The FACTS about your looks...

[DonGorgon]

I don't see the point here. I'm just saying I like dark skinned women as much as light skinned, the facial structure and texture of the skin is more important. Why can't dark skinned guys like that too?

Guys chase and women choose.. Dark skinned black females usually prefer white or light skinned males.. many young black people prefer lighter skin period... Point is if you are a dark skinned black male you are usually the least desirable because women dont want their kids to look like you and suffer the same stigmas and have the same difficulties....

 

[DonGorgon]

PS: A fast style tip: NEVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER use running shoes if you're not on a threadmill or outside jogging. Certainly NOT when going out. And when I say running shoes I don't mean cool sneakers, they're awesome.

that was funny... i am q sneaker head so i know what you mean... sneakers have to me cool trendy good brand name and must look new and clean and match your outfit..

 

[nismo-4]

so now you have an official Duffdog reply.

Bout damn time you posted here, I thought you never would!

 

[edger]

so now you have an official Duffdog reply.

When I was refering to the "majority" of women , I was refering specifically to hot ones. I should have stated like I normally do, "the majority of hot women" to make myself better understood. The majority of hot women don't give a crap about a man's looks. Now, you're right, I'm sure some of these hotties that you see with ugly dudes, are escorts. But I would highly speculate that only a small portion of the women with these men, are escorts. There are just far too many hot women out there with ugly guys for this to usually be the case. Only a very small percentage would have to be escorts.

And dude, you're wayyyyyyyyyy off base if you think hot women give it up to ugly dudes out of pity...way off base. That has to be one of the worst statements I've heard on this forum in all the 6 yrs I've been coming here, and I've heard some bad, bad sh*t over the yrs. If that were the case, then why haven't "I", AN ACTUAL GOOD-LOOKING GUY WHO GOES OUT CONSECUTIVELY EVERY WEEKEND, gotten laid(excluding the use of escorts, as well as high-end prostitutes from Amsterdam) in over 2 yrs? Bet ya can't answer that one. Why are so many guys undersexed out there if this were the case, who flood pick-up artist sites like these complaining how they can't bed attractive women? I'd like to hear a solid, well-developed answer from you.

Women don't give a sh*t how undersexed a guy is. They don't care about you period. That's the way they are. The greater majority of them are evil(yup I said "evil") sociopaths who honestly don't give a f*ck about you. The evolutionary psychologists here try to defend their behavior as "it's not their fault, it's how they're wired". Give me a brake, nobody is "wired" to purposefully harm others. Each and every one of us is aware of right and wrong, and knows that we shouldn't do wrong unto others. It's so basic.

 

[Duffdog]

When I was refering to the "majority" of women , I was refering specifically to hot ones. I should have stated like I normally do, "the majority of hot women" to make myself better understood. The majority of hot women don't give a crap about a man's looks.

I'm assuming that you have the statistical evidence to back this up, correct? Because I totally don't believe you.


Now, you're right, I'm sure some of these hotties that you see with ugly dudes, are escorts. But I would highly speculate that only a small portion of the women with these men, are escorts.

Again, what percentage specifically? What you are saying is what scientific people call "hand waving" wherein you present a hypothesis with no facts. 'Highly speculating' something is equivalent to is being completely wrong. Unless you have facts to back that up.

There are just far too many hot women out there with ugly guys for this to usually be the case. Only a very small percentage would have to be escorts.

Well, your other option is that the men are either rich or have high status. Remember, you only have 3 options if you want to keep hot girls: Be an attractive male, be rich, have high status. If you do not possess any of these qualities, the girl is guaranteed to cheat on you and leave you for someone who does.

And dude, you're wayyyyyyyyyy off base if you think hot women give it up to ugly dudes out of pity...way off base.

Really? So you are saying that the trophy wife who fvcks the pool boy every week and her husband once a year is not allowing her husband entry into her vag out of pity?

That has to be one of the worst statements I've heard on this forum in all the 6 yrs I've been coming here, and I've heard some bad, bad sh*t over the yrs. If that were the case, then why haven't "I", AN ACTUAL GOOD-LOOKING GUY WHO GOES OUT CONSECUTIVELY EVERY WEEKEND, gotten laid(excluding the use of escorts, as well as high-end prostitutes from Amsterdam) in over 2 yrs? Bet ya can't answer that one.

Sure I can. Because you suck. Either you think that you are attractive (but really are not) or you lack one or more of the other 2 qualities that females judge you upon. In your case, it honestly sounds like you have a case of "misplaced confidence." Where you are super confident but have nothing to be confident in. This is a common occurrence in PUA groups. Many of the males who are able to talk to girls and might get lucky once in a while are not capable of keeping a hottie. This is because the girl was effectively 'tricked' into liking the guy because she thought that he was more successful or had more status than he actually did. He put forth all the subconscious cues that indicate he was either wealthy or high status without actually having the things that those cues are a result of. When she found out that the guy was nothing more than some average joe, she bails. Sound familiar?

Why are so many guys undersexed out there if this were the case, who flood pick-up artist sites like these complaining how they can't bed attractive women? I'd like to hear a solid, well-developed answer from you.

This may surprise you. I think that the vast majority of normal, friendly males are not as concerned with getting laid as the males who frequent PUA websites. They are far too involved with their hobbies, friends and general lifestyle to worry for one second about "getting a hottie." One of the best things I have ever read from this site is this:

BEFORE THE INTERNET, COOL GUYS GOT LAID, AFTER THE INTERNET, COOL GUYS STILL GET LAID-- this may be slightly off in accuracy.

This is such a powerful statement. It says, in no uncertain terms that what females want has not changed. The females want the guys who do not have to try. And rightfully so, as we males want the females who are genetically superior to their peers. We don't want the girl who "is losing weight" , we want the blonde hotties who have already risen to the top of the food chain and command attention from every male without trying. I stopped coming to this site for a month (nov)-- and during that month, I got a new job in a different city, a new life, new house, 2 girlfriends and fvcked 5 different new girls. In short, at that moment, I was the cool guy. I was the guy who had accomplished all his goals and was confident because I had something to be confident in. I was the leader, the hero, the alpha male all in one. And I wasn't faking it one bit, it was all natural.

Now, on to your second assertion: that some men are "undersexed"...This is interesting to me. A logical person would immediately ask "how much sex is one male entitled to in his lifetime?" The answer is- zero. Since the dawn of time, the females have chosen which genes are to be carried on through time and which genes are dead ends. It may just be that females have decided that some male members of society would better serve the world if they did not exist in the first place. Thus, their progeny would be better served not existing in the first place. I would make the assertion that a large percentage of the males on PUA sites have difficulty securing an attractive mate because they are genetically inferior and should not procreate. Thus, the females are aware of this deficiency and stay as far away from them as possible to negate the chance that sex will occur. In short, they are not "undersexed", they are "appropriately sexed" based on their genetic value.


Women don't give a sh*t how undersexed a guy is. They don't care about you period.

That's not true, women want to be with someone who has the greatest amount of natural resources so that her progeny will have the greatest chance of survival. If you are speaking in the absolute sense, where women perceive men as "companions", then you are right. They don't give a sh1t.

That's the way they are. The greater majority of them are evil(yup I said "evil") sociopaths who honestly don't give a f*ck about you. The evolutionary psychologists here try to defend their behavior as "it's not their fault, it's how they're wired". Give me a brake, nobody is "wired" to purposefully harm others.

Again, you lack any data to back this up. The fact is that "others" is a term limited to those with acceptable genes for procreation. If you are a male who lacks those genes, then you are not considered a peer, but merely an object in the way of the females securing a desirable male. It is the males duty to be superior to those around him, or face a life of mediocrity. Along with mediocrity comes failed relationships, infidelity, uncertainty, disappointment and PUA websites.

Each and every one of us is aware of right and wrong, and knows that we shouldn't do wrong unto others.

This is total BS. "right" and "wrong" are simply a matter of timing. At one point in time, it was "right" to burn any female who could read. At another point in time, it was "right" to kill any black people who wandered outside their owners plantation. At another point in time, it was "right" to throw male infants off a cliff if they seemed inferior. Currently, depending on which country you are in and which religion you practice, it is "right" to bomb anyone who thinks that their god is better than your god.

The bottom line is that life isn't fair. Its not supposed to be, so if you got the short end of the stick, you had better take away someone elses stick or get used to a life of misery.


It's so basic.

You know what else is basic? People only do things because they CAN. That is the real lesson that everyone should learn, it overrides all faiths and supercedes all paradigms.

 

[edger]

"I'm assuming that you have the statistical evidence to back this up, correct? Because I totally don't believe you."


I do have statistical evidence. That evidence is what I observe/have observed in my daily life.

"Sure I can. Because you suck. Either you think that you are attractive (but really are not) or you lack one or more of the other 2 qualities that females judge you upon. In your case, it honestly sounds like you have a case of "misplaced confidence." Where you are super confident but have nothing to be confident in. This is a common occurrence in PUA groups. Many of the males who are able to talk to girls and might get lucky once in a while are not capable of keeping a hottie. This is because the girl was effectively 'tricked' into liking the guy because she thought that he was more successful or had more status than he actually did. He put forth all the subconscious cues that indicate he was either wealthy or high status without actually having the things that those cues are a result of. When she found out that the guy was nothing more than some average joe, she bails. Sound familiar?"


Well I'm not "wealthy", nor do I have status of any kind(band, DJ, Promoter, etc.), but I have been told by many people(men and women alike without me even asking) in my life that I'm a good-looking guy. I don't consider myself drop dead model material, but I definitely think I'm up there in the looks department. My good buddy that I regularly hang with can't figure out why I don't pull much. He always, always tells me, "Bro, you're a good-looking white guy, I don't understand why you don't pull". It baffles and frustrates the sh*t out of him. I always have to hear it.


"Again, you lack any data to back this up. The fact is that "others" is a term limited to those with acceptable genes for procreation. If you are a male who lacks those genes, then you are not considered a peer, but merely an object in the way of the females securing a desirable male. It is the males duty to be superior to those around him, or face a life of mediocrity. Along with mediocrity comes failed relationships, infidelity, uncertainty, disappointment and PUA websites."


And again, my experience, observations, as well as talking with peers, and as well as coming to this site hearing stories, speak for itself, they ARE the data. Most women are sociopaths.

 

[Duffdog]

And again, my experience, observations, as well as talking with peers, and as well as coming to this site hearing stories, speak for itself, they ARE the data. Most women are sociopaths.

Dude. You need to stop with this crazy attitude. Tell me something, if you just got laid an hour ago by a cute girl that you met last night, would you still think "most women are sociopaths?" I'm guessing that you would not, you would be too busy thinking about how cool it was to meet a new girl that might like you.

But,

Since you didn't,

Your mind wanders into this dark land where all women are evil. Do you really think women are evil? They are not out to get you and they are not evil. You are just a "middle of the road" type of guy. Girls don't want a middle of the road guy, they want the guy who makes them wet. If a middle of the road, average guy wants a hottie, he has to wait until she gets nailed by every bad boy in town and her looks fade. Then he can have her.

I wish that men would remember the holy trinity of feminine desire when trying to figure out what women want: Looks,Status,Wealth. Pick one or more and go for it.

NOwhere in the trinity does it mention 'average guy'

 

[edger]

Duffdog, I wanna get one thing straight here(forgot to include it in my response up top) in regards to your statement on "misplaced confidence":

"In your case, it honestly sounds like you have a case of "misplaced confidence." Where you are super confident but have nothing to be confident in. This is a common occurrence in PUA groups."

So I can't be confident solely because I'm a cool, kick-ass, laid-back, fun, outgoing, adventerous, humorous guy? Well I've got news for ya, all of that that I just listed, is the basis and foundation of confidence. I have to be making 150 grand a year or play in a well-known local band, or be a well-known local Promoter or DJ(Disk Jockey) in the club scene for my self-confidence to count? Ridiculous. Lol. While I agree that money and status can enhance self-confidence, I highly disagree with you that other forms of self-confidence like the ones I listed, aren't credible. Jeez man, you might as well have a death-plan incase the Well(money pool) goes dry on you or you loose your status. I sure wouldn't want to be Duffdog if that happens.

 

[edger]

Dude. You need to stop with this crazy attitude. Tell me something, if you just got laid an hour ago by a cute girl that you met last night, would you still think "most women are sociopaths?"

I most certainly would, or shall I say, I most certainly would still know that most of them are sociopaths.

But,

Since you didn't,

Your mind wanders into this dark land where all women are evil. Do you really think women are evil?

I never said they were all evil sociopaths. I've come across some cool women in my life, but like everyone here even acknowledges, they are few and far between. Dude, I've dealt with quite a bit of women in my 29 yrs of existence; in my honest experience, and I tell you this humbly, the majority of women that I have hooked up with or have crossed paths with, have done nothing but try to use me for their own selfish advantage. Instead of these women telling me, "Listen dude, you're a cool guy, but I'm just not feeling it with us both" or just not calling me anymore and cutting all contact with me, these women had to go a step further and d*cktease and string me along(or at least tried to before I caught on to their games). Another example of these attention wh*res: over the summer, I had some hot stupid c*nt smile at me several times at my regular hangout, then when I tried bullsh*ting with her, she blew me off. I mean, really, these types of things are just not cool. I have no problem whatsoever with a woman not feeling me or not physically being attracted to me, but if you're not interested, I'd appreciate you don't waste my time, and most of all, yours. Get a life, seriously, lol. Some people really have nothing better to do and sure take the cake of the "loser" pile.

 

[bigjohnson]

I do have statistical evidence. That evidence is what I observe/have observed in my daily life.

That's not statistical dude, it's anecdotal. I did see an interesting abstract on a study I first saw mentioned on the Discovery channel though. In it, women SAID looks were very important. Then they were randomly separated into 2 groups and asked to rate a bunch of guys as to how attractive they were using their 'dating resumes'.

Point of interest:

• The women were asked SPECIFICALLY to rate how ATTRACTIVE the man was, not how likely they were to date him.
• Half the women got a page with a headshot and a full length shot of the guy.
• the other half got the same page with extra info about his career, education, and income. Of course it was bogus, different made up values were randomly assigned to the men but the test subjects were unaware of this.

In every case, men who were presented as having a good career and high status were graded as being much more attractive. In one case, a man who was rated a 3 or so by the first group was elevated to a 9+ by the group who had access to the "fact" that he was a $350,000 a year software entrepreneur.

Another fell from an 8 to a 3 or 4 when it was "revealed" that he worked at a retail sales job.

Those were however extremes.


Several interesting points. First, looks did matter. They seemed to set the initial baseline, however other factors mattered a lot too. Also of great interest, the women were asked to judge how good the men looked, NOT how datable or whatever they were.

Somehow having a big fat wallet makes you handsome. Sorry, I don't think they can help it.

 

[edger]

That's not statistical dude, it's anecdotal. I did see an interesting abstract on a study I first saw mentioned on the Discovery channel though. In it, women SAID looks were very important. Then they were randomly separated into 2 groups and asked to rate a bunch of guys as to how attractive they were using their 'dating resumes'.

Point of interest:

• The women were asked SPECIFICALLY to rate how ATTRACTIVE the man was, not how likely they were to date him.
• Half the women got a page with a headshot and a full length shot of the guy.
• the other half got the same page with extra info about his career, education, and income. Of course it was bogus, different made up values were randomly assigned to the men but the test subjects were unaware of this.

In every case, men who were presented as having a good career and high status were graded as being much more attractive. In one case, a man who was rated a 3 or so by the first group was elevated to a 9+ by the group who had access to the "fact" that he was a $350,000 a year software entrepreneur.

Another fell from an 8 to a 3 or 4 when it was "revealed" that he worked at a retail sales job.

Those were however extremes.


Several interesting points. First, looks did matter. They seemed to set the initial baseline, however other factors mattered a lot too. Also of great interest, the women were asked to judge how good the men looked, NOT how datable or whatever they were.

Somehow having a big fat wallet makes you handsome. Sorry, I don't think they can help it.

Yeah, I believe it. And I totally understand that they can't help what they're attracted to. We as humans can't control who we're attracted to, and that's fine...the only thing I don't like about most women, is when they CAN control certain things, yet will use and lead you on for their own selfish gratification at your expense, such as the case with the infamous d*ck-teasing attention wh*re.

 

[DonGorgon]

I don't see the point here. I'm just saying I like dark skinned women as much as light skinned, the facial structure and texture of the skin is more important. Why can't dark skinned guys like that too?

OK in a nutshell to many folks, afrocentric features are considered negative due to the fact that eurocentric cultures are the dominant world cultures and those people have most of the money and power in the world..

If you are white or look eurocentric you can date or mate with whomever you want cause you already have the status by association BUT if you are afrocentric or darker in color its considered a negative choice to chose another person with the same negative traits as you.. so many black and darker people in the world prefer to chose mates who are lighter than them or white..

MOst people with afrocentric traits are automatically judged as being inferior so they have to compensate for this by being "extra great" in other aspects..

An example of this is on hiphop culture where most rappers rap about preffering red bones which are black females who have light skin and eurocentric traits. They often say that when they were broke they dated dark girls but when they got rich they only have light skinned girls as a sign of success..

 

[DonGorgon]

That's not statistical dude, it's anecdotal. I did see an interesting abstract on a study I first saw mentioned on the Discovery channel though. In it, women SAID looks were very important. Then they were randomly separated into 2 groups and asked to rate a bunch of guys as to how attractive they were using their 'dating resumes'.

Point of interest:

• The women were asked SPECIFICALLY to rate how ATTRACTIVE the man was, not how likely they were to date him.
• Half the women got a page with a headshot and a full length shot of the guy.
• the other half got the same page with extra info about his career, education, and income. Of course it was bogus, different made up values were randomly assigned to the men but the test subjects were unaware of this.

In every case, men who were presented as having a good career and high status were graded as being much more attractive. In one case, a man who was rated a 3 or so by the first group was elevated to a 9+ by the group who had access to the "fact" that he was a $350,000 a year software entrepreneur.

Another fell from an 8 to a 3 or 4 when it was "revealed" that he worked at a retail sales job.

Those were however extremes.


Several interesting points. First, looks did matter. They seemed to set the initial baseline, however other factors mattered a lot too. Also of great interest, the women were asked to judge how good the men looked, NOT how datable or whatever they were.

Somehow having a big fat wallet makes you handsome. Sorry, I don't think they can help it.

OK fine but in a situation at a bar or night club where the man wants a same night lay , when a woman looks at him she does not know that he makes $350000 per year etc and that does not even matter when she just wants to F a hot guy that night and tell her friends about it tomorrow..lol.... all she knows is wether or not he is cute enough to F that night...

So... in situations where the men have the opportunity to show off their other great features the "unattractive" rich dudes have a chance but in most settings the women would first and most quickly be attracted to the "cute" guys.. and my point is that most young black females consider darker skin to be an instant "ugly trait"..

 

[DonGorgon]

Yeah, I believe it. And I totally understand that they can't help what they're attracted to. We as humans can't control who we're attracted to, and that's fine...the only thing I don't like about most women, is when they CAN control certain things, yet will use and lead you on for their own selfish gratification at your expense, such as the case with the infamous d*ck-teasing attention wh*re.

Social trends and cultural norms do affect who we think we should be attracted to.. like the female who wont date a dark black guy cause her friends and family say he look like a thug/bad person etc.. or because her baby will have dark skin and "bad" hair.. That comes directly form residual negative effect of colonialism.. BUt it does run much deeper than that in the human physiology which is why almost all cultures favor the lighter peoplel in their societies...

 

[zekko]

Another fell from an 8 to a 3 or 4 when it was "revealed" that he worked at a retail sales job.

I saw that study also. It didn't surprise me that the ugly guy was suddenly rated handsome when they saw he had money. But I WAS surprised that the lack of money erased the 8 guy's good looks entirely. You'd think that if the guy had a selling point (his looks), he would be able to keep it. But with no money, the girls didn't even see his looks. Weird. I'm guessing that if they met in real life though, if he was a self assured guy his confidence might bump him back up several points.

 

[p4rk r4ng3r]

Dude. You're thinking about it in the wrong light.
You're lucky to not be the most attractive looking guy ever.
Because then your looks become a crutch.

I used to be gorgeous, all the females I knew wanted to **** me, I was told constantly from all their friends.

Then I ****ed up my hair. and got real dorky looking. and all that ****.
And learned how to cope without the really good looks.
So now I have like super game because you can always improve your personality. But looks are sometmes unchangeable.

Unless you're Michael Jackson.

 

[DonGorgon]

I saw that study also. It didn't surprise me that the ugly guy was suddenly rated handsome when they saw he had money. But I WAS surprised that the lack of money erased the 8 guy's good looks entirely. You'd think that if the guy had a selling point (his looks), he would be able to keep it. .

Which means they will F him quick fast that night and brag to their friends about how cute he was..but they wont try to be his "girlfriend".. which does not matter cause the man wants a quick lay which he gets over the rich ugly guy..lol..:yes:

 

[DonGorgon]

Dude. You're thinking about it in the wrong light.
You're lucky to not be the most attractive looking guy ever.
Because then your looks become a crutch.

I used to be gorgeous, all the females I knew wanted to **** me, I was told constantly from all their friends.

Then I ****ed up my hair. and got real dorky looking. and all that ****.
And learned how to cope without the really good looks.
So now I have like super game because you can always improve your personality. But looks are sometmes unchangeable.

Unless you're Michael Jackson.

^^^loll WTF? are you saying man? read the thread again please..

 

[DonGorgon]

Lol "Looks,Status,Wealth." That's so retarded lmao, I suppose 10000 footballer's wives were interviewed to get that saying?

Anyway, you're right, average guys are fvcked. As in, the guys who have nothing special about them. I think the most important from the holy trinity is status, followed by looks, but if someone has extreme wealth that overrides everything.

Now of course, you can have an attractive personality and say a big fvck you to all three.

Wen a man is trying to get a quick same-night no-strings lay with a new hot chick from a bar or night club..LOOKS are the main factor.. FACT!!

 

[bigjohnson]

and my point is that most young black females consider darker skin to be an instant "ugly trait"..

This is not meant to be a demographic slur but maybe darker skin is also perceived to be lower income, status, and so on.

I saw that study also. .... But I WAS surprised that the lack of money erased the 8 guy's good looks entirely. You'd think that if the guy had a selling point (his looks), he would be able to keep it. But with no money, the girls didn't even see his looks. Weird. I'm guessing that if they met in real life though, if he was a self assured guy his confidence might bump him back up several points.

I wondered that too, also his confidence might act as a 'proxy' for money, because let's face it, without mutual friends who know you both or similar inside info she's not gonna get a peek at your tax returns.

Which means they will F him quick fast that night and brag to their friends about how cute he was..but they wont try to be his "girlfriend".. which does not matter cause the man wants a quick lay which he gets over the rich ugly guy..lol..:yes:

You missed the point. They said the "rich" guy was better looking, full stop, if they suspected what he earned AND what he did. Don't forget, he was an entrepreneur, not some wage slave in retail.

Lol "Looks,Status,Wealth." That's so retarded lmao, I suppose 10000 footballer's wives were interviewed to get that saying?

Anyway, you're right, average guys are fvcked. As in, the guys who have nothing special about them. I think the most important from the holy trinity is status, followed by looks, but if someone has extreme wealth that overrides everything.

Now of course, you can have an attractive personality and say a big fvck you to all three.

Extremes in any one of the 3 are pretty overwhelming, but it's vanishingly rare to be a Trump, Buffet, or Pitt.