The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!
The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.
Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.
Hey, Aaron, Alek, I have a question: what’s the distribution of attractiveness levels of chicks one can bang (and date)?
I only started pulling girls regularly quite recently (thanks for the books, Aaron, they are the only non bullshit books on this matter I’ve read, and I’ve tried at least five other books in the past). And the girls I pulled so far have been either 6s or maybe 7s at most. Does it mean I myself am a 7 at most? Or does it only seem this way because of the relatively low lay count? I assume that relatively less attractive girls occupy a bigger share of one’s lay count than the more attractive girls. That’s because there are more 6s than 7s, and 6s are easier.
But that is only me speculation. Does it match your experience? Is there some kind of a common distributions that different guys converge too? For example, 1% of girls is your level + 1, 4% is your level, 25% is a level below and 70% are two levels below.
I may be overthinking, but if I only ever get to fuck Beckies, I might as well escortmaxxx instead. And if I only ever get a Beckie for relationships, I’d rather never marry. I make a ton of money though. I assume it should help me to get a hotter wife than the hottest ONS I can get? Or am I wrong?
By and large, the women you pull for a one-night stand will be at about your level. You can always go lower, but you most likely would not want to. In an old blog post, I wrote that “money is the great equalizer”. Depending on how much a “ton” of money is, you could get a woman who is above your level, but probably not by a lot, because there are fewer attractive women around than guys who make a lot of money, meaning that she can still get a guy who makes about as much if not more but who also has matching looks. As a male 7, you should be able to marry an 8, perhaps even an 8.5. Chances of a rich male 5 getting a 9, though, are slim to none.
We see this play out even at the level of UHNWIs. Bill Gates’ ex-wife looks like a dog, Bezos currently bangs a woman who looks like a washed up hooker, and Zuckerberg managed the rather incredible feat of marrying an Asian woman who looks even worse than him, thus doing no better than a Western normie who ordered a Thai mail-order bride. As a layman, you would expect that all of them got 10s. However, there are diminishing returns to money, and once you have a really nice mansion, a fleet of great cars, and can buy anything you want, the kind of woman who can date multi-millionaires probably does not even perceive much of a difference, and two or three extra zeros on the bank account don’t do much for her in her day-to-day life. Thus, she goes for the most attractive guy she can get, assuming all her other criteria are met.
To answer your actual question, I don’t think you should use the hotness of girls you laid to determine your own attractiveness, as there are way too many variables involved in whom you get to lay.
Indicators of interest are a much better metric. Girls don’t show interest or flirt with guys below their level. So if you have had 8s show interest or flirt back, then you’re an 8, even if you haven’t laid 8s yet.
The odds that you’ve “game-maxxed” right from the start are small. Meaning that it’s unlikely you’ve immediately started doing the things that give you maximal results. It is possible and maybe 6s are your limit, but I doubt it. It’s more likely that if you optimize things you could be getting 8s. For example by leveraging status.
Whilst PUA bs was overblown, the opposite extreme is just as bad. PUAs made it sound like a male 5 could bang 9s and 10s if he only learned enough game.
The opposite extreme is claiming that there’s nothing to tweak or change, and that if you start laying 6s, that’s your limit, like you reach your limit right away.
At the same time, you have to be above average to have one-night stands to be begin with. Which implies that sub-five (maybe sub-six, too) women almost never have ONS? 7s and above don’t go for them, and the rest of guys don’t have ONS at all.
Good point. I need to clarify my choice of words. I wrote “make” instead of “have”, because my income is in top 1-2% in my country of residence. But I assume the data is for salaries; and truly wealthy people don’t get their money from salaries, so my money is nothing compared to theirs
shouldn’t that say “less” instead of “more”?
That’s sobering. Whoremaxxing it is, then.
One day I will learn to click the reply button under the right post, but not today…
Nah, most of the manwhores (male 9s) I know go for anything from 2 to 9; They’re just as likely to bang a 2 as a 9. They have a “whatever’s on offer” mentality. They’re not very picky. And these are guys who could could easily have a large number of lifetime lays even if they restricted themselves to just 8s and and 9s. But they’d rather bang a 2 than go home “empty handed”
About there being more rich guys than attractive women, this is a very recent and sad development given to us courtesy of feminism which convinced women to fatten and get all tatted up.
It used to be the case that hot girls were in abundance, and the scarcity was on the side of rich guys (comparatively speaking), so they could have their pick. Due to obesity epidemic this is no longer the case.
Now it’s more common to meet a millionaire than a chick who doesn’t fatten up quickly and keeps in shape.
That said, technologies to improve looks have improved quite a lot recently. A rich guy can buy looks. For example, just discovered this the other day:
For $500 you can get a Chad face. This is a very recent development. It wasn’t possible without surgery:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QgquxPcQQZo
This was a typo. Yes, I meant to write that there are fewer hot women than guys with money. Beauty fades, so we are looking at women in a rather narrow age range. As a guy, if you play your cards right and have a bit of luck, you can make good money straight out of university.
This is based on where I live. There’s a clinic nearby offering this (thing in video), and they have a November promotion going, with free age-rejuvenation thrown in.
So if you’re a loaded 45 year old man, you can go in, and for $500 come out a 35 year old chad. This is a very very recent development. Things have progressed a lot recently in terms of options like these, and there is a great financial motive for the industry to keep developing options. I expect things to get even better in the next 5-10 years.
Another good example of a rich guy who was not able to get a hot girlfriend is Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried. His ex-girlfriend has a face like a rodent. He is very unattractive, but she is looking even worse. According to normie-thinking he should have been able to bang supermodels as he was not only worth billions but was heavily pushed by the mainstream, until this entire house of cards collapsed.
“Nah, most of the manwhores (male 9s) I know go for anything from 2 to 9; They’re just as likely to bang a 2 as a 9.”
From an evolutionary perspective,this might actually make sense. A man of exceptional attractiveness “spreading his seed” (as long as he never gets tied down) can improve the general genetic quality of the population. If a female 2 has an offspring with a male 9 or 10,the son/daughter might just have a shot at being born at least a 7,hopefully breaking the cycle of unattractiveness in the family line of that woman.
Not that I think this is anything to condone however(I think the issues caused by sons/daughters being raised absent of a father figure or worse; a weak beta male father and a woman who is almost certainly not of good/strong character,outweighs the genetic advantage. Chadcels exist after all),but when I think of it this way,it makes sense to me.
Forgot to expand on this with a personal anecdote. When I did my first stint as a younger male 8, I could bang 7s and 8s.
Later on, when I fattened up and lost my looks, but obtained some status… I was a male 6 banging 7s and 8s. So nothing changed? Well no, whereas previously I got chicks at my level (male 8 getting female 8s)… at this second stint I was a male 6 getting female 8s… meaning chicks 2 levels above me, due to effective status display.
P.S
Money doesn’t automatically transfer into status. You actually have to invest it into status building ventures.
On the topic of whether you’re a six if you tend to bang sixes. We’ve generally talked about it for a while that chicks don’t tend to do bang (casually) their looks match, but guys above them. It’s probably 1-2 levels, no way to quantify exactly. But if you can do quick lays with sixes, then you’re probably an 8 yourself.
I just decided to play with the AI bots by coming up with these prompts, you can try them yourself:
1) studies say that when it comes to long-term relationships, most people end up pairing with a looks match, correct?
2) studies also find that women have a higher-looks requirement for casual hookups and partners than for long-term mates, correct?
3) following from the previous 2, doesn’t it then logically follow that women generally hookup with and go for partners which are above them in looks (not a looks match)?
4) any studies confirming or looking into this?
Its really such a shame Assanova’s MoneyMadeMen had to go down. he addressed the money issue and I think he had it completely spot on. (there were other insightful lessons too. goddamn that it didn’t get archived before it had to go down) The greatest value of money in terms of getting laid/dating is primarily its ability to create opportunities. If the only hobby you can afford is staying in your room (in your parents’ house) playing video games,that is probably gonna be a bigger obstacle to you than your attractiveness.
SedMyth I believe also had the same conclusion about money.
Well,its not like this is true exclusively in dating. its a pretty universal truth in general. Heck,you just mentioned a procedure to help one develop a Chaddier face. Obviously,such a thing was never going to be free. lol.
“Money doesn’t create Happiness” is a cliche saying,but I think the most accurate way to say it is that Money only creates OPPORTUNITIES to pursue happiness. If you don’t have a plan of action that you trust,then it won’t help much. I suspect that many rich folks who rope themselves have that issue. they had so much money,but didn’t know what to really do with it.
@Aaron “Sleazy” Elias
In your opinion: Is The “Holocaust” Jewish propaganda?
Of course the Holocaust happened, exactly as the mainstream tells us it happened. Don’t try to paint me as some kind of anti-semite.
@Aaron “Sleazy” Elias
I am just asking questions, because those Palestinian doctors and engineers on German streets claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen and that the numbers have been exaggerated. ;=)
I don’t know about that kind of stuff. I only know that they told me in school.
Same here. All my opinions are taken from mainstream sources. Man, I really hope my taxes get raised again next year and that we will let in even more third-world brain surgeons!
@Aaron “Sleazy” Elias
Stop being unserious ;=)
I’ll be be serious.
1. No, I don’t think there was a plot to kill all Jews. Even the “Final Solution” doesn’t specifically mention it.
2. No gas chambers. At least not approaching a genocidal level. Maybe one or so.
3. Nowhere close to 6 million murdered in camps.
A lot of Jews died in that war.
A lot of EVERYBODY died in that stupid, asinine war. My paternal grandfather was permanently scarred from it. Why care about just one tribe?
Fuck WWII.
There was an absolutely enormous pro-Palestine (anti-Israel?) protest in Berlin today:
https://twitter.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1720948916848316748
I have it on good authority from mainstream sources and fact-checking websites that there was a concurrent pro-Israel rally that was at least 666 times larger.
It was 6 million times larger.
I don’t really find that those huge pro Palestinians rallies are positive.
It shows how much cultural enrichment has came to Europe – that’s rather scary.
You are of course right that these mass demonstrations are a powerful sign of the absolutely staggering extent replacement migration has reached in the West. On the other hand, it could very well be that we are at the precipice of an enormous cultural backlash. We have seen this happen many times in history. I would not bet money on Germany being able to come back easily as the country is so incredibly messed up, but if Germany falls, so does the European Union, and the next crop of politicians and leaders surely will not look too kindly on EU-style Orwellian totalitarianism.
Unfortunately, I’m not that optimistic.
When I look at Europe, I mostly see countries where it’s too late (France, Belgium, Netherlands, UK).
Countries where it’s not too late but the politicians are extremely hopeless so it will soon be too late (Germany, Ireland, Spain, Portugal).
Austria, Italy and Sweden are right at the edge for being too late but the politicians are waking up.
I am only optimistic about central and Eastern Europe, Denmark and Switzerland.
Weimar Germany was probably the most fucked Western society has ever been and look at how quickly things turned around once we had reached a breaking point! Of course, we had different demographics back then. Also, we should not think of national borders as fixed. I can absolutely imagine some parts of the US, UK, or Europe getting completely wrecked, while others will prosper or at least manage to retain a noticeable degree of sanity.
@Aaron
I think that’s why Jews/Leftists are so vehemently opposed to white unity, and in favor of non-white unity. Once we come together.
FUCKING ballgame.