We have talked repeatedly about the idea that your level of success with women is primarily determined by your looks, with money and status also having an impact. Of course, this is a bit of an oversimplification as there is another big L, namely location. You will do a lot better if you live in a student town with a large transitory female student population or a degenerate big city with hundreds of thousands of stary-eyed recent female college graduates who think that creating PowerPoint slides is what God put them on this planet for.
As I was folding my clothes recently, I made the association between clothing sizes and the looks, money, status concept. Clothes come in various sizes, and mainstream sizes are small (S), medium (M), and large (L). In some countries, there is surely a lot more clothing in XL and beyond sold than clothing in S or M. Also, I amusingly noticed that a U.S. M can be a lot bigger than a European M. Anyway, in terms of clothing, a large sweater is bigger than a medium sweater, which, in turn, is bigger than a small sweater. You can express this differently: L > M > S.
I was quite amused when I noticed that the ordering L > M > S seems to also reflect the hierarchy of looks, money, and status. I would argue that, in particular for fast hookups, your loooks are of tantamount importance. Money is also important, but it won’t trump looks. You can easily see this: If given the choice between two guys with the same amount of money, the woman would choose the more attractive one. Similarly, when choosing between men of comparable levels of physical attractiveness, the one with more money would win. Thus, money is secondary to looks.
(Article continues below.)
Break: To show your appreciation for this article and ensure the survival of this blog, please consider making a donation.
Status is rather peculiar. The problem is that status itself is realtively worthless. The PUAs of yore claimed that you have to become the most popular guy in your circle of friends, or something along those lines, ignoring that social circles have relatively stable hierarchies, so that is not plausible. If you want to be the big man in your social circle but you currently are not, you basically need to start over. Anyway, once you leave highschool and college behind, your social circle will be relatively loose, so it’s doubtful that popularity among your peers will amount to much when it comes to women.
I think there are several causes for status. If it is tied to “personality”, it normally just means that you are reasonably good looking. Women think you are funny or that you have a great sense of humor because they get wet when they see you. However, status can also be tied to money, i.e. financial success. That may help you get laid, but if you lack looks, you won’t get the kind of experiences Chad has on the regular without making much of an effort. In any case, status follows from either looks or money, so you could just as well ignore it altogether. Can you even imagine not enjoying high status as a good looking man in social settings, just based on looks, or not having status as a consequence of financial success? I can’t. Even guys as ugly as Henry Kissinger were boasting about “power” (= status) being an aphrodisiac.
It would arguably be sufficient to say that looks trump money. Status we can ignore altogether as it is implied by looks and money anyway. Still, the relative ordering, as it is indicated by the clothing-size analogy, is, pun intended, strangely fitting: L > M (> S).
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.