Thoughts on Looks & Game

Yesterday, Rollo delved into the realm of Looks & Game with his post “Looks Count“. I highly recommend reading it if you haven’t already. More importantly, I highly recommend reading the study that he linked to, “Why is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis.” It is a fascinating read, and well worth trudging through the scientific language and all that which often holds people back from reading these kinds of things.

A few takeaways from the study (nothing too huge if you read Roissy and substitute built for alpha and scrawny/fat for beta)

1. How built you are can have a big impact on your sexual success. A man’s build (a part of looks) is more important than conventional game wisdom would have you think. More built men have more partners.
2. Women perceive built men to be more fit for reproduction, but less reliable as stable providers, so they are more open & ready to short term mating with built men, and also often only expect short term mating from it
3. Women perceive weakly built men as more reliable for long term mating, but less desirable for short term mating. They may even cuckold the wimpy dude with a built dude when ovulating because built dude’s genes are deemed more worthy
4. While not pertinent to this post, but fascinating nonetheless, women may alter their short-term/long-term expectations based on their circumstances and how attractive they are (ugly chicks will subconsciously disqualify themselves from short term mating with built men because they know built men won’t commit to them, thus a trade off between genes and investment. Also, short term mating becomes a much bigger preference if she doesn’t require provisioning/investment a.k.a Modern America a.ka. why are you trying to get a girlfriend instead of playing the field?)

While these kinds of studies are never perfect, they are illuminating nonetheless. Just by looking at pictures of men with different builds, the women (college chicks, by the way) made snap judgments about all kinds of qualities about the man, such as his sexual desirability and physical dominance. Unsurprisingly, “built” scored the highest on desirability and “brawny” rated the highest for dominance. Both excellent qualities to have, even better if they are being attributed to you before you open your mouth.

Which begs the question- if you are not actively trying to get bigger, why? As the study suggests, you are granted positive default traits just by being muscular. It’s basically free. Only cost- getting to the gym 3+ times a week.

More muscle->Look better, more genetically desirable->Get faster, easier notches

As always, there is the usual caveat: Game is more important than looks. However, as Rollo points out and the study suggests, your looks can take you very far. What some aspies fail to realize is that it isn’t an either-or tradeoff. Work on your game, and your body. When you have good looks, it gets so much easier. Play every card in the deck, be the Complete Man, you dingus.

Which brings me to my next thought: Taking your good looks into effect when developing your game.

For men who have good looks, things change a bit. Much has been made on various threads and forums about the differences in one’s approach if you are good looking because the tactics need to be tweaked.

If you are a good looking dude, I want to stress one thing above anything else: Always assume attraction. Always. Because it’s there.

This is the kind of message guys like Assanova at Real Made Men try to hammer into good looking guys on a near daily basis. In posts like “It’s All Just Small Talk“, “Know That You Are Attractive” and “Losers Use Game“, his advice to good looking men all revolves around  the central fact that the chick already finds you attractive (while he conflates Game with PUA in a purposefully inflammatory manner, his points are spot on). Your job is to run with it, continue to build desire in little ways, and not out-think yourself and fuck up. If you have looks, you don’t need to get very fancy with routines, neg the shit out of her, or anything like that to build attraction.

I do, however, believe that Game in the broader (non-PUA) sense is still necessary, even if you need to focus on different things as you come along. All one needs to do is look at how I was before I came across any of this stuff: Needy, unconfident, and very passive. My blessedly good genetics got me laid every now and then, but almost wholly because aggressive pursuit by the girl. I didn’t know what the fuck I was doing, and my high school/not senior year of college experience is littered with the carcasses of aborted relationships with some of the hottest chicks in the metro because I had pedestalization and neediness issues, was a nice guy, and had next to no confidence. And my early “game intro period” saw a few prospective chicks lost because I over-gamed and didn’t assume attraction.

Understanding sexual dynamics by way of Roissy and Roosh helped patch up my shit and set me along the path I was destined to take. It is necessary for all men.

One final addition: Looks encompass a lot of things, and are highly malleable for men. For men not gifted with great genetics, there are many ways to improve your looks, and the way I see it a lot of “average” looking men are only a few steps away from unlocking serious potential. Getting bigger, as already covered. Lose fat. Dressing fresh, having style- very advantageous. Good skin, good hair, and maybe a 5 o’clock shadow. Tweaking even these small things can bring huge benefits. Combine a slick outfit or suit with some other changes, and you can vault yourself to the top real quick to that point where a lot of what you need is confidence and the ability not to fuck up.