was a far more significant predictor of overall physical attractiveness then bodily attractiveness, for both sexes. Bodily attractiveness however, was also significant contributor to overall attractiveness for both sexes, with it being relatively more important compared to facial attractiveness for men evaluating the short-term attractiveness of women as compared to the long-term condition. The researchers found there was no such moderating effect of mating context in regards to women's evaluations of male attractiveness.

2. study

Facial attractiveness is more important than body because a face can't easily be changed​

The reasons they suggest for the greater value of an attractive face are that facial structure better provides cues of genetic fitness, sexual dimorphism, and health. While a body may be changed easily with diet and exercise modification, a face cannot so easily be changed. This provides the paradox of "self improvement" whereby the things that matter most are the things one can "self improve" the least.

Scientific Blackpill

The Scientific Blackpill is about understanding the nature of human social and sexual behavior with a particular focus on evolutionary psychological perspectives...

incels.wiki

I checked this paper.

The correlation of FACE with overall attractiveness level is 0.43, while BODY correlation with the overall attractiveness is 0.33. Both significant.

It LITERALLY means the body ALMOST has the SAME importance as FACE. ALMOST. This 0.1 difference is nothing.

TL;DR. From the paper listed, BODY HALO is only 25% worse than FACE HALO. GYMMAX little bros, it helps.

 

[Deleted member 1332]

I checked this paper.

The correlation of FACE with overall attractiveness level is 0.43, while BODY correlation with the overall attractiveness is 0.33. Both significant.

It LITERALLY means the body ALMOST has the SAME importance as FACE. ALMOST. This 0.1 difference is nothing.

TL;DR. From the paper listed, BODY HALO is only 25% worse than FACE HALO. GYMMAX little bros, it helps.

I agree that gym is no cope, but there's also no way in hell that that study meant PHYSIQUE has 0.33 correlation with attraction. If that was the case, jacked manlets wouldn't be the laughing stock of the dating market jfl.

It's obviously better to be jacked than not and everyone should go to the gym, but muscles are nearly insignificant in comparison to the value of height and frame when it comes to talking about body.

 

[klamus]

I think the ideal body type for men to have to attract nearly all women is to just be 6'2, lol.

Muscles almost always help, and everyone should build their body - but at the end of the day, the traits you cannot change and pass onto your children are the qualities that hold the most value.

A 5'5 guy with any one of these physiques would still be far from attractive to most women. Women DO see body the way we do, but mostly in terms of height, which makes muscle look insignificant by comparison in terms of value. Just my subjective opinion from my personal experience

5'5 Guy is in The bottom 2%. Why speak like this? The average 5'11 Guy can get an amazing Body. It just takes years of hard work.

 

[Artemis]

I agree that gym is no cope, but there's also no way in hell that that study meant PHYSIQUE has 0.33 correlation with attraction. If that was the case, jacked manlets wouldn't be the laughing stock of the dating market jfl.

It's obviously better to be jacked than not and everyone should go to the gym, but muscles are nearly insignificant in comparison to the value of height and frame when it comes to talking about body.

WHen they rated Physique, they rated the torso photos. Why did you decide that the "gymcelled body" correlated with overall looks most? They did not give any example rates, but what if women rated LEAN but less muscular builds as correlating highest with the overall looks?

So, a facially ugly guy might get A LOT of points for his body IF it adheres to the woman gaze. It does NOT mean that GYMCELLED body is the best. Actually, idk. But might be even visa versa.

Also, correlation of 0.33 is NOT nearly enough to overturn the negative impact of height. Height was not measured in the study. I will not be surprised if it has HUGE POSITIVE correlation with perceived attractiveness (esp in the lower range of heights).

TL;DR: I think your example of gymcelled MANLETS is not applicable here, and does NOT invalidate that BODY is VERY INFLUENTIAL on the OVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS LEVELS rated by women. We just don't know what the "best looking body" was like in the study

 

[Artemis]

5'5 Guy is in The bottom 2%. Why speak like this? The average 5'11 Guy can get an amazing Body. It just takes years of hard work.

If you are young, early twenties, not even years. Pretty much one year, if very strict. Maybe 2. After that, the gains will be marginal.

 

[DoctorLooksmax]

WHen they rated Physique, they rated the torso photos. Why did you decide that the "gymcelled body" correlated with overall looks most? They did not give any example rates, but what if women rated LEAN but less muscular builds as correlating highest with the overall looks?

So, a facially ugly guy might get A LOT of points for his body IF it adheres to the woman gaze. It does NOT mean that GYMCELLED body is the best. Actually, idk. But might be even visa versa.

Also, correlation of 0.33 is NOT nearly enough to overturn the negative impact of height. Height was not measured in the study. I will not be surprised if it has HUGE POSITIVE correlation with perceived attractiveness (esp in the lower range of heights).

TL;DR: I think your example of gymcelled MANLETS is not applicable here, and does NOT invalidate that BODY is VERY INFLUENTIAL on the OVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS LEVELS rated by women. We just don't know what the "best looking body" was like in the study

If they were rating torso bodies then id argue body would matter more in the study vs irl cos irl youre in clothes mostly which shifts the pendulum back towards face- but gitls can easily show off their body even in clothes tbh cos of what they can wear but for men its harder. But having said that dating apps and social meida is probably like half of all dating these days and on these paltforms body halo counts a ton so its still really important tbh.

People should jsut max out everything and stop worrying about the relative importance of all this shit just max it all

 

[Artemis]

If they were rating torso bodies then id argue body would matter more in the study vs irl cos irl youre in clothes mostly which shifts the pendulum back towards face- but gitls can easily show off their body even in clothes tbh cos of what they can wear but for men its harder. But having said that dating apps and social meida is probably like half of all dating these days and on these paltforms body halo counts a ton so its still really important tbh.

People should jsut max out everything and stop worrying about the relative importance of all this shit just max it all

Absolutely agree

Plus maxing one thing is automatically maxing the other: getting lean = better face for most people.

 

[klamus]

If you are young, early twenties, not even years. Pretty much one year, if very strict. Maybe 2. After that, the gains will be marginal.

Nah not Even theoretically. You cant get a 5 plate squat while Lean in 2 years

 

[Artemis]

Nah not Even theoretically. You cant get a 5 plate squat while Lean in 2 years

I do not know about strength. Actually, it might be that you can GROW STRENGTH, while you CANNOT GROW MASS.

The muscle mass is pretty much stuck after the first 2 years. It is not my opinion, it is what Greg Doucette stated. I believe him

 

[klamus]

I do not know about strength. Actually, it might be that you can GROW STRENGTH, while you CANNOT GROW MASS.

The muscle mass is pretty much stuck after the first 2 years. It is not my opinion, it is what Greg Doucette stated. I believe him

Youre not strong If you cant squat 5 plates. Ergo, your abs Are not strong.

 

[Artemis]

Youre not strong If you cant squat 5 plates. Ergo, your abs Are not strong.

25kg plate?

Idk, never do squats. i don't train weights. Only calisthenics. But i can do 90kg bench at 65kg own weight. But it gives literally 0 size to my muscles. Push ups imo better train for size.

 

[Deleted member 21597]

They aren’t attracted to fitness and muscularity the same way they are attracted to face. However, they do evaluate, height, frame, skull, wrists, etc the same way we evaluate ass and tits.

 

[klamus]

25kg plate?

Idk, never do squats. i don't train weights. Only calisthenics. But i can do 90kg bench at 65kg own weight. But it gives literally 0 size to my muscles. Push ups imo better train for size.

Yeah and thats why your Body sucks. What is your point here?

 

[Artemis]

Yeah and thats why your Body sucks. What is your point here?

My point is that despite you can grow strength in 2 years, YOU CANNOT GROW MASS in two years. Strength grows, muscles don't.

 

[klamus]

My point is that despite you can grow strength in 2 years, YOU CANNOT GROW MASS in two years. Strength grows, muscles don't.

Keep coping

 

[Artemis]

Keep coping

Nope. YOU keep coping.

Greg Doucette can back me up... who can back YOUR CLAIMS up?

 

[Kama]

Natural selection. Women with wider hips can birth easier, women with larger breasts can nourish the infant up to 2 years post partum, women with phat ass have energy source (fat on their hips and ass) to nourish the fetus during pregnancy and infant during breast feeding phase. All these are traits that natural selection makes man find attractive because they help perpetuate his genes.
Leanness in man signals better immunity, and larger shoulder width signals fertility (higher test) so as long as you have good shoulder to waist ratio, that’s all we need for body. But, women are hypergamous to ensure the best survival for their genes, so they unconsciously opt for top mates that will give them best chances of making a viable offspring. When they are highly fertile, they prefer chad with best genes, and during the rest of the cycle they prefer the normie/htn that will provide for survival off the offspring after birth by sticking around but might not have the best genes.
The male face (especially the dimorphism component) gives all the signals that indicate wether the man is likely to stick around or not, wether the man is healthy hormonally or not, and overall wether his genes are going to survive or not.

 

[Yuno_howitez]

The words of Lachowski "Why lift weights when it's all about face?".

All a chad needs to do is have a low body far pecentage, which he will most likely have cause of his good genetics.

 

[softlysoftly]

All a chad needs to do is have a low body far pecentage, which he will most likely have cause of his good genetics.

until he runs into a chad that has also has a really good gym body

 

[Deleted member 1332]

WHen they rated Physique, they rated the torso photos. Why did you decide that the "gymcelled body" correlated with overall looks most? They did not give any example rates, but what if women rated LEAN but less muscular builds as correlating highest with the overall looks?

So, a facially ugly guy might get A LOT of points for his body IF it adheres to the woman gaze. It does NOT mean that GYMCELLED body is the best. Actually, idk. But might be even visa versa.

Also, correlation of 0.33 is NOT nearly enough to overturn the negative impact of height. Height was not measured in the study. I will not be surprised if it has HUGE POSITIVE correlation with perceived attractiveness (esp in the lower range of heights).

TL;DR: I think your example of gymcelled MANLETS is not applicable here, and does NOT invalidate that BODY is VERY INFLUENTIAL on the OVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS LEVELS rated by women. We just don't know what the "best looking body" was like in the study

No bro what you said is sound. I did not read the study so you would know what's in it much better than I do.

I am just trying to point out that the influence of body varys wildly.

I have 5'3 friends who are jacked and absolutely shredded, but of course no women give a shit about his body because he is smaller than most teenagers.

Meanwhile, I have a friend who is 6'5, overweight, and facially ugly & balding, who is able to secure tons of dates and gets attention from beckies and LTBs. Women love his body, but it has nothing to do with muscles.

Maybe doesn't apply to what I mentioned earlier, or the study, but I know you are smart enough to understand the point

 

[Deleted member 1332]

5'5 Guy is in The bottom 2%. Why speak like this? The average 5'11 Guy can get an amazing Body. It just takes years of hard work.

First of all, I'm being realistic, not some soy "We're all gonna make it brah" normie.

Everyone should work out. Working out will make most people's lives better. Most men can increase their attractiveness by building a better body.

That said, a jacked 5'11 is easily mogged by a 6'3 lanklet in 99% of mass social settings. It's not even close. Like I said EVERYONE SHOULD EXERCISE, but expectations of what the results will come need to be reeled in.

 

[klamus]

First of all, I'm being realistic, not some soy "We're all gonna make it brah" normie.

Everyone should work out. Working out will make most people's lives better. Most men can increase their attractiveness by building a better body.

That said, a jacked 5'11 is easily mogged by a 6'3 lanklet in 99% of mass social settings. It's not even close. Like I said EVERYONE SHOULD EXERCISE, but expectations of what the results will come need to be reeled in.

5'11 is absolutely not mogged by a 140 lbs lanklet. The lanklet would Have to facemog The manlet For him to unanimously mog him

 

[optimisticzoomer]

I see your point, and where you're coming from.

That said, you have to imagine that a 6'2 guy will just always have a more commanding presence than any 5'10 guy, unless the 6'2 guy is facially deformed and the 5'10 guy is pushing into chad-lite territory.

I've said it on here before, but despite the already high value blackpill attributes to height, it is still incredibly underrated.
There's no physical feature that will get you chad treatment besides literally having a chad face or HEIGHT. Muscles gets men a fraction of attention respect in comparison to the natural respect most tall men receive effortlessly throughout their life. When a 6'2 guy is walking anywhere, people get out of their way, and that's the simplest display of this.

Not talking about you specifically, but I think a lot of people here haven't had a lot of tall friends, or they'd realize that even a normie who's 6'2 gets treated like a chadlite in club and bar settings.
If you're 6'2 / 6'3 and have a good face you literally don't have to set foot in a gym and will have more options than 99% of the male population. It's not an excuse to do nothing, or not go to the gym, but men need to stop looking at everything with the male gaze and stop acting like it's the early 2000's where Zyzz could slay every girl at the club just based on his body.

Anyone can develop a gym body. There's a small, small fraction of men who are 6'2 and above. Therein lies the value

I'm 6'3 but lanky and have shit posture. Being tall is only good if u have the frame and posture for it

 

[treveo]

Hmm I always saw height as like a cut off like pass/fail (not like 6ft = good, 6'2 = better etc). I imagined girls just think "cool he's not short (whatever is considered short in their eyes), meaning height just increases your options (but not necessarily the quality of options). I imagined once you pass the height threshold then they care about looks, body, leaness etc

I agree. So long as guys are taller than woman…they’ll make exceptions. Your face needs to be on point tho.

 

[looksmaxxed]

wmyxn are interested in dimorphism, it's not so much the muscles themselves, but the frame, your wrist size, etc. because those affect your natural musculature, ie how much meat you can hold on your bone. smaller bones=less meat

 

[Broski]

wmyxn are interested in dimorphism, it's not so much the muscles themselves, but the frame, your wrist size, etc. because those affect your natural musculature, ie how much meat you can hold on your bone. smaller bones=less meat

Does bone size matter more than shoulder width?

 

[Deleted member 23324]

Surely a good looking body can compensate a Normie face. Like if a girl is bland looking but has an amazing body, that is enough for me. But why would they not be as attracted to a good male body, why is face so important?

They are. It’s just harder to have a good body as a male so u don’t hear about it often.

 

[5.5psl]

I checked this paper.

The correlation of FACE with overall attractiveness level is 0.43, while BODY correlation with the overall attractiveness is 0.33. Both significant.

It LITERALLY means the body ALMOST has the SAME importance as FACE. ALMOST. This 0.1 difference is nothing.

TL;DR. From the paper listed, BODY HALO is only 25% worse than FACE HALO. GYMMAX little bros, it helps.

Bro can you link the paper/study
Need some lifefuel

 

[BritleArmsBagyPants]

brittle arms

 

[Artemis]

Bro can you link the paper/study
Need some lifefuel

I don't want to search for it now.

But you can find it on google scholar (sth like body vs face attractiveness), and then use scihub to read the results.

 

[huaus]

A good body means being 6+ feet and having wide ass clavicles. It doesn't mean a gym-maxxed potato headed manlet

PREACH