The false dichotomy of looks vs “game”

As someone tried to pull out the old “looks aren’t everything” card in the comments section recently, I’d like to point out how devious that kind of argument is. First, those people claim that all I promote is “looks, looks, looks”. As a follow up, the claim is made that if all you had were looks, you wouldn’t get laid. Probably this means that good-looking guys are assumed to be so dumb that they can’t hold a basic conversation, or don’t know how to get their dick into a wet pussy. By the way, PUA shills, women who are really horny tend to even put it in for you. That kind of argument is then supposed to show a contradiction. Let’s try this again, but slightly more formal:

1) X claims that only looks matter
2) if you only had looks, you couldn’t get laid; for instance, you may have a repulsive personality
3) (Conclusion:) looks don’t matter, but “game” does

This isn’t even a proper argument, not even taking into account that it is operating on false premises. Well, from false premises you can deduce anything, but this implies that your conclusion is useless.

The majority of your success is due to looks, money, and status. True, if you are an utterly obnoxious asshole, you may not get laid as much as you otherwise could. I could certainly tell one or two stories where girls walked off because I said something they thought was “insensitive”. From that I learnt that if I wanted to fuck libtards, I need to keep my mouth shut. However, to get to the point where your personality could repel a girl, she needs to be interested in you at some level. Thus, your personality will only work against you, but hardly ever for you. It will cause girls to walk off after you caught their eye. However, if you are not able to get them interested in you, due to your poor foundations, then your personality, as great as you may think it is, won’t count for anything.

The role of your personality is much different than what PUAtards claim. A great personality, whatever that may be, will not do anything for you if you’re a fat slob. Be honest, Joe PUA, you don’t really give a fuck about the personality of the whales at your local dive bar either, right? On the other hand, severe incompatibilities may led to you not being able to get laid, although you easily could have. The fix for that is so trivial it’s barely worth putting in words: don’t say anything too controversial. You know, basic etiquette. The only adjustment you may need is that some women are a lot more sensitive towards certain allegedly controversial topics than you may assume. I think that it’s good when women disqualify themselves, but among the pussy beggars PUAs, this isn’t a particularly popular opinion to have.

Of course, there are also basic misunderstandings. To give you one example: once I was working on a cute French girl in a club. She was really into me, and it didn’t bother me much that her English was fucking atrocious. At one point, though, she said something I really didn’t understand. So I asked her to repeat herself. I still had no idea what she was talking about, so I said that I didn’t knew. Then she got pretty pissed off, told me I was an asshole, and was gone. Do you know what had happened? I later on figured out that she most likely asked me whether I had a girlfriend, and when I told her that I didn’t know, she drew the wrong conclusion. That’s one for the “shit happens” category. Besides, a “gamer” who lacks looks, status, and money won’t even get to that point.

As a very last point, let me highlight that “personality” is almost a joke. As I said, guys don’t care about the personalities of unattractive women. Furthermore, good-looking girls tend to have more pleasant personalities anyway. With guys it’s quite similar. Thus, the dichotomy between looks and personality is laughable. If you’ve got your life together, are in shape, healthy, and keep your mind engaged, chances are you’ve got a pretty appealing personality too. Yet, PUAs deny this and fantasize about the great personality you could develop if you only tried “game”. Here is something to think about: why shouldn’t it be the case that your “personality” is a reflection of how you live your life? If that is the case, then a PUA weirdo will never be able to develop a “great” personality as he’ll still be a weirdo, just like some fat chick who stuffs her face because she hates herself (because she’s fat) won’t.

21 thoughts on “The false dichotomy of looks vs “game”

  1. PUA’s tend to make up a lot of bullshit about how one personality fits all and how everyone has to be Mr. CockyFunny Man. It really fucks up the heads of guys and causes them to focus way too much on their personality.

    1. It’s just one of many strategies to influence a girl into letting go, and going with her instincts. She’s already a slut and wants to bang you, but all her conscious worrying is preventing her from acting on it.

      Always cracking jokes and not letting her think for a second, is one of many strategies to influence her into acting on her innate slutiness. PUAs then confuse with “my cockyfuniness created sexual attraction in her”… But that’s misattributing cause and effect.

  2. Aaron, what is your opinion on individuals like salman rushdie? This guy is really old, yet he consistently has been able to hook up with and become close to hot/beautiful models and women decades younger then him; a great example was the women Padma Lakshmi and various others. I know you are going to say, that this guy has money and status, but he has been able to consistently out perform and get with attractive/beautiful young actresses and women, some even more popular and wealthier them him; even despite his ugly looks and the condition that he has, he has been able to get with beautiful attractive younger women when the reality of his ugly looks and physique shouldn’t allow him to, according to what you are saying?

    How do you explain guys like him?

    1. Yes, it’s money and status. I don’t see the contradiction. It is irrelevant that some women may have more money than him, as the underlying question is about socioeconomic status. He is allegedly worth $15 million, so it’s not as if some woman with a net worth of $20 million will consider him a loser.

    2. “I don’t see the contradiction”

      Me neither. I once fucked a 35 y. o. Columbian woman, who’s parents had lots of money (industrial family or something like that, factories and stuff, very wealthy).
      She said, that over there in Bogota, she never cooked, cleaned or did her laundry, they all had their servants.
      She was divorced from her husband here in Switzerland who, before becoming a pilot used to be a trader in an Investment Bank and according to her was bringing home half a million every year. She also claimed, that her family had way more money than him.
      I told her that a client (also a trader) from another Investment Bank with 280k basic + 330k bonus per year walked in the other day to check some stuff (I was doing an internship at the front desk).
      Her comment was: “Oh, where are these men, who are rich? I want them”.
      Mind you, my client would have made 110k more than her ex-husband and would certainly still have less money than her/her family.
      Conclusion: once you clearly make more than the average, she can have/make more cash than you, and you’ll still be on her radar.
      Needless to say, it was a one-time fuck for me^^

    3. But what about the fact that he still managed to get with attractive women ever before he was relatively wealthy as in today?

    4. I run in the fringes of his social circles and know women who have dated him. He is incredibly connected among the A list crowd. Can you take your dates to private cocktail parties with Bono from U2 and a bunch of other celebs? He is a complete superstar in the world of literature. He also doesn’t get laid all the time and to me it seems like Padma (whom I see around from time to time), is a complete status climber who used him. He is a target, in my opinion.

  3. One major thing to add here is the distinction of “long-term” vs “short-term” mating. And how it is often conflated by dating gurus trying to sell BS.

    Science does find that in longer-term mating, personality gets more important, and lms less important. This is why a woman will spend her 20s banging personality-devoid jocks… but then marry a “nice guy” to provide for her.

    The scam PUAs do come in the conflation. They say “look Joe got an eight to be in a relationship with him, and he’s only average, not rich … THEREFORE (here’s the logical fallacy) you can use your personality to make random women in the club want to have one-night-stands with you.

    IT IS possible to make a woman interested in being your long-term commited mate even if she didn’t feel that initial first-sight “i wanna bang this guy” lust. That is however “long-term attract” and triggered over weeks or months. For casual sex women only go off of “short-term attraction” i.e. the attraction triggered in those first 5 seconds. So the idea you can “create attraction” over 30 minutes of “gaming her” is nonse.

    You can however increase her interest in those 30 minutes, showing you’re cool, not weird etc… This is often confused with “I made her attracted”. No, she was attracted across the room… you only increased her “interest”. That’s how “willing” she is to act on he pre-existing attraction.

    – in the short-term you can increase/influence interest (not sexual attraction)
    – you can increase attraction, but only for long-term mating, and over a longer-time-frame

    1. Wasn’t there even a post of Jon Sinn (former Mystery Method instructor) who said after 3 minutes or something it’s done if she is into you or not? But on the other side he talks about 5 different styles of attraction (looks based, status based, “frame” based, emotional based, or sexual based).

      Either he has thrown away all this complex stuff (because in the DatingSkillsReview podcast he recommended Goodlookingloser and his last course was about screening where he talked about that most stuff what women do is “noise rather than signal” = false positives) or PUAs often refer to “attraction” as some blurry concept where they mix up attention, interpersonal attraction (likeability) and sexual attraction into one and contradict themselves.

      I mean one time they tell you “indicators of interests” are signals that she’s into you, on the other hand Mystery itself says it doesn’t mean she is sexually into you. So WTF?

      In the end it isn’t even necessary to flirt (aka “game”) or better said if flirting means playing around with sexual tension, it’s more like a test for interest but you don’t create attraction.

      This would mean yes, the “game is played in comfort” but the rest is unnecessary shit or relevant for long-term relationships only, but then it’s better not to play shitty mind-games. On the other side, no one can play a role for weeks/several dates, this is why PUAs can’t get girlfriends either.

    2. On one of the subs on Reddit, I routinely point out that “Game” is not real, and the rage and hate it generates among a lot of guys is comparable to telling a true believer God does not exist and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not real either. Actually, I would probably get a lot less heat doing those things.

      Whenever the subject of improving your odds with the ladies comes up, people offer up solid advice like reduce body fat, build up muscle tone, dress better, get a better haircut…..But, then an entire band of morons starts talking about how this is all secondary to confidence and personality……Shortly thereafter, various people spout off about how “game” renders looks, money and status meaningless. Then, people start linking to youtube videos of RSD instructors, and repeating anecdotes about these amazing players with below average looks and no money who can pick up lingerie models, and all these attractive guys who strike out when they talk to girls due to their dull personalities.

      It is more than a little disturbing to see a lot of grown men who essentially believe in magic.

  4. I was going to post this video in the open thread, but this seems like a good place to put it.

    This is a video, of a hot guy, well built, taking off his top to show his naked body, and recording the reactions of women when he does this. This is basically perfect examples of unconscious sexual attraction and shows women are into looks and it is a deep, emotional and physical and genetic thing. Just look at their reactions (physical and chats), you can see that they want him or he has an effect on these women. This is exactly the same response with tinder ( there is an earlier blog post about this). Same effect with women in clubs.

    Basically women are attracted to looks, and it happens immediately, and to get good with women and high quality women, you need to improve you looks, body etc.

  5. Fucking bang on Aaron. The idea that if you attractive you automatically have a shit personally is flawed. The most ironic part of pickup is that focusing all your time on pickup will make your personality less appealing as now guys end up spending all your time trying force social interactions and being ingenuine. One thing about personality I think you missed is that a good one will help you gain status and that personality is pretty important for a long term relationship.

  6. I think hot women don’t put out easily for many reasons in many places. (Stressing on the word easily) So making theories about why they don’t and what to do about it like the PUAs do is futile.

  7. Attraction and arousal are two different sites of the coin. Somebody can be less attractive but very arousing (most “pornstars” are average looking, but you still beat your meat to them just because they are naked). And beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. The only sure way to get laid is to talk to as much women as possible (and hopefully find one that is really horny), everything else is just details.

    1. You are presumably referring to “intellectual” porn for dykes and feminists. Also, good luck finding a woman that is walking around being “really horny”. Dude (?), if someone whom you don’t find physically attractive comes on to you, you will be repelled, not aroused.

  8. I agree it’s mostly about looks, but I don’t believe guys can render themselves good looking. That’s because it’s 90% face.

    Case in point: I’ve been lifting for three years, and the quality of poon I can attract hasn’t changed one bit (can still only get whales). Chads are born, not made.

    Of course don’t be fat, but that goes without saying.

    1. Maybe its not in my place to speak,as I’m a fat guy who just happens to be lucky enough to have a naturally good looking face(It attracts both the uglies and the pretties. I can safely say however that my attractiveness would boost dramatically if I ever got into shape,which I haven’t done yet because I’m lazy as hell..haha)
      but assuming you’re at least average looking or not too ugly,I think you can make a lot of difference by having good fashion(good haircut+clothes,etc.)along with getting into good shape,take a look at this guy for example:

      at 1:20,Junior Dos Santos looks like your typical geek,but in the next picture,I think he looks much better. his haircut has made quite a difference if you ask me.

      again,I’m not exactly the dating expert or experienced womanizer here,just throwing my 2 cents. I suppose becoming more financially successful and/or becoming popular in a certain niche will help even further. (Junior Dos Santos’ 1st wife was a fattie,his 2nd wife after he became a popular UFC fighter,is much hotter)

Leave a Reply to Dave Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.