The 10-point scale for female attractiveness.

21 Aug

There’s a lot of talk on the internet among men about the 10-point scale – Kane is the most recent to broach the topic.  The scale is supposed to be objective, but it is accurate more in the sense of large-scale consensus than if you were to ask an individual person for rankings.  Additionally, it uses one number to account for both face and body, which can lead to difficulties in precision of ranking if, say, a woman has a gorgeous face but wears a size 18.  (It reminds me a little of the old figure skating point system, where the judges had to reduce the complexities of choreography, interpretation, performance, and technical ability into two marks, one for technical merit and the other for artistry.  This sometimes led to controversy when a skater could jump like a god but could barely skate.)

For future reference (and for throwing in my $0.02), here’s how I would break it down:

1, 2, 3 – Really unfortunate-looking women.  The bodies aren’t good…neither are the faces.  Sometimes it can’t be helped (genetics, disease, other conditions); sometimes it can (diet/exercise/grooming say what?).  A beautiful personality is the saving grace.  Still, even these women can get husbands.

4 – Moving into the territory of “plain.”  Not pretty, not cute, but not ugly.  Weight may or may not be a factor.  Includes RenFaire lovers; Comic-Con cosplayers; young, educated professional women who are impassioned about gender equality and gay rights and are prone to meticulous bean-counting of all pop culture transgressions in these areas.

5 – Average.  Not likely to ever be called pretty or cute, but not ugly and can be appealing with good grooming.  The good-looking version of a 4.

6 – Not pretty, but can pass for cute as long as they take care of themselves.  A good personality is a HUGE boost to a 6.

7 – Cute (or cute-ish) girls who can look pretty or even hot under the right circumstances; also, girls with 8.5 bodies and 5.5 faces.  Think actresses who usually play “the best friend” or “nerd girl whose glasses prevent her from being seen as hot.”  Celebrity reference:  Alyson Hannigan, Pauley Perrette, Melissa Joan Hart.

8 – Genuinely pretty girls.  You want to keep looking at them.  Hollywood leading lady-caliber begins here (unless they’re talented, in which case being a 7 will do).  Celebrity reference:  Anne Hathaway, Kate Middleton, Evangeline Lilly, Sandra Bullock, Carrie Underwood.  Actually, now that I think about it, most contemporary Hollywood leading ladies are 8s – good-looking enough to be aspirational, not so good-looking or overly sexy to be off-putting.

9 – “One of the world’s most beautiful women” territory.  This is where a woman is so dazzling that almost nothing else about her matters; even if she cured cancer and brought world peace, these would still be secondary to her beauty.  “Sexy” is often used as a description.  Celebrity reference:  Sofia Vergara, Halle Berry, Kim Kardashian, Victoria’s Secret models.

10 – “World’s most beautiful woman” who tickles your particular fancy.

Note that for the majority of women, ranking is not static.  A woman can improve her ranking by maintaining a weight that is close to ideal for her body type/frame, dressing well, and grooming herself in a flattering way.  Of course, the opposite is all too true as well.

Advertisements

222 Responses to “The 10-point scale for female attractiveness.”

  1. Badger August 21, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    Aaaaand cue endless arguing.

    -I’ll be curious to see the reaction to the Victoria’s Secret models. I don’t dig most of them, and a thread at Susan’s just last night veered into an argument about the VS look.

    In any case it’s silly to infer that VS and other fashion icons reflect male expectations for female beauty. Victoria’s Secret markets their models to women who buy underwear. It is not marketed to men and male preference is not a factor. The only male money going into VS is guys hoping to get laid buying their girlfriends/wives lingerie, and they’re going there because their girlfriends identify VS with sexy, not because they think the models are hot.
    There’s a significant no-cost market for catalogs for guys to, uh, de-stress, but that’s a different issue.

    -Interesting you put “plain” at 4. In reality, I think most plain women are around level 6 for most men. I can never get tired of mentioning this, but most men don’t have any options, so they will consider any woman who isn’t busted in their “league.” Honestly, for your average beta, a plain woman with a pleasant personality is great relationship material.

    Trouble is, even plain women are of course not very interested in guys who don’t have options, so those guys’ willingness to accept a lack of spectacular beauty in their mate is useless in the marketplace.

  2. Jennifer August 21, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    I pretty much ignore the ratings, based on numerous different opinions, but this is a good explanation of them. Wowee, Haley, if you really put “cute” girls as high as 7, we all have a better chance than I thought! Elizabeth Taylor was a definite ten.

  3. Jenny August 21, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    Your ranking is helpful, but it doesn’t seem to match up with other things I’ve read and heard. I thought a “6” was “average” and “4” was not anything anyone looked at at all. What I’d like to know is what a “6” (who you say needs a good personality) can do to improve her situation? It seems like every not-pretty “6” is outshined by a pretty “8” that every guy knows or believes is within his reach.

  4. Svar August 21, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    I actually think 6’s are cute, 7’s are pretty, and 8’s are very pretty. Most women fall into the 6-8 range and the next greatest amount of women would be 5’s. I think female beauty follows a Bell Curve.

    “Elizabeth Taylor was a definite ten.”

    Does anybody else confuse Elizabeth Taylor with Vivian Leigh? They both look remarkably similar and they both have the violet-eyes thing going for them.

  5. The Man Who Was . . . August 21, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    I always thought of a 5 as being completely neutral, with a 4 being mildly unattractive, i.e. there being some actual repulsion involved, but nothing too strong.

    Almost all non-fat women under 25 are at least a 6.

  6. Kassel August 21, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    There is no such thing as a 9 or a 10 – female beauty simply isnt that important. People use words like dazzling just for poetry, in reality a good looking girl is just a good looking girl.

    My personal categories are ugly, plain, cute, pretty, very pretty. Converted to numbers

    1,2,3,4 – ugly.

    5 -plain

    6 – cute

    7 – genuinely pretty (the only reason to get anything better than this is pure ego, not sexual satisfaction. It doesnt get better than this in terms of sexual satisfaction)

    8 – very pretty. Mostly for show or trophy purposes.

    9 and 10 only exists in the minds of women who overvalue female beauty.

  7. The Man Who Was . . . August 21, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    I thought a “6″ was “average”

    Most people do not use the ratings scale as a bell curve. Its more like a rising barometer of attraction, with 5 being neutral. Probably the largest number of women are 6s in their salad days.

  8. Svar August 21, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    I basically agree with Tassel except I do think 9’s exist. I’m not too sure about 10’s however. It seems physically impossible for there to be a perfect person. I guess some girls approach 10 but I doubt any hit it.

  9. The Man Who Was . . . August 21, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    The only woman I have ever seen or seen a picture of who I would class as a true 10 would be Monica Bellucci, though there are a few women I might say are fairly close.

  10. Svar August 21, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    Yeah, I agree, Monica Bellucci is very hot. She probably is a 10.

  11. The Man Who Was . . . August 21, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    Cute (or cute-ish) girls who can look pretty or even hot under the right circumstances; also, girls with 8.5 bodies and 5.5 faces.

    No, guys value the face much more than the body, so long as the latter is “good enough.” Eg. Sarah Michelle Gellar at her most attractive: face 6.5, body 9, total 7. A boost of 2 points on your body will boost your overall attractiveness maybe 0.5 to 1 point.

  12. Lainey August 21, 2011 at 7:24 pm #

    I think Monica Bellucci is THE feminine equivalent of sensual. There is a reason she was placed in her role in The Matrix.

  13. Svar August 21, 2011 at 7:42 pm #

    Yep, Lainey. Monica Bellucci has both a very feminine face and a feminine body.

  14. Lainey August 21, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    Haley, are you going to do a 10-point scale for men eventually, too?

  15. Jenny August 21, 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    We just rank guys “good,” “bad,” and “ugly.”

  16. Lainey August 21, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    “We just rank guys “good,” “bad,” and “ugly.”

    LOL! Surely there is a ranking for guys out there, although we are not as picky with regard to looks.

  17. Svar August 21, 2011 at 8:16 pm #

    Heh, “good”, “bad”, and “ugly”. Like that epic Clinton Eastwood film.

    And I thought you gals divided guys into “makes me tingle” and “doesn’t make me tingle”.

  18. Jenny August 21, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    True. I was thinking:

    good = beta
    bad = alpha
    ugly = omega

    In other word, all are bad news. :P

  19. Langobard August 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    We just rank guys “good,” “bad,” and “ugly.”

    How ’bout just “poor,” “fair,” “good,” “better,” “”best,”” (the last term is in double quotes since no Christian can rightfully think of him/herself as “best” in any meaningful way, since only God holds this ultimate distinction.

  20. Svar August 21, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    “good = beta” and “bad = alpha”. Hahaha. Looks like Jenny subtlety admitted her secret fondness for bad boys :P

  21. Langobard August 21, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Looks like Jenny subtlety admitted…

    Just want to make sure of something: ‘Jenny’ and ‘Jennifer’ are two different commentators?

  22. Svar August 21, 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    Yeah, Langobard, Jennifer and Jenny are two different people.

  23. Langobard August 21, 2011 at 8:31 pm #

    ^^

    Thanks buddy.

  24. Lainey August 21, 2011 at 8:34 pm #

    “And I thought you gals divided guys into “makes me tingle” and “doesn’t make me tingle”.”

    “In other word, all are bad news. :P”

    You guys are seriously keeping me entertained. LOL

    Yes, the tingle part is very important and yep, most of the guys albeit sweet are bad news. I think looks matter probably more in regards to the compatibility factor. For example, good looking people tend to pair up with other good looking people and so on.

    Personality does matter though, doesn’t it? I know it always did for me, although I suspect a lot of guys made that an afterthought. :)

  25. Jenny August 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    Okay, no man can be “best,” and no woman can be a “10.” Maybe Svar has a point. A straight-forward dichotomous ranking system makes the most sense. Anything more complicated, and everyone’s just pretending to know what the other’s talking about. I’m moving to “I like” and “I don’t like,” or something like that.

  26. Jenny August 21, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    Yes, I’m different from the “Jennifer” on here. I’ve read Aunt Haley’s blog for awhile, but haven’t commented in a long, long time.

  27. Langobard August 21, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

    Personality does matter though, doesn’t it? I know it always did for me, although I suspect a lot of guys made that an afterthought. :)

    Lainey – Well, character should matter very, very much to any man or woman who thinks of him/herself as a Christian.

    Here is a Twilight Zone episode (for us (slightly) older folks) that very adroitly deals with the supreme importance of character in a person – especially that of a genuinely good man:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur_of_the_Moment

  28. modernguy August 21, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    Most guys would bang any girl 5 or above. Below 5 just means too-embarrassing-to-be-seen-with to actively-repulsive.

    5 is an uninvested bang, 6 is an SMP match, 7 is lucky, 8 and above is out of reach. That’s for most (average) guys, and they’re the ones rating.

    Distinguishing between women at 8 and above is totally academic because at some point nearing that range the urge for variety overtakes the quest for beauty. No matter how beautiful a woman might be, some dude is tired of banging her.

  29. Langobard August 21, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    Okay, no man can be “best,” and no woman can be a “10.”

    So, so true Jenny.

    I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 1:8, KJV

    12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Revelation 22:12-14.

    And, most importantly:

    For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Revalation 22:15.

  30. Langobard August 21, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    Most guys would bang any girl 5 or above. Below 5 just means too-embarrassing-to-be-seen-with to actively-repulsive.

    5 is an uninvested bang, 6 is an SMP match, 7 is lucky, 8 and above is out of reach. That’s for most (average) guys, and they’re the ones rating.

    With all due respect, this is language and sentiment unbecoming of a Christian.

    Whether you are a Christian or not is no problem with me, but, if you are, why talk this way – and if you aren’t, why do you still talk this way on a Christian-oriented blog?

  31. modernguy August 21, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

    Oh, sorry Langobard. Replace “bang” with whatever doesn’t offend your sensibilities. This blog doesn’t shy away from plainly presenting women’s own very mercenary desires in the opposite sex, so to talk plainly about the way men view things is not out of the bounds of propriety. I’m not sure what construct you have in your head of male/female attraction mechanisms but you might have a hard time squaring it with the “game” view of things if you stick around long enough.

  32. The Man Who Was . . . August 21, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    A somewhat pedantic point, but cute, at least as men usually use the word, isn’t a lesser degree of pretty/beautiful/good looking, but instead refers to a certain kind of look resembling a child. Typically, cute things tends to have a rounder shape. Some very extremely beautiful women are very cute (Ashley Judd) while others of about the same level of beauty can have no cute in them whatsoever (Giselle Bundchen).

    This doesn’t just apply to very beautiful women. An ordinary girl can have a 6 face without being in the slightest bit cute. In fact, many 6s are 6s because their faces are either too angular or too long.

  33. Jennifer August 21, 2011 at 10:52 pm #

    Langobeard, I appreciate and admire your Christian character :)

  34. jack August 21, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    Scale for average Christian woman looking for men:

    10: Exists in theory only, and in the minds of women under 25.
    9: Movie stars and rock stars.
    8: Very hot guy, lots of money, and dashing personality.
    7: Same as above, but is only somewhat rich.
    6: Same as #8, but under 6’2″.
    5: Guys that I would consider marrying if the alpha carousel does not work out as planned. All still over 5’10”, average income or better, but average personality. Still relatively good looking.
    4. All my best male friends.
    3. All my male acquaintances.
    2. 50% of all men.
    1: 40% of all men.

  35. Jenny August 21, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    “Langobeard, I appreciate and admire your Christian character :)”

    The Jennifers are in agreement.

    Jack: What’s the “Christian” part?

  36. Jim August 21, 2011 at 11:35 pm #

    I don’t think Christian guys look at Christian girls this way at all.

  37. Kane August 22, 2011 at 3:48 am #

    Thanks for the link love.

    Most people come up with a scale that assuages their own ego. A cute girl usually comes up with a scale in which she’s a 9 or 10. An average girl comes up with a scale in which she’s an 8. An ugly girl comes up with scale in which she’s a 7. 90% of men come up with a scale in which the hottest girl he’s been with is an 8 or 9 and his girlfriend is at least a 7.
    In general, women are much harsher on men than they are on themselves.

    In the end, a man’s game makes up 50% or more of his ranking.
    Male game = female looks

  38. Svar August 22, 2011 at 5:37 am #

    Jack, I don’t think it’s that bad.

  39. Svar August 22, 2011 at 5:38 am #

    Jenny, I think I first saw you at Eumaios’s blog.

  40. Svar August 22, 2011 at 5:40 am #

    @ Man Who Was

    You do have a good point about cuteness. I hadn’t thought about it that way.

  41. jack August 22, 2011 at 6:50 am #

    It may not be that bad, but it was what I saw in my particular group.

  42. Lainey August 22, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    I think there is too much talk about ranking. Did guys always do the 10-point thing?

    I don’t think a guy’s value is 50% game. I think a lot of this game talk is based on the women men are choosing. If you keep picking the same crazy type of girls you’re going to feel like that is all there is.

  43. Svar August 22, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    “I think a lot of this game talk is based on the women men are choosing.”

    Could you clarify, Lainey?

    “If you keep picking the same crazy type of girls you’re going to feel like that is all there is.”

    I see what you mean. However, David Collard(a commenter on Trad Catholicism and Trad Christianity) says that basically most women are crazy and willing to do anything for certain men. Not necessarily an alpha, but their alpha.

    I personally am not sure which is true. DC’s attitude seems like a Roissyian sentiment, but there is some truth in Roissy’s words.

    The best bet is going for a woman prone to submission and of good character.

  44. Svar August 22, 2011 at 8:37 am #

    “It may not be that bad, but it was what I saw in my particular group.”

    I guess so, Jack. Many Churches have given into the ways of the world and all the girls have secular style romantic fantasies from all the Twilight-style(haha, do you remember when the Manosphere blasted the Twilight movies?) emo-porn they take in.

  45. Jenny August 22, 2011 at 9:17 am #

    Kane: I think you have a point. It’s all about the ego.

    Svar: That was a very recent “once in a lifetime” mistake, and you won’t ever see me there again.

  46. Svar August 22, 2011 at 9:46 am #

    “Svar: That was a very recent “once in a lifetime” mistake, and you won’t ever see me there again.”

    Yes, Eumaois can be what Ferd of IMF calls “delightfully cruel” and he is quite humorous but I don’t agree with his racial politics. Yes, I am a traditionalist and a conservative but I am not one of Eumaois’s “Strom Thurmond/Jim Crow/George Wallace/Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever” type of reactionary conservative. It does seems that most of his ire is directed against Blacks. However, he is completely cool with Keoni Galt, a man of 1/4 Native Hawaiian descent and of 3/4 white descent.

  47. Lainey August 22, 2011 at 10:02 am #

    Svar, I really dislike Roissy. I’ve read there and tried to be open-minded, but I don’t find him knowledgeable on much except how to stay single.

  48. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    LOL Amen Lainey. You have great points.

  49. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    Good thoughts svar. I’d round it up to the fact that women will often do a lot for their man. But every healthy woman has a limit.

  50. Lainey August 22, 2011 at 10:44 am #

    Okay, on the women rating men issue. I thought you guys would like this quote. :)

    I want a man who’s kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire? ~Zsa Zsa Gabor

  51. Svar August 22, 2011 at 10:45 am #

    “Svar, I really dislike Roissy. I’ve read there and tried to be open-minded, but I don’t find him knowledgeable on much except how to stay single.”

    I completely understand. Most of the Christian women I know absolutely dislike Roissy and I don’t blame them. I disagree with his lifestyle and I don’t like the way he treats women, but, there are a good amount of Christian(including older Christian men) who see some truth in Roissy’s words as well. There are some men like Cane Caldo, Bike Bubba, and Daegus who thing that Roissy is full of shit, but I have seen his maxims work in real life. What I have learned from my experiences with using some of Roissy’s techniques is that you have to tone it down considerably with good, Christian girls.

    I used to read his site quite a bit, almost everyday, but I’ve stopped reading his site except for once every few weeks. That stuff can really screw a guy up if he doesn’t spend some time away from it.

    I stick to Christian game sites now.

  52. Lainey August 22, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    They are willing to do anything for THEIR man. I am a very nice person, just don’t do anything to my husband or kids.

  53. Lainey August 22, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    “That stuff can really screw a guy up if he doesn’t spend some time away from it.”

    I appreciate you saying that. I have thought at times that if my husband had ever followed his advice we wouldn’t be married today, and if he followed his marriage advice then our marriage would certainly be unpleasant.

  54. Svar August 22, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    “They are willing to do anything for THEIR man. I am a very nice person, just don’t do anything to my husband or kids.”

    I agree that women are like that, but David Collard meant sexually not in general hahaha.

  55. Svar August 22, 2011 at 10:51 am #

    “I appreciate you saying that. I have thought at times that if my husband had ever followed his advice we wouldn’t be married today, and if he followed his marriage advice then our marriage would certainly be unpleasant.”

    Thanks, Lainey. I believe that a man should love his wife as deeply as Christ loved the Church, but you’ve got to learn to make her tingle as well. Love matters, yes, but so does lust.

  56. Lainey August 22, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    “Thanks, Lainey. I believe that a man should love his wife as deeply as Christ loved the Church, but you’ve got to learn to make her tingle as well. Love matters, yes, but so does lust.”

    Of course, how depressing marriage would be if it didn’t matter.

  57. The Man Who Was . . . August 22, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    I’ve kind of come around to the view that reading Roissy is rather corrupting. In many ways, he is a deeply debased and vicious person and his relentless nihilism and hedonism seep into the soul. On the other hand, he has said things that needed to be said and which weren’t being said by either Christians or social conservatives of any stripe. There is F. Roger Devlin, but Devlin in his personal life seems to be a celibate spectator of the sexual marketplace and there are limits to how helpful that perspective can be to anyone fighting it out in the trenches.

  58. The Man Who Was . . . August 22, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Roissy is also, of course, a literary genius.

  59. Svar August 22, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    “I’ve kind of come around to the view that reading Roissy is rather corrupting. In many ways, he is a deeply debased and vicious person and his relentless nihilism and hedonism seep into the soul.”

    Definitely. It screwed me up for a while before I started to come around. Many Christian men have admitted the same. One told me that he almost got used to the idea of cheating on his wife(don’t worry, he didn’t). He’s a traditional Christian.

    “On the other hand, he has said things that needed to be said and which weren’t being said by either Christians or social conservatives of any stripe.”

    Very true. He has given us some red-pill insights in a blue-pill world. However, he does spread his own pretty lies as noted by Samson in this article: http://samsonsjawbone.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/love-is-and-is-not/

  60. Svar August 22, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    “Roissy is also, of course, a literary genius.”

    Definitely. The man really knows how to turn a phrase.

  61. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 11:40 am #

    “On the other hand, he has said things that needed to be said and which weren’t being said by either Christians or social conservatives of any stripe”

    That’s not true. Many people have spoken of men being strong and in leadership, while there have also been various writings about what women are sometimes, and should not be, attracted to. It’s not worth getting soaked with his writings to find some grains of truth, some of which require exploitation of women to even use. (This, frankly, is why I wish so many secular people would go with the Bible instead; the model for great manhood is right there). Forget Roissy, there are so many better writers. Maybe there weren’t at first, but now with Susan Walsh, Athol Kay, Badger and Kane? Much better and more moral. Now, Athol’s not perfect; his faults are few in comparison, but he does sometimes advise things that either are, or border on, manipulation, and a couple of times has promoted the Roissy method of fliritng with someone else to keep your spouse interested. He’s also advised saying some rather ugly things to get your point across; these could be more influential than Roissy’s because they’re more mild. But as a whole, I knew what to avoid as a Christian and he far outstrikes the Roissy type with his advice. Hawaiin Libertarian is good, though some of his “game” approaches are too strong for me; I dunno, maybe his wife was really dominant and needed them though. Either way, thus far, Badger, Kane and Dalrock are the best men for this. I don’t even know if they’re all Christian, but if certain Christian gaming websites go by harshly patriarchal tradition, I’d be wary of them anyway.

  62. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    You guys ought to read “The Flipside of Feminism”. It addresses perfectly what men need out of life, including from women, without subjugating women.

  63. Svar August 22, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    “Hawaiin Libertarian is good, though some of his “game” approaches are too strong for me; I dunno, maybe his wife was really dominant and needed them though.”

    It seems that she is rather submissive and was just pissed off with Keoni’s lack of leadership and male dominance.

    “Either way, thus far, Badger, Kane and Dalrock are the best men for this. I don’t even know if they’re all Christian, but if certain Christian gaming websites go by harshly patriarchal tradition, I’d be wary of them anyway.”

    Badger and Dalrock are Christian, no clue about Kane. Patriarchy and hierarchy are a part of Christianity, Jen.

    Regardless, Jen, Roissy provides a valuable service in theory. Unfortunately it seems that it pushes guys over the edge more so than teach them how to be strong, but non-exploitative men.

    “He’s also advised saying some rather ugly things to get your point across; these could be more influential than Roissy’s because they’re more mild.”

    Not necessarily. I barely read Roissy nowadays but a lot of his maxims are stuck within my head. Roissy has a way with words. It’s probably his harshness.

  64. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    Well whether she was generally submissive or not, it does look like Keoni’s wife was just frusterated with his lack of assertiveness; the poor guy thought he had to press her for her opinion on everything. Roissy can never teach men to be strong; they need to stick with Christian teachers. John Eldredge, John Piper, Michael Pearl and Charles Colson are good, even though I don’t agree with them on everything.

  65. The Man Who Was . . . August 22, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    Many people have spoken of men being strong and in leadership, while there have also been various writings about what women are sometimes, and should not be, attracted to.

    No, I was there when Roissy first started writing. There was nothing. And even now Boundless type advice is more the rule than the exception among Christians.

    None of the writers you cite are even close to Roissy in knowledge and insight.

  66. Svar August 22, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    “Well whether she was generally submissive or not, it does look like Keoni’s wife was just frusterated with his lack of assertiveness; the poor guy thought he had to press her for her opinion on everything.”

    It’s one of the lies of our society. You do realize that Keoni used to visit Roissy alot and got his insights from him, right? I think that most Christian men have actually learned alot from Keoni, but they have learned some from Roissy.

    “Roissy can never teach men to be strong; they need to stick with Christian teachers.”

    Christian men don’t always need to stick to the teachings of other Christian men. I personally have seen truth in the words of men like Yukio Mishima, Julius Evola, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Not of whom are Christian and the last two being anti-Christians. However, the Canadian, Christian, and Monarchist philosopher George Grant has some Nietzschean influences even though he is a Classical Conservative. Confucius is a good example of a non-Christian man with great idea. The Western Confucian, a Catholic man, is a huge fan of Confucius’s conservative views. Same thing can be said about the pagan Greek and Roman philosophers. Now, I’m not comparing Roissy to these men, but I’m trying to make a point. Roissy does have some(key word being some) valuable insights.

  67. Svar August 22, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    “No, I was there when Roissy first started writing. There was nothing. And even now Boundless type advice is more the rule than the exception among Christians.”

    Exactly. Screw Boundless. Screw that geldingfest. I’m not going to neuter myself.

    “None of the writers you cite are even close to Roissy in knowledge and insight.”

    I don’t know any of the writers that Jen cited, but I’m going to take your word for it.

  68. The Man Who Was . . . August 22, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    Roissy is more like Nietzsche than Confucius in terms of potential corruption, but even Nietzsche was dealing with more abstract issues and his ideas tend to go against people’s instincts. I’m not tempted to become a Superman; I am tempted to screw around and use women for my own pleasure.

  69. Svar August 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    “I’m not tempted to become a Superman; I am tempted to screw around and use women for my own pleasure.”

    I know how you feel. I face the same temptations.

  70. Svar August 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    “Roissy is more like Nietzsche than Confucius in terms of potential corruption, but even Nietzsche was dealing with more abstract issues and his ideas tend to go against people’s instincts.”

    Good point.

  71. Svar August 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    Good article, The Man Who Was Thursday. I remember on a thread on Trad Christianity, Brendan/Novaseeker noted Roissy’s alt-right tendencies.

    Btw, is The Telegraph a conservative newsite? I remembering reading an article in Amerika which had an excerpt from either The Telegraph or DailyMail which basically promoted Christianity and Monarchy and stood against The French Revolution and The French Republic.

  72. Svar August 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    Interesting. The Telegraph has an almost Chronicles-like analysis of the London Riots in this one: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100101077/rivers-of-blood-what-enoch-powell-got-wrong-and-what-he-got-right/

    Rivers of Blood, Enoch Powell, and David Starkey. Seems like the The Telegraph magazine leans in a Tory direction.

  73. The Man Who Was . . . August 22, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    The Telegraph is generally Conservative.

    The Daily Mail is higher class version of a celebrity tabloid.

  74. Svar August 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    Okay, then, it was The Telegraph that Amerika used an excerpt.

  75. detinennui32 August 22, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

    RE Haley’s scale: This scale is mostly useful except for the VS model part.

    –Most men would have sex with any woman at a 3 or above, using this scale. This is because, as Badger aptly points out, most men have no options (or at least believe as such).

    –The 4 I knew with a pleasant personality would have been far preferable to the 7 entitilement princess I dated.

    RE: Roissy: The vintage Roissy of 2007-2009 had some of the keenest insights into male-female relationships I have ever read. The writing was top notch. He left an imprint on the manosphere that can never be replicated and his influence is all over the current incarnation of the manosphere.

  76. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    If Keoni got all his stuff from Roissy, that explains a few things.

    “None of the writers you cite are even close to Roissy in knowledge and insight”

    No indeed, they don’t study much about exploiting women and being PUA’s. Instead they focus on being real men, masculine leaders without exploitation and manipulation. If you want squirting sex with a harem of needy women and to wreck a relationship, stick with Roissy.You shouldn’t write those men off, Svar. They don’t describe game, they explain how to be successfull as a strong and yes, assertive, Christian man.

    “He left an imprint on the manosphere that can never be replicated and his influence is all over the current incarnation of the manosphere”

    Which would explain why I see so many otherwise clued-in men talking about being jerks and using the weaknesses of women, whether sluts or not, to get laid.

    “I’m not tempted to become a Superman; I am tempted to screw around and use women for my own pleasure”

    Bingo. That sinful desire is exacerbated by men like Roissy who tell you to use it, and even claim it can be helpful to you. That kind of thing is very insidious, and when to comes to matters like how to treat others, Svar, Christian men do need to stick with Christian writers.

  77. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    Svar, do you have an email address? I don’t wish to return to Alte’s blog, but sometimes I like keeping contact with them individually.

  78. Svar August 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Jennifer, if I didn’t have an email address, I wouldn’t be able to post on any site. Here is: svarragan@gmail.com

    @ Man Who Was Thursday and Deti

    Roissy’s blog is good but I really liked STD back when it was around due to the fact that you had both the wisdom of a philandering, womanizer like Talleyrand and a man happy within his LTR like Alkibiades. Solomon II is a very good site. It is a good thing that Dalrock(who is a conservative Protestant, btw, Jen) restored his site.

  79. Svar August 22, 2011 at 3:32 pm #

    @ Jen

    What man doesn’t want squirtin’ sex? Damn that just sounds flat-out hawt. I think I might check out Roissy’s site for that very line, Jen :P

  80. Svar August 22, 2011 at 3:51 pm #

    Yes, Jen, when it comes to learning how to treat others, Christian men must stick to Christian writers. But for philosophy and general metaphysics(not Christian theology) non-Christian writers provide good insights. In fact, Julius Evola is the one who said the line “Man is Form and Woman is Void”. A very true line that both CSPB and I(and other guys in the Manosphere) have realized to be true. That line by that old Sicilian baron seems to embody some sort of Game truth.

  81. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    Oh I trust Dalrock, Svar. Thank you for the address and the good points. Never underestimate confident Christian men and their power.

    One of the reasons I’ve been so frusterated with Game is that, as one critic said, it’s ever-shifting and can defy a steady definition. It also constantly offers myriad points some agree with and others don’t. I can be on a game site and within ONE MINUTE go from thinking, “Right on, that’s just the way to be!” to “No you dumbass, who told you that?” or “You don’t have to be an as*hole!” This can happen to me in the SAME POST, no less; drives me crazy.

    The universal basics of game are: have confidence. Be assertive. Show you’re dominant of your own sphere. Never be timid in approaching. Don’t make a woman your whole life. Walk with confidence. Have good humor. Don’t fold for any manipulative tactics. Don’t be over-eager. ALL these points are good and true, Svar. Then, you get to different men, with different principles, who have dated different, sometimes irresponsible, weak, shallow women. And the stuff becomes more minute, more detailed and sometimes on a silly level, such as: Apologize as LITTLE as possible. Always decide where you’re going with her (there seems to be very little room for the woman to ever have a choice in what the dates will be). Hardly ever take women seriously. Never let her know how much you care. Never be emotional in front of her, and if you are, here’s how to fix that!! Play with her hamster. Don’t bother considering women 27 and over as marriage material. See what I mean? This stuff gets crazy, even amoral sometimes.

    Plus, there’s also disagreement about how effective game is. Private man says: Game takes men’s chances of getting laid from almost nil to small. Whereas Roosh says: Tired of hearing “LJBF”? I promise you’ll never hear those words again!!

    See why it can be frusterating??

  82. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Of course, when it comes to shallow game, that’d explain why men looking for shallow women would always score.

  83. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    Ha, I just realized why game is so ever-shifting and often somewhat different between bloggers: it’s simply because people are different. Men are different, women are different; this is why the basic rules of game (which I listed first above) are universally beneficial. And the rest, the smaller details, are debated widely. Explains a lot.

    Svar, ever read Roosh’s book “Dead Bat in Paraguay” or whatever?

  84. Svar August 22, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Game is amoral system after all, Jen. It embodies many truths of human(and especially female nature) nature. Master Dogen of Alpha Status(another good site, very similar to STD except that it’s run by two philandering, womanizers) had a very insightful post about Shakespeare, Human Nature, and Game.

    Trust me, Jen, you will not like Solomon II’s site. Many women, especially Christian ones, do not like it. He is the guy, after all, who coined the hilarious term, “Meat Market Economics”.

    I’ll admit, I rarely women seriously, except on line. Gorbachev, a commenter around the Manosphere has these wise six words: “treat her like an errant child”.

    “you don’t have to act like an as*hole”

    You don’t? :P

  85. Svar August 22, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Jen, I’ve never read any of Roosh’s books. I’ve read parts of Tucker Max two books, “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” and “Assholes Finish First”. He does explain what he does or how game works(he assumes that the reader understands) but seeing Tucker’s misadventures through the lens of game provides many insights as well as lulz.

  86. The Man Who Was . . . August 22, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    No, Roissy’s insights easily transcend the narrow arena of pick-up. He has a mastery of female psychology and a keen intelligence that none of those others can match. The breadth of his perspective is astonishing and the level of detail and nuance is way beyond anyone else. Roissy wouldn’t be as dangerous to anyone as he is if he wasn’t so truly great.

    I have slighted Dave from Hawaii a bit, who has had some pretty good writing on relationship game, the best of which has been incorporated into Roissy’s own posts.

  87. samsonsjawbone August 22, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    ***A somewhat pedantic point, but cute, at least as men usually use the word, isn’t a lesser degree of pretty/beautiful/good looking, but instead refers to a certain kind of look resembling a child.***

    I was going to make the same point. I *never* use the term “cute” to describe a grown woman and abhor it when others do so. “Cute” is for children. I’m interested in *women*, and so should you be.

    ***I’ve kind of come around to the view that reading Roissy is rather corrupting.***

    Glad to see other men adopting this view. I stopped reading him when I realized that cynicism and nihilism were creeping into my own marriage. He offers a very, very subtly seductive blend of truth and satanism.

  88. Svar August 22, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    @ Samson

    Many Christian men agree with you although some tie Roissy up with satanism only, not truth. Your post that I’ve linked to as well as the one on the “Totalt Depravity of Women” are good posts which acknowledge the truths in Roissy’s teachings while discarding the pretty, nihilistic lies within them.

  89. Aunt Haley August 22, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    In case anyone is confused, Dave from Hawaii and Keoni Galt are the same guy.

    Gotta second Man Who Was that Roissy is without peer in the Game-blog biz. It’s not just the shrewd insights, it’s also his incredible writing ability. I haven’t seen any Game bloggers even approach the level he was writing at during the blog’s heyday.

  90. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    The problem is, “The Man”, Roissy’s like Barack Obama: he knows what attracts and he uses shallow means to exploit some of the deepest female needs. He knows what women need and he advises abusing it; his advice for LTRs are very rarely containing any true, deep wisdom. I’m convinced he’s come across a range of both deep women and shallow women, so his advice varies from treating women like shallow creatures to exploiting their deepest needs.

    “Gorbachev, a commenter around the Manosphere has these wise six words: “treat her like an errant child”

    This is why I have no respect, at all, for these people Svar. And if respect is important to a man, I hope you don’t treat your future wife like that. Women who give positive feedback to asshole men are doing dangerous things; amoral men will use any means to get sex if they think women will respond.

    Thanks for warning me about Solomon’s blog. Those people have such a mixture of using or abusing psychology, whether natural, evolutionary or sinfully flawed, and pairing this with good pieces of advice that it’s not funny. It’s like drinking water with quicksand in it.

  91. Svar August 22, 2011 at 4:58 pm #

    “he does explain what he does”

    I meant to say he doesn’t explain what he does.

    @ Jen

    Re: Solomon II

    Don’t let the name fool you, Solomon II is also a nihilistic hedonistic albeit with some sort of interest in Christian manhood and Biblical proverbs. A formerly conservative and devout Christian who fell out of Faith.

  92. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    Damn samson, you’re wise. And how often are Satan’s lies workable? Very often, because they work with human nature. And what are the most affective lies? The ones with truth in them.

    Haley, I don’t care about his writing abilities. Some of the greatest liars in the world are the greatest speakers. Familiar with Doug Phillips or Bill Gothard?

    “Cute” is for children. I’m interested in *women*, and so should you be”

    Well, women can be cute too.

  93. Aunt Haley August 22, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    Jennifer–
    Haley, I don’t care about his writing abilities.

    Well, thank you for that announcement, but I don’t care that you don’t care.

  94. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    Thanks for the caution, Svar! I’ll pray for Solomon. Samson, I hope you also acknowledge that some of Roissy’s points are not only immoral, but inaccurate; not every woman will put up with her bf/hubby flirting with other women, or being strung along for years in “dread” of his feelings, or being groped on the first date. He knows some universal truths, but he also hangs with a cetrain class of women.

  95. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    LOL My point in saying that, Haley, is simply that people shouldn’t prize Roissy for writing ability alone, or even insight used crookedlyl I have no doubt some elected Obama mostly for his speeches.

  96. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    *crookedly

  97. The Man Who Was . . . August 22, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    Apologize as LITTLE as possible. Always decide where you’re going with her (there seems to be very little room for the woman to ever have a choice in what the dates will be). Hardly ever take women seriously. Never let her know how much you care. Never be emotional in front of her, and if you are, here’s how to fix that!! Play with her hamster.

    You’re caricaturing all of these a bit, but toned down this is all actually pretty good advice.

  98. Svar August 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    The Man Who Was is right. It is good advice toned down. Also, that Gorbachev comment was in response to the “what are we going to eat, dear?” scenario that Keoni uses as an example. That conversation occurred on Ulysses’s Hidden Leaves blog. I’ll link to it when I can.

  99. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    You’d have to chop it up, not tone it down, and those are caricatures by themselves. If you’re in a LTR, you need to find a woman you can take seriously. In marriage, she better know you care, and playing with her hamster is crude and disrespectful advice. If you’re married, you’d also better get used to being vulnerable. And for pete’s sake, if she wants to go to Chili’s instead of Friday’s, let her choose. If she says, “you choose”, then don’t try to make her “equal” by pressing her to choose, but let her speak up if she has a place she wants to go.

  100. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:16 pm #

    I’d rather not read that conversation, but thanks Svar.

  101. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    “If you’re married, you’d also better get used to being vulnerable”

    I mean in a reasonable way, of course; I too would be a little concerned if a man cried during “Sleepless in Seattle”. But in real life, 24/7 together, yeah you’ll be vulnerable. Athol really is the boss in this stuff. Also, I know some guys prostrate themselves when they apologize for minor things; I don’t advise that either, but be willing to say “I’m sorry” when you truly do wrong. These guys lack balance in their advice, and I know women have to change too; feminism is why so many are pushing back so hard.

  102. Svar August 22, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    You know, I just said this over at Alte’s blog but I’ll repeat it here: Sometimes when I deal with the alt-rightish but nihilistic and hedonistic members of the Manosphere as a conservative Christian, I feel like a sort of Von Kahr(a German monarchist during the Weimar era) allying with Nationalists and Socialists to commit a sort of Bier Hall Putsch on a social level.

  103. Svar August 22, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    If women’s hamsters weren’t meant to be played with, then why do they have them? Haha

  104. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:24 pm #

    God pretty much lays out the good advice men need, Svar. But I’ve found some commonalities with non-Christians too: a Marxist woman explained the trouble of the working poor, and Kathryn Joyce, a feminist, exposed the Vision Forum very well. Game partly threw me because guys seemed to be exaggerating things I thought everyone already knew (as in, don’t worship women, don’t strain yourself apologizing for something minor, don’t drool on her, etc).

  105. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    People have hamsters, svar, not just women. They can be dangerous.

  106. Svar August 22, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    VF is a-okay Jen. Not my cup of tea, but still.

  107. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    Langobeard, I appreciate and admire your Christian character :)

    Thank you so very much Jen – and I greatly admire yours as well… .

  108. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 5:57 pm #

    Thank you Lango :)

    Yes svar, it is that bad. They have some awesome products, but it’s the water-with-quicksand type thing.

  109. Svar August 22, 2011 at 6:06 pm #

    The VF people are still Christian. They’re not pagans or hedonistic nihilists. They are not bad people, they are generally, decent folk.

    Heh, that “playing with her hamster” comment reminds me of that Iron Maiden song, “Can I Play With Madness?”.

  110. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    Iron Maiden? Ugh, what an awful contraption that was.

    You’re right Svar, at least most of the VF are Christians who would not tolerate abuse of women; after some of the dark secular stuff, I actually felt comfort in their presence! But not all are Christian; some are charlatans. You may wish to read “Quiverfull”; the feminist author gives little to no space to her own beliefs, she simply quotes what the VF people have told her. That, and “Flipside of Feminism” both give awesome info about two very different, yet equally terrible, problems.

  111. Svar August 22, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    I would rather ally with VF than a feminist any day. The VF folk are decent Christian people. I may not agree with them fully, but still.

    I would also rather ally with Solomon II and Roissy than with a feminist.

  112. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Oh, sorry Langobard. Replace “bang” with whatever doesn’t offend your sensibilities… . – modernguy

    No, it doesn’t really so much ‘offend’ me modernguy as much as I find it gratuitously unecessary to talk about fellow human beings this way – especially our sisters-in-Christ.

    This blog doesn’t shy away from plainly presenting women’s own very mercenary desires in the opposite sex, so to talk plainly about the way men view things is not out of the bounds of propriety…. .

    Mmmm, I don’t necessarily think this is the case. Of course there may be general disagreements on issues and points with the ladies (and why shouldn’t there be sometimes, since we do occasionaly have divergent interests), but Haley – and most of the female commentariat here – I find is rather respectful of men overall (certainly compared to most other blogs that delve into ‘game’ concepts).

    I’m not sure what construct you have in your head of male/female attraction mechanisms but you might have a hard time squaring it with the “game” view of things if you stick around long enough.

    I completely understand, and overall agree, with what you are saying (and what most other ‘game’ advocates say) regarding male/female attraction mechanisms. Like I have said before, I am completely and fully a ‘red-pill Christian’.

    However (and this is a *big* however), like I have also said before, we as Christians are commanded by our Lord to overcome some of the more seedy and unfortunate aspects of our sinful, fallen human natures – not jump whole-hog into them because science has shown or demonstrated them to be (purportedly) ‘natural’.

  113. Svar August 22, 2011 at 6:26 pm #

    “Iron Maiden? Ugh, what an awful contraption that was.”

    My personal favorite is the Brazen Bull. Don’t knock the Inquisition! :P

  114. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

    “I would rather ally with VF than a feminist any day. The VF folk are decent Christian people. I may not agree with them fully, but still”

    Quite frankly I think that’s nonsense, svar. You’d be surprised just how harmful the VF can be, and manipulation can rupture a marriage as easily as a feminist. In any case, I didn’t ask you to side with a feminist; reading her research has naught to do with her beliefs.

  115. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

    “However (and this is a *big* however), like I have also said before, we as Christians are commanded by our Lord to overcome some of the more seedy and unfortunate aspects of our sinful, fallen human natures – not jump whole-hog into them because science has shown or demonstrated them to be (purportedly) ‘natural’”

    One of the wisest statements I’ve seen. Feminism messed things up, then dark gamers messed things up further; now it could be a constant dirty cycle. Being a man that both attracts and keeps a woman means standing up for yourself when you need to, and not trampling on her either. This is why women like Susan Walsh, and often Haley, are needed as well, to tell women to either get or stay in shape if they want good men.

  116. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Come to think of it, dark gamers and femmies deserve each other: the iron maidens and the brazen bulls!

    Would the Brazen Bull be the bull that was heated up so it could roast a person alive inside of it, Svar?

  117. Svar August 22, 2011 at 7:10 pm #

    Yes, the Brazen Bull was used like that by the Iberian Inquisitionists. You can blame the Muslims for teaching the Spaniards and the Portuguese sheer brutality. The Iberians were a different people after the Reconquista.

  118. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    Eesh! I did not know that, Svar, but thanks for your history info. I thought a man in Roman times invented the Brazen Bull; I saw that in 1,000 Ways to Die. How could people ever be so depraved?

  119. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    One of the wisest statements I’ve seen. Feminism messed things up, then dark gamers messed things up further; now it could be a constant dirty cycle.

    Thank you again Jennifer for your kindest of words (and yes, it *is* becoming a, as you call it, a ‘dirty cycle’, that we as Christians are to rise above, not ‘join in’ because there may *indeed* be a lot of scientific ‘evidence’ to prove it so (again, at least in a temporal, sinful and fallen human way).

    Being a man that both attracts and keeps a woman means standing up for yourself when you need to, and not trampling on her either.

    Another home-run Jen since, like how a woman feels toward a weak (or so-called ‘beta’) man, a woman a man can push around, or as you say ‘trample’ on her, will not respect her – and hence will not be attracted to her as well.

    This is why women like Susan Walsh, and often Haley, are needed as well, to tell women to either get or stay in shape if they want good men.

    It is, of course, more than just staying in physical shape – it is, even more importantly to a Christian man (*and most other men, for that matter) that she stay in good spiritual shape – i.e.: such as engaging in ‘golden calf’ worship (modern-day American consumerism), or even ‘loving this world’ a little too much… .

    All these principles, of course, apply to men as well – however, they are to, ideally at least, set the standard for their wives and children to follow (here is a great way for Christian, and other decent men, to be a genuine alpha in his relationship(s).

  120. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    such as engaging in ‘golden calf’ worship

    Meant to say such as “not engaging in golden calf worship”

  121. Svar August 22, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    “Come to think of it, dark gamers and femmies deserve each other: the iron maidens and the brazen bulls!”

    I assume the dark gamers are brazen bulls and the femmies are iron maidens, not the other way around.

  122. Svar August 22, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    “I thought a man in Roman times invented the Brazen Bull; I saw that in 1,000 Ways to Die. How could people ever be so depraved?”

    Because they’re people. Ander Behring Brehvik noted the brutality of the Teutonic Christian Knights who forcibly converted the Balts just came out of the Crusades where they fought the Muslims trying to retake the Middle-East for Christendom(Glorious).

    I personally take the side of the Teutonic knights on the forced conversions of the Balts. I am also a huge supporter of the Crusades(bite me if you disagree). However, I am not a fan of the Inquisition.

    Btw, you watch Spike? I know that I’m going to kind of regret asking this, but have you ever seen the shows Deadliest Warrior, Manswers, and Blue Mountain State(the last one being hilarious, but I promise you that you’ll hate it. It’s basically about Football players doing depraved but funny things).

  123. Svar August 22, 2011 at 7:52 pm #

    Good comments, Langobard. Same with you, Jen.

  124. Svar August 22, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

    “(and yes, it *is* becoming a, as you call it, a ‘dirty cycle’, that we as Christians are to rise above, not ‘join in’ because there may *indeed* be a lot of scientific ‘evidence’ to prove it so (again, at least in a temporal, sinful and fallen human way).”

    Yes, we Christians must stay away from the Hookup Culture. We Christians must also distance ourselves from the futile Gender War. The two sexes were meant to work together, not fight with one another.

  125. jack August 22, 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    First, even though women may hate Roissy, the man is brilliant, and his writing was of a quality seldom seen on any blog, on any topic.

    And I highly recommend Solomon’s posts “Meat Market Economics” and “Drive Through Boyfriends”. These were brilliant pieces full of with and insight.

    Christian people may disagree with the decisions that Solomon and Roissy make in terms of casual sex, but their observations are completely correct.

  126. jack August 22, 2011 at 8:00 pm #

    Svar-

    How do you know Solomon?

  127. Svar August 22, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    “Svar-

    How do you know Solomon?”

    In what sense do you ask this, jack? As in how I have heard about him or how I know so much about his life and mindset?

  128. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    “It is, of course, more than just staying in physical shape”

    I in fact meant physical shape, Lango :) More great words, thank you! I believe both husbands and wives should help each other rise up. The harsher aspects of game (not necessarily the dark ones, but the harsher ones) come from often hurt men, who have been taught they must never show vulnerability or stop being in charge, and who have been taught this by the behavior of wayward women! Some aspects of harsher game contain elements of truth that are exaggerated, especially in LTRs. For ex, you should not snivel to a woman if you made a minor mistake, but do apologize when necessary; if you tell men to avoid apology as much as possible, that could give them an inbalance of how to behave. Likewise, if you’re still just dating a woman, keeping your strongest feelings to yourself is a good idea and so is zapping any unnecessary vulnerability, since you two are still treading the ground in test mode. But once you’re married, while you still need emotional control (and so will she), you should be used to being vulnerable at SOME points and you should never let her seriously doubt how you feel about her; spouses need to know they’re loved. Roissy’s incorrect that if you follow his manipulation traits, you’ll win unconditional love, from any woman; many such observations are very untrue. His words remind me of Satan’s, sometimes with a perfect understanding of human nature, but not wisdom on how to nurture it or form meaningful bonds through it. No wonder he doesn’t respect the women he’s with, as he’s been allowed to trample them.

    Svar, thanks for the compliment. Fascinating historical info. As for human nature, my pastor quoted a man who once said, “Human beings are both the glory, and the scum, of the universe.”

  129. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    “Yes, we Christians must stay away from the Hookup Culture. We Christians must also distance ourselves from the futile Gender War. The two sexes were meant to work together, not fight with one another”

    So wise, svar. I do try to avoid the war, except to counsel people on either side once in a while to not hurt the other.

    “I assume the dark gamers are brazen bulls and the femmies are iron maidens, not the other way around”

    *snort*

    “Btw, you watch Spike? I know that I’m going to kind of regret asking this, but have you ever seen the shows Deadliest Warrior, Manswers, and Blue Mountain State(the last one being hilarious, but I promise you that you’ll hate it. It’s basically about Football players doing depraved but funny things)”

    Yup, I watch it sometimes; I am occasionally addicted to 1,000 Ways to Die (can’t help it, it’s the SUSPENSE that gets me). I’ve seen some of Manswers (usually turn the channel fairly quickly, though it can be useful) and Deadliest Warriors is too graphic, but I did think it interesting, esp. adding Joan of Arc to it. Heh, just saw a silly preview for Blue Mountain State tonight; I recall rolling my eyes.

  130. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    “I in fact meant physical shape, Lango :)”

    Aughhh! I meant spiritual shape!

  131. Svar August 22, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    “Heh, just saw a silly preview for Blue Mountain State tonight; I recall rolling my eyes.”

    My friends are huge fans of that show. I’ve watched and couldn’t stop laughing even though alot of it is disgusting. It’s mainly a mix of immature toilet humor and really dirty jokes. Lots of alcohol use, drug use, and promiscuous sex.

  132. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    It’s funny how Spike and Lifetime, just like regular excessive testasterone and estrogen, can be either useful or useless. Spike’s “1,000 Ways to Die” is crude, but often VERY informative, and so can “Manswers” be. “Deadliest Warrior” is an amazing display of technology, history and creativity. And Lifetime, believe it or not, has SOME really cool movies. “The 19th Wife”, “Hunger Point”, “Queen-Sized”, “Reviving Ophelia”, “The Mermaid Chair” and “The Dive from Clausen’s Pier” are all very good. Take both channels with a grain of salt; I rarely ever watch Lifetime anymore, but I catch some of their movies free on Comcast. And my mom has no idea why I like “1,000 Ways to Die”; she agrees it’s interesting, but often says, “This is SUCH a guy’s show” when catching clips of it.

    Funny, Jay Lenno just said men who get a lot of sex more often commit crimes :P I doubt there’s a real connection, except perhaps excessively high rates of testasterone; what do you think?

  133. Svar August 22, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    “I believe both husbands and wives should help each other rise up. The harsher aspects of game (not necessarily the dark ones, but the harsher ones) come from often hurt men, who have been taught they must never show vulnerability or stop being in charge, and who have been taught this by the behavior of wayward women! Some aspects of harsher game contain elements of truth that are exaggerated, especially in LTRs. For ex, you should not snivel to a woman if you made a minor mistake, but do apologize when necessary; if you tell men to avoid apology as much as possible, that could give them an inbalance of how to behave. Likewise, if you’re still just dating a woman, keeping your strongest feelings to yourself is a good idea and so is zapping any unnecessary vulnerability, since you two are still treading the ground in test mode. But once you’re married, while you still need emotional control (and so will she), you should be used to being vulnerable at SOME points and you should never let her seriously doubt how you feel about her; spouses need to know they’re loved. Roissy’s incorrect that if you follow his manipulation traits, you’ll win unconditional love, from any woman; many such observations are very untrue. His words remind me of Satan’s, sometimes with a perfect understanding of human nature, but not wisdom on how to nurture it or form meaningful bonds through it. No wonder he doesn’t respect the women he’s with, as he’s been allowed to trample them. ”

    A very insightful comment, Jen. I hadn’t thought about it that way.

  134. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    Thank you a lot, Svar :)

  135. Svar August 22, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    “Funny, Jay Lenno just said men who get a lot of sex more often commit crimes :P I doubt there’s a real connection, except perhaps excessively high rates of testasterone; what do you think?”

    I have friends and acquaintance that are… less-inclined towards monogamy(basically guys who like to cheat or have ONS) who do things like drink and drive and steal signs. They smoke weed and probably do harder drugs. They also have smoked tobacco, used dipping tobacco, and drink before the legal age, but I’ve done those three things too so I don’t know whether or not that is a big deal. I’ve smoked every now and then and I used to use dipping tobacco alot, but I no longer do either. However, I do drink and I’m under age. I’m not a Baptist so what difference does it make, lol?

  136. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 8:57 pm #

    …less-inclined towards monogamy(basically guys who like to cheat or have ONS) who do things like drink and drive and steal signs. They smoke weed and probably do harder drugs. They also have smoked tobacco, used dipping tobacco, and drink before the legal age,…

    These types of fellas, and their female groupies as well, often have a lot of mental and emotional disorders, which causes the forementioned behavioral problems.

  137. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    Good comments, Langobard. Same with you, Jen.

    Thank you dear brother.

  138. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 9:00 pm #

    Svar, you might want to read “Go Ask Alice” or “Crank”, or just watch “Candy”, they’re fascinating about the psychology of addiction. I swear I’m not trying to be scolding of your friends :S Langobard’s words just reminded me of those tales; “Candy” is told by a male character. They’re just fascinating stories.

  139. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Yes, we Christians must stay away from the Hookup Culture. We Christians must also distance ourselves from the futile Gender War. The two sexes were meant to work together, not fight with one another. @Svar

    Absolute music to thine ears…

    Sociopathic hookup “culture”, along with the retarded gender “wars”, is of the devil.

  140. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Roissy’s incorrect that if you follow his manipulation traits, you’ll win unconditional love, from any woman; many such observations are very untrue. His words remind me of Satan’s, sometimes with a perfect understanding of human nature, but not wisdom on how to nurture it or form meaningful bonds through it. No wonder he doesn’t respect the women he’s with, as he’s been allowed to trample them. ”

    A very insightful comment, Jen. I hadn’t thought about it that way.
    ___

    Reminds me of this quote from the Bible:

    Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. – 1 Timothy 4:1, New Living Translation

  141. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    Very true. So is the worst of feminist hatred; the most rad of femmies lament that the human race has not evolved past males!

    That’s interesting, isn’t it? Most men who hate women like using them for sex, such as cult leaders; they want women only to exist under their feet. But women who hate men the most usually just ignore them and prefer they didn’t exist.

  142. Svar August 22, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    @ Langobard and Jen

    I’ve graduated this year from high school and I plan on distancing myself from people like that in the future.

  143. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

    Svar, you might want to read “Go Ask Alice” or “Crank”, or just watch “Candy”, they’re fascinating about the psychology of addiction. I swear I’m not trying to be scolding of your friends :S Langobard’s words just reminded me of those tales; “Candy” is told by a male character. They’re just fascinating stories. @Jennifer

    Jen – fascinating example you provided.

    It would utterly amaze you the amount of mental and emotional disorders and illnesses that are soooo disproportionately involved in the sordid lives of people who live this dirty lifestyle – especially, as you say, the (often severe) problem of addiction – and addictive personalities in general.

    I double-majored in Psych in college, and I distinctly remember a class where we dealt (somewhat directly) with this problem, the problem of promiscuity, and the deceitful and manipulative ends that its practioners, male and female alike, would engage in to satisfy their addictions, most especially that of pleasing their infantile ego’s and rampant narcissism.

    The underlying personality and genetic disorder(s) that almost always accompanied these pathological people were typically Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and even an often strong case of Attention Deficit Disorder.

    The root of most all addiction is often an inability to feel a sense of happiness, or specifically a sense of ‘reward’, that most other people would feel in engaging in normal, and especially non-manipulative human activities.

  144. Langobard August 22, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    I distinctly remember a class where we dealt (somewhat directly) with this problem

    Meant to say “where we dealt somewhat indirectly with this problem”

    @ Langobard and Jen

    I’ve graduated this year from high school and I plan on distancing myself from people like that in the future.

    Svar – you just graduated from high school?!? Wow.

    You are a young man wise beyond your years.

  145. Jennifer August 22, 2011 at 10:03 pm #

    Congrats to you, svar, and a wise choice :) I’ll keep your friends in prayer though. Thank you Langobard :)

  146. Svar August 23, 2011 at 5:38 am #

    That Joan of Arc episode pissed me off. To think that a little French, peasant girl(French and girl are basically redundant terms nowadays) could take on Richard the Lionheart, a strong-armed, iron-fisted, Christian king only three generations removed from his pagan Viking ancestors is a load of shit.

    Yes, Langobard, I am only 18 years old, but I’ve been doing some reading around the manosphere since I was 16. The manosphere has helped me out quite a bit. It helped me understand my own observations and experiences as well as helped me understand why men like Tucker Max got so much action. I knew that something was wrong with the picture but I couldn’t really put my finger on it.

  147. Svar August 23, 2011 at 9:11 am #

    Just trying to test something….

  148. Hana August 23, 2011 at 11:08 am #

    Hmm – if I had to make a scale, I guess my interpretation of the scale would be simple:

    1 extremely unfortunate-looking
    2 very unattractive
    3 unattractive
    4 somewhat unattractive
    5 plain/”neutral”
    6 somewhat pretty
    7 pretty
    8 very pretty
    9 beautiful
    10 stunning/impossibly beautiful

    I know, my scale is kind of vague. As far as this 10 point scale goes, though, Roissy claims beauty is objective, but I read a post of his on the royal wedding where the commenters were pretty divided on the attractiveness of Kate Middleton. She was ranked anywhere from a 6 to an 8 (there might even have been some references to 5 or 9). Likewise, I read his post where readers were invited to share and rate photos of women. This is resulted in some memorable squabbles – especially over a picture of an Asian woman who was rated “10” by the man who shared the photo, but who was judged to be merely pretty or average by everyone else. I guess beauty is objective to an extent – and past that extent, it simply comes down to personal taste. For example, I agreed with most of your “8s”, but I looked up photos of Evangeline Lilly and would probably see her as a “9.”

    Kassel, your scale makes the most sense to me, and The Man Who Was… makes sense to me as well. Most girls under 25 are probably at least a 6. After that, unfortunately, beauty starts to go downhill. The really remarkable women are the ones who stay attractive past their youth.

    As for Roissy, I think he probably is very insightful on the rules of female attraction and has explained a lot of things men probably didn’t understand before. After reading through his posts for a few days, I stopped reading his blog, because I felt like he was coming from a world I didn’t recognize – a world where it was basically impossible to maintain a long-lasting relationship, because of the near-impossibility of maintaining attraction. Attraction is the beginning of a relationship. After that is where love starts, and I don’t get the impression Roissy knows anything about love.

  149. Aunt Haley August 23, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    Hana–
    Men on the internet who rank Kate Middleton lower than a 7 are 99.9% likely to be a keyboard jockey. If beauty is objective, then I really can’t see any support for the idea that Middleton is anything less than cute at the very least. She has a symmetrical, well-proportioned face with attractive features (pretty smile, decent nose, nice eyes), and a tall, long-legged, slender body. She also has beautiful, healthy-looking, long hair. Maybe she has a 7 face, or a 6 face, even – but to me the whole package reads as an 8. Occasionally the sum is greater than the parts.

    The thing about rankings (which I mentioned in my original post) is that they’re objective only in consensus. Individual people might assign different rankings to the same person, but they’re unlikely to differ by a lot, kind of like how a figure skating judge might give a skater a 5.9 for artistry, and another judge might only give a 5.7 – but neither of them is going to give the skater a 4.9. Squabbling over whether a woman is a 7 or an 8 is moot in the large picture – ultimately, all are in agreement that she is attractive.

    Re: Roissy – he talks a lot about love being the reason to have a relationship, but for whatever reason, he doesn’t seem all that interested in finding a love that will go the distance (or putting in the work that can help him obtain such a love). But he’s definitely written enough about LTRs and has acknowledged that the majority of his readership is looking for a way to get an LTR that I don’t think that he thinks long-lasting love is impossible – just maybe too much work for diminishing returns (the depreciation of the woman’s SMV) to be worth it.

  150. Jennifer August 23, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    Interesting points, Hana and Haley. This is why I don’t worry too much about ratings.

  151. Dan in Philly August 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    Bragging here: Wifey after 3 kids and having been a while since her high school days is still an 8 when she rolls out of bed in the morning.

    As a consequence, she has had a lot of girls stop being friends with her. She thinks it’s something she did, and I try to tell her it’s not so much what she did as what she looks like. Her having never really been jealous of another woman’s looks, she remains dubious that one woman would break off a friendship just due to the looks of another…

  152. jay c August 23, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Halle Berry is a 7. She’s just ‘ok’.

  153. jay c August 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Elizabeth Taylor was an 8.
    And I agree with the above that Monica Bellucci is a 10.

  154. Jennifer August 23, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Oh come now: Monica a 10 but not Elizabeth Taylor??

  155. Svar August 23, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    Jen, c’mon now. How are you to know what makes a man’s tallywacker rise for duty?

  156. Jennifer August 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    She fits the common rules pretty well. But I’ve also found that men are often not as picky as the manosphere sometimes claims.

  157. Svar August 23, 2011 at 7:07 pm #

    Yes, Hana, I agree with your scaling.

    Jen, I was just making a crude joke. Elizabeth Taylor was hot but I personally find Vivian Leigh to be amazing. Monica Bellucci is great as well.

  158. Kathy August 23, 2011 at 7:58 pm #

    “Jen, c’mon now. How are you to know what makes a man’s tallywacker rise for duty?”

    Lol Svar! You’re a cheeky boy, you know that? ;)

  159. Langobard August 23, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

    …But I’ve also found that men are often not as picky as the manosphere sometimes claims.

    You are more right than you may imagine about this one, Jen.

    http://gothamist.com/2009/10/21/former_mets_gm_starring_in_fatal_at.php

  160. Jennifer August 23, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    Thanks for the link, Mano. Aww, she’s cute, but not the type that would normally turn a guy’s head.

  161. Svar August 24, 2011 at 5:09 am #

    Haha, Kathy, yes I do :P I haven’t seen you or talked to you in a long time. How have you been?

  162. Svar August 24, 2011 at 5:09 am #

    Jen, she looks like a dude with long-hair.

  163. Kathy August 25, 2011 at 1:11 am #

    I’m always good, Svar ;)..

    I see you are in fine form.

    Bet you have a line of chicks beating a path to your door. :D

  164. Svar August 25, 2011 at 5:23 am #

    “Bet you have a line of chicks beating a path to your door. :D”

    Heh, from the back door all the way to the end of the block :P I have them line up behind the back door so they don’t get in the way of the garage, haha.

  165. Kane August 25, 2011 at 9:09 am #

    I am not religious, though I was raised in a religious family and most of my family is still very religious. I have both protestants and catholics in my family. I consider myself culturally Christian and I have no intention of preventing my mom and aunts from taking my children to church in the future.

  166. Hana August 25, 2011 at 9:52 am #

    Haley: I agree, Kate (Duchess of Cambridge) has a pretty face and a beautiful figure that’s more exceptional than her face, but I’m only reporting what the so-called “objective” men on the Internet were saying.

    Although I do have a rant, somewhat similar to your “fits” over the GG storyline, about the media’s gushing over Kate (and William), during their American tour. But since I’ve realized it’s mostly specific to me and my own personal preferences (for royals to be both attractive and interesting people if possible, but preferring interesting over attractive if I can’t get both), I’ll keep my opinions to myself…because I’ve learned that there’s no point in starting a debate where personal tastes are concerned and there’s no absolute objectivity. (Which kind of relates back to the whole debatable middle range of the “10-point scale”, I guess.)

  167. The Man Who Was . . . August 25, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    Modelling tends to work like this: gay men and women are the initial gatekeepers, but heterosexual men are the one’s who decide become popular in the wider culture. The guy who runs Victoria’s Secret (and is very involved in picking the models) is a heterosexual male. He is somewhat limited by the fact that the agencies who supply him are run by women and gay males, so there are usually a couple superskinny, weird looking girls in the show. Nonetheless, most are just really attractive girls, mostly 9s. Furthermore, VS often finds (and launches the careers of) some very beautiful girls who aren’t the fashion model type. Heidi Klum and Tyra Banks, for example, are noticeably bigger than your average fashion model and thus would never have had much of a modelling career but for VS (and to a lesser extent Sports Illustrated). Another example of heterosexual influence is Walter Chin, the heterosexual SI photographer who, for example, launched Gisele Bunchen into the mainstream with that picture of her on a horse in GQ.

    Musical acts tend to be 7s and 8s, sometimes even 6.5s, due to the higher talent requirements. The only solid 9s I can think of in the mainstream music business are Beyonce and Gwen Stefani. Lady Gaga’s a 6.5, Katy Perry a 7.5, Kesha 7, Feist 7, Rihanna 8.5, Christina Aguilera 8.5, Taylor Swift 7.5, Carrie Underwood 8, Kelly Clarkson 7, Shakira 8, Britney Spears 8.5, Adele 6.5.

    I’d agree with Haley that a lot of actresses are 8s to 8.5s, about a point higher on average than those in music. The talent requirements for acting are less than those for music.

  168. The Man Who Was . . . August 25, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    1 extremely unfortunate-looking
    2 very unattractive
    3 unattractive
    4 somewhat unattractive
    5 plain/”neutral”
    6 somewhat pretty
    7 pretty
    8 very pretty
    9 beautiful
    10 stunning/impossibly beautiful

    Hana’s scale is exactly right.

  169. The Man Who Was . . . August 25, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    Grown women (and men) can be cute. The technical name for it is neoteny.

    Girls often use the word to mean mildly to moderately good looking, regardless of whether the person has any childlike features.

  170. Svar August 25, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    Yes, neoteny. It’s a trait that men select for in women and it’s not just limited to physical neoteny but emotional and mental neoteny. That is part of why men prefer submissive women.

  171. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    …Lady Gaga’s a 6.5…

    Hmmm, your being very generous here.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1191997/Lady-GaGa-unmasked-Singer-caught-make-romantic-beach-frolic.html

  172. y81 August 25, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    If you’ve ever had a two-year-old, you wouldn’t describe “submissiveness” as a juvenile characteristic. Rebellious little monsters. It’s only as you get older, male or female, that you learn not to kick against the spurs.

  173. Svar August 25, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    I hadn’t thought about it that way, Y81. I guess submissiveness isn’t an aspect of female neoteny.

  174. Aunt Haley August 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    Man Who Was–
    Christina Aguilera 8.5

    That’s a ranking for her voice, right?……..

  175. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    Britney Spears 8.5

    http://fanpixx.blogspot.com/2011/04/britney-spears-without-make-up.html

    You’re a very compassionate man, Man Who Was..

  176. The Man Who Was . . . August 25, 2011 at 3:02 pm #

    Langobard:

    Everybody looks awful under the right (wrong?) lighting conditions. Also, I was referring to them all at their peak.

    Britney at her best was clearly an 8.5. Pretty but not spectacular face, curvy but toned body.

    Lady Gaga: face 5.5 – 6, body 8, overall 6.5 seems fair.

    Haley:

    Aguilera is at least an 8:
    http://www.yaare.com/christina-aguilera-launch-a-clothing-range/

  177. Jenny August 25, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

    Britney was an 8.5, Christina an 8, Lady Gaga a 6.5…All out of reach for 99% of the male population. So, The Man Who Was…, if I’m understanding you correctly, any guy on this blog can’t realistically ever hope to get someone over a 6? So, then there’s really no point in any normal gals worrying?

  178. Svar August 25, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    “So, The Man Who Was…, if I’m understanding you correctly, any guy on this blog can’t realistically ever hope to get someone over a 6? So, then there’s really no point in any normal gals worrying?”

    I find this to be strange. The hottest girl I’ve gotten to lose her shit over me was an 8(according to my friends, I thought she was a 7). I’m not trying to brag, but I bring this point up because I don’t think that I’m that exceptional of a guy(I do have some good traits both alpha and beta) but an 8 is within reach for me.

  179. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    Britney was an 8.5, Christina an 8, Lady Gaga a 6.5…All out of reach for 99% of the male population.

    These ladies are certainly not ‘out of reach’ to to their genetic ‘beauty’ (or, realistically, lack thereof) – but due to their ‘celebrity’ status, which would make virtually any woman (and many men) waayyy overestimate their personal beauty, or worth in general. In other words, their hamsters are on permanent overdrive – with a (severe) caffeine addiction.

  180. Jenny August 25, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    A thought occurred to me: Men probably overrate women they’re attracted to, celebrity or not, beautiful or not, attainable or not.

  181. Jenny August 25, 2011 at 7:10 pm #

    Let me rephrase that:

    A thought occurred to me: Men probably overrate women they’re attracted to and/or get, celebrity or not, beautiful or not, attainable or not.

  182. Langobard August 25, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    A thought occurred to me: Men probably overrate women they’re attracted to and/or get, celebrity or not, beautiful or not, attainable or not.

    Very interesting observation, Jenny.

    Makes sense if you think about it – due to the salient fact that it is appreciably more challenging for the ‘average’ man to get a woman (easily 80% of all women) he is even fairly attracted to – than it is, conversely, for the average woman to get the attention of the man/men (approximately 20% of all men) she is attracted to. (However, as we all obviously know, a lot of the ‘attention’ these men give is often short-term and very non-committal – as was the case with former ESPN chief Steve Phillips and intern Brooke Hundley, with the link I provided earlier).

  183. OTC August 30, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    Jennifer: “God pretty much lays out the good advice men need, Svar. … Game partly threw me because guys seemed to be exaggerating things I thought everyone already knew (as in, don’t worship women, don’t strain yourself apologizing for something minor, don’t drool on her, etc).”

    This is NOT obvious and is a contradiction to me. Being raised Christian is the #1 thing that *instilled* all that bad advice and weakness into me. Even now, as I reread the Bible as an adult (seriously, I’m not trying not to be an atheist jerk, I’m trying hard to understand, but these old teachings are still very much a part of me) I have a very difficult time understand how it ever says stand up for yourself. It all says, be simpering suck-up and let people crap all you. That’s my take of the Bible now.

    J: “Feminism messed things up, then dark gamers messed things up further; now it could be a constant dirty cycle.”

    Yep. Feminist teaches all women to act like the worst of men, the worst men have adapted. The good guys are out of luck, until they get the attitude of “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”.

  184. Svar August 30, 2011 at 9:18 am #

    OTC, you make good points. The Bible can’t make men. Other men make men. Hell, the Book acknowledges this itself:

    “As iron sharpeneth iron, so one man sharpeneth another. Proverbs 27:17”

    I understand how you feel about Christianity. I felt the same way for a long time. I guess I was riffing off the European New Right/Nihilistic Right, but I do see your point. Regardless, I’ve realized that Boundless and “fluffy-love-bunnies and Jesus” style Christianity isn’t true Christianity.

  185. y81 August 30, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    “I have a very difficult time understand how [the Bible} ever says stand up for yourself.”

    My Bible says “The Son of Man came to bring not peace, but a sword.” My Bible features a hero who was exceptionally rude to the powers that be (Nicodemus, Pilate) even when they wanted to help him, who told people the truth even when it was rather tactless (the Samaritan woman, the rich ruler), who prophesied doom and destruction, who told the well-behaved people that prostitutes and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of Heaven before they did, etc. I don’t see anything about being a simpering suck-up.

  186. Jennifer August 30, 2011 at 1:04 pm #

    “Being raised Christian is the #1 thing that *instilled* all that bad advice and weakness into me”

    Then I’m sorry to say you didn’t do it correctly. And yes Svar, the Bible does make good men. Thank you for your excellent points y81. The Bible has a man tell off a pharaoh, a woman undo the foolish work of her husband, a woman kill a wicked general, a man tell off legalists (Paul), a woman force a bad man’s hand, a shepherd kill a giant, a servant scold a king, a country man defy the monarchy. The Bible preaches love, not weakness.

  187. OTC August 30, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    Jen: *I* didn’t do it correctly? Exactly is how a 3rd grader supposed to have the knowledge and experience to do it correctly? I did not ask or choose to be placed into a church, or to be raised with that worldview. I would say that the church did it incorrectly, not me. They have the responsbility for translating the Bible into something a kid can understand. And this kid only understood legalism which totally killed my faith, once I saw how the world really operated.

  188. OTC August 30, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

    You are all quoting obscure stuff that was never taught to me as a kid.

    Everything I ever heard stressed being a total wuss like “The meek shall inherit the earth” (meaning: be good, never get into a fight, and you will get good stuff later!) and “turn the other cheek” (meaning: let people abuse you and never stand up for yourself) and “if you look upon a woman with lust then you have committed adultery” (meaning, as soon as you open your eyes, you are in permanent state of sin and cannot hope to ever get out of it).

    I realize I have a terrible and wrong understanding of Christianity from your perspective, but this is how it was taught to me. And as I re-read the NT for the first time in 20-something years, that’s STILL how I read it. I can’t shake it off.

    The way Christianity taught in practice these days, is to tame natural alphas and do damage control. Some can’t be tamed at all. Some can, and become decent upper betas. Natural betas gladly follow the rules and turn into complete wimps.

    I recently discovered this article: http://www.christianblog.com/blog/blessings2you/the-ongoing-battle-legalism-vs-grace/ — this essay cut a hole in my soul.

  189. Jennifer August 30, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    You’re right OTC, I’m sorry; your church taught you incorrectly, and it’s sadly not uncommon. Many churches either teach to be too harsh or too peaceful, leaving out vital parts of Biblical truth and history. It needs to teach natural alphas to be Christian leaders rather than players, the way the SMP alphas are; I know many strong men who flourished from good Christian teaching. The Bible, as a whole, offers a multi-faceted view; Jesus was speaking against seeking revenge, not allowing abuse, with his other cheek example. His words about a sword over peace prove He does NOT tolerate abuse or sin.

  190. Langobard August 30, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    The way Christianity taught in practice these days, is to tame natural alphas and do damage control. Some can’t be tamed at all. Some can, and become decent upper betas. Natural betas gladly follow the rules and turn into complete wimps. @OTC

    This, in so many ways, is a very strong false dichotomy, OTC.

  191. terri August 31, 2011 at 4:10 am #

    Many churches either teach to be too harsh or too peaceful, leaving out vital parts of Biblical truth and history.

    This is true. Jesus was far from the simpering mass of a man we’re often told to think he was. He spoke the cold, hard truth and was often very less than tactful.

    I will say that we are to be willing to suffer personally if need be for a greater good, but never at the expense of the Truth. Never.

  192. y81 August 31, 2011 at 4:22 am #

    BTW, “turn the other cheek” does not mean “let people keep hitting you.” It means, give the person another chance, to do the right thing, i.e., kiss you on the cheek, which would have been the normal social greeting in those days. It’s the same point as Jesus made when telling us to forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven times.

    As for lust, you are in a permanent state of sin. All human beings are. (Although, if you are like most people, pride, greed and anger are likely to be more powerful and destructive forces than lust.) That was Jesus’ point: legalistic obedience of the rules against adultery or stealing or murder does not remove lust and greed and anger from your heart. Only the power of the Holy Spirit can do that.

  193. OTC August 31, 2011 at 4:53 am #

    Church did far more damage to me than good, and I’m trying to come to terms with how it all happened, now that I’m out and have a better perspective. All the stuff about strength you post is quite interesting, but it never reached my ears at all. Thanks, Jennifer for some compassion. Everyone else, not so much.

  194. Hana August 31, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    You know, something I’ve read and then thought about is that Jesus would have worked as a carpenter before the age of 30. Ever seen a carpenter who looks like this? http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk0irsPwRu1qj07b2o1_400.jpg

    More likely, Jesus had a rugged face and a broad-shouldered frame – not an angelic face and a teenage boy’s boy!

  195. Jennifer August 31, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    No problem, OTC. Wonderful points, Terri and Y81.

  196. Rodney January 9, 2012 at 6:05 am #

    I think the 1 to 10 scale is fairly objective. Back in the day when hotornot was genuine my choice of attractiveness level would invariably be within 2 points of the average consensus and if I picked according to how I thought the average voter would vote (disregarding my own taste) I would invariably be at most 1 point away from the average consensus. It is also a bell curve as I found out when I posted some test cases on hotornot (not me, stolen girl pics) so that I could have access to the distribution graphs (a 10 would be half a bell, I mean one that peaks at 10 and tails to the left. A 5 would be a symetrical bell curve).

    Now days of course since being taken over by a commercial entity and turned into a mostly dating site hotornot ranking bears no rhyme of reason and may as well be generated by a random number generator. In fact I don’t know any net site these days that does give honest rankings.

    And while we are on the topic my current 10 would be Selena Gomez. I once thought Elisha Cuthbert was a ten (not anymore more a 9) and certainly Katherine Zeta Jones in her prime years was a ten.

    No girl is perfect (for example with makeup done the wrong way Selena Gomez has eye sockets that are too sucken – see her video for “falling down”) but I don’t think a girl has to be perfect to be a ten. Selena Gomez is definitely a ten (at least in her videos “a year without rain” and “tell me something I don’t know” and “naturally” and pretty much everything apart from “falling down”.

    We aIso occasionaly get 10s at my church (its a big 5000 member church – 2/3 are women, a lot single) certainly we get quite a few 9s. There’s at least two 10s at my church and probably about six 9s.

  197. Rodney January 9, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Wow I can post vids in this blog. In that case this is what a ten look slike (to me anyway)

    here is another one

    I’m not obsessed (but why oh why is she with Justin Bieber when she could have me? I don’t get it).

  198. Nicole September 8, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

    I am going to sound like a cat here…but…I did not get it when ‘player guy’ turned his attention to the receptionist who shared that job with me. She was grossly overweight but her face was not entirely unfortunate. Men gathered around her because she commanded it…I even found out her astrological signs…Moon in Leo, and they HAVE to be the center of attention.
    I saw her remove her ‘jacket top’ at the front desk and noted how big this woman was…a real bruiser.
    When I did more investigation into her astrological readings, it stunned me to read that she was considered an object or trophy on a man’s arm…and he would get a lot of kudos for having her on his arm. She was also referred to as magnetically sexy…the player who had been after me acted like he was in total lust with her. She was, quite simply, not a pretty woman and very overweight.
    Can personality make a man believe a woman to be hot? But in the astrology readings it indicated she was. A friend of mine suggested I somehow get her high school picture, when she may have been much slimmer, and see how cute she was. I could not do this as “Classmates.com” does not allow access to another’s yearbook…and yearbooks are not always available.
    Can anyone explain this to me? I received a lot of attention, even competition between player guy and his rival (we all worked together), but then huge woman with just an average face is suddenly in the spotlight. And the astrology confirms all of this…that she even ‘basked’ under the gaze of this player and he made her feel like ‘prey’. (he had done that to me too).

  199. Mondana Irani October 15, 2013 at 11:54 pm #

    i hate being a 6/7. im hoping if i can shed these last 15 pounds i can be an 8. hopefully! Also, rating people is rude. we are not objects. idk i hate that i play into when i think of myself even.

  200. anon November 11, 2013 at 11:54 am #

    Kim Kardashian is NOT a 9. Ewww. And all the plastic surgery she has had done makes her so much more repulsive. She is not the standard for ultimate attractiveness. Sorry. She might be an 8, but not a 9. Sorry. Not that good looking.

  201. YouDOntNeedToKNow December 28, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

    THIS IS DISGUSTING . I am appalled at the things said. 1, that you are scoring woman at all! 2. Did you REALLY just say the woman who stand for things and are educated are less attractive? The word you say do have influence. You are a misogynistic, anit feminist, who is not a very good role model. You should be saying women be empowering women to love hem self and be confident. NOT TELLING THEM IF THEY ARE BLOW A 5 THEY WONT GET BANGED. PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE ME LOSE MY FATE IN THE WORLD. GET YOU HEAD OUT OF YOU SATAN LOVING ASS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY!

  202. Samson J. December 29, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

    ^ decent rant. I give it a 6/10.

  203. Seth Connor December 31, 2013 at 2:03 pm #

    Lol. Failtroll is fail. 2/10 (not 1/10 b/c of purposeful misspellings).

  204. Hana August 19, 2014 at 4:41 pm #

    I wonder how much men respond to little things that don’t even fit with the 10-point scale…like demeanour, how much a girl smiles, how ‘girly’ and friendly she acts, hormonal balance (it sounds weird but I have a reason for thinking of it…)

    A few months ago, I went on medication that fixed a lot of things for me…with hormones and energy levels, mostly. I probably look better, but I’m still *me*…just feeling much better on the *inside*, but now I’m wondering if I’m coming across much differently to people on the outside, too. At first it was just random strangers pursuing me, but now it’s Christian men who never seemed interested before. I’m in the position of having multiple boys *who are actually attractive to me* showing an interest in me, whereas before that didn’t happen so much.

    Eieieiei.

  205. Red August 19, 2014 at 5:18 pm #

    Hana, I agree with you. They’re easily blinded. Especially if there’s a mob pursuing one woman, they’ll fall in with the mob. They fall for makeup and camera angles and dresses.

    I was on a medication for a while, and I had no sex drive and became super quiet. Had men calling me beautiful and junk. It was because I was this huge challenge. What a dumb system, where having no drive is the ideal.

  206. Red August 19, 2014 at 5:29 pm #

    I also get what you mean by, “but I’m still me.” I know I don’t speak for every woman, but my way of determining like for a guy is based on how it would be to live with that person under everyday circumstances. “Most people can’t see beyond their own nose.” They see the competition over someone, or are drawn to something immediate in someone, and they want their heaven on earth right here, right now. They want to *win* and get the girl/ guy. They want to be the character in the movie.

  207. Hana August 19, 2014 at 5:45 pm #

    Yeah…it’s odd to realize how much men pursue off very little…just first impressions.

    I am 90% sure you’re right and that men are attracted to the fashion of the day, the Hollywood look, or whatever. Would modern-day men find 20’s styles with cloche hats, crimped hair and ankle-length skirts attractive? Or the corsets and trimmings of the 1800s? Some of attraction is innate, but some of it is definitely influenced by the fashions of the era. Well, I think it has to be, to the point that people condition themselves to find certain things attractive if most people wear them…or they wouldn’t find anyone attractive at all! :P

  208. Red August 19, 2014 at 6:31 pm #

    I’ve actually been researching this: it’s long, straight hair (blonde or brunette, depending on region), smokey eye, button-up shirts. If you want to do your hair up, never put it in a bun, braid it, preferably to the side. You can easily get away with fake lashes. Big hair seems pretty popular now, but make sure it seems soft.

    There are certain fragrances that men find appealing, and fragrance is a big part of it. I was always told that I smell nice. You don’t have to spend that much on it: go for an oriental smell from the grocery store products, or go for basically any body spray in a pink bottle. You can put some fragrance in your hair too.

    You can buy clothes cheaply if you find a big Salvation Army. Just get colors that match your color season, and find flattering fits, and that’s what looks good on you. The more clothes you have, the better, because men like to see women sport different looks.

    What I need to learn is how to get good-looking guys to hang out with me in public places. If you can just get one or two guys to associate themselves with you (not even date) at certain functions, it makes you seem more attractive. I think it’s easier for men to do this than women, because women see it as a friendzone thing, and men see it as a “please marry me” thing.

  209. Hank Flanders August 19, 2014 at 8:29 pm #

    Well, Red, if you need a wing man, you know where to find me. As you know, a wing man can help provide social proof. :) A wing woman could help provide me with social proof, too. I’ve actually been trying to figure out a way to create such an arrangement without feelings getting in the way or money having to be spent (but I’ve come up empty so far).

  210. Red August 19, 2014 at 10:42 pm #

    No, Hank, I don’t know where to find you. :P

    Seriously, tho, we’d be such pimps.

  211. Hank Flanders August 20, 2014 at 5:40 am #

    “Find” meaning you know where you can contact me, or should I just contact you? Yes, I finally put it together about our past encounters, but it wasn’t as easy as you might think. In any case, you know what state I’m in and whether you’re anywhere nearby…

  212. Red August 20, 2014 at 6:44 am #

    You live on the other side of the world!

  213. Hank Flanders August 20, 2014 at 7:20 am #

    Actually, I live on another planet, Mars, and you’re from Venus, if I recall correctly. Anyway, I think we can still make it work. Just take a picture of yourself with your arm out, and we’ll photoshop me in and post it to our facebook accounts. :)

  214. Hank Flanders August 20, 2014 at 7:42 am #

    By the way, I’m in the US, not Asia, but you already knew that, right?

  215. Red August 20, 2014 at 9:58 am #

    No thanks, I already have a selfie with Benedict Cumberbatch like that.

    No way! I thought you were super-Asian!!! O_O

  216. Hank Flanders August 20, 2014 at 10:19 am #

    I realize that I’m as handsome as he is, so one with me would be just as unbelievable as one with him.

  217. Hank Flanders August 20, 2014 at 10:21 am #

    Therefore, I can understand your not wanting to post yet another photograph that your friends won’t find convincing.

  218. Red August 20, 2014 at 10:22 am #

    No, I could definitely get with Cumberbatch, he just hasn’t met me yet…

  219. Mondana August 20, 2014 at 11:45 am #

    Looks are important. However I used to think it was what I looked like that was why people would dump me. It’s good and bad. I realized it’s not my looks at all but mostly other things! So don’t worry so much and focus on being the best you!!

  220. tine April 28, 2016 at 4:30 pm #

    Is it appropriate/reliable to use in research thingy?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. What’s your number, Shawty? [summer blog debut post] | It is what it is...Isn't it? - May 26, 2014

    […] trouble to read these articles. Which, now thinking about it, I conclude it was stupid. I found this blog  which happened to be on WordPress, which then reminded me that i was yet due to write the summer […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s