Woman did not evolve to find smart guys or "nice" guys attractive. Woman are programmed to find the leader of the pack attractive, even if said leader is an ahole. Fortunately, most well raised woman were taught with their rational minds to be wary of the jerk and to go for the gentleman. So rationally they want the nice guy, but the animal mind wants the leader of the pack. This creates conflict. If you've ever been in a situation where you've had a close female friend tell you - "you're a nice guy, but I'm sorry, I'm just attracted to you. I really wish I was, but I'm not" - you know what I mean.
The answer is not to become to an asshole, but you should cultivate an air of being more like a leader of the pack. Note you do not have to actually be a leader of a group of guys to do this. It's just about sending the right signals to the female's animal mind.
Things you can do to give that impression are: be confident when approaching girls, do not be needy or give off signs of desperation, tease her, be interesting, give off a sense of bemused indifference, don't act like your trying too hard, do not be afraid to touch her on the arm or shoulder, flirt with her friends, etc. I learned this stuff through experience and friends, but there are sources on the internet that can greatly speed up the process. You can read the archives of Roissy's blog, but be warned, it's very not PC - http://roissy.wordpress.com/
I expected that link to be the general "girls love jerks, so act like one" pick-up artist BS, but quite to the contrary. The tip/story about going to house parties once in a relationship is particularly relevant (and something I wish I'd have read in my younger days!).
That being said, lot of the time most of the guys who complain that they can't get a girlfriend because they're "a nice guy" are generally just inexperienced and going after women who are out of their league. If they lowered their expectations -- and actually made an effort to find out what they really are looking for (rather than drive themselves insane over women they saw as "perfect") -- they wouldn't have had that complaint.
Roissy is, well, Roissy. He's unique, intelligent, and not just another cookie-cutter PUA (Although, your view of PUA seems skewed to me. Acting like a jerk is only one of a dozen styles that are taught, and is almost always recommended to be performed in a playful manner).
Roissy should come with a warning label, though. He is the dark side. A Nietzsche-an amoral creature. His front page is remarkably tame at the moment, for him.
This "leader of the pack" thing is overrated IMO. Being the leader of a bunch of boisterous pussymen doesn't make you attractive, quite the opposite. Depending on the environment, you may appear more attractive being the strong, silent type minding his own business.
I agree, my use of the term "leader of the pack" was imprecise. Women are attracted to a mix of strength, status, command, and dominance. If you are a leader of a low-status pack, or a pack that appears desperate and trying to hard, it's not going to help you very much.
"Alpha Male" would be a better term. It doesn't imply that you should be constantly trailed by a bunch of frat breauxs, but it does mean that you're capable of leadership.
I recommend you have a look at Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind. While I agree with what you said, I think you got the evolution part a bit wrong.Meaning that women are indeed programmed to like the smart guy. The problem is, they want both, smart and strong; and who can blame them :)
You're blaming evolution for womens' generally execrable tastes in men, but the source of the problem is likely cultural and psychological.
A large proportion of American women have been raised with an unspoken and often subliminal belief that sex is filthy, painful and degrading. This association is formed at a young age and most women are not aware that they have it, but it leads them to become attracted to men who are boorish, stupid, and threatening, rather than the intelligent and decent guys. Often, they are actually completely incapable of being sexually attracted to men who don't threaten and degrade them on, at the least, a subconscious level. This is what's at hand in the case of "you're a nice guy, but I'm sorry, I'm just attracted to you. I really wish I was, but I'm not".
This doesn't describe the majority of women or relationships, but it does describe nearly all of the sexually "loud" women. It seems paradoxical, but promiscuous women almost always have this subconscious distaste for sex, while relatively chaste women often have only a trace of it.
The generally chaste girls are the same way, they still go for the strong guy over the "nice" guy. Girls that have been taught all their life to go for the nice guy, still find themselves attracted to the bad boy. The evolutionary/genetic explanation seems to fit my observations the best.
I actually think men get some blame for the "girls falling for aholes" problem. I think too many quality men listened to their mothers and school teachers, who said the key is to be a nice guy. The assholes never listened, and learned on the street to win girls via strength. Thus only the assholes act strong and get the girl, while the nerds lose out. The solution is that the good men need to grow a backbone. Then women will be able to find men who they are both attracted to and are good partners.
"they still go for the strong guy over the "nice" guy"
The antonym to strong is weak, not nice. I think people often forget that girls, particularly sane and intelligent ones, do not reject the prototypical "nice guy" because he is nice but because he is a pushover. That is, weak. You can be strong and nice. In fact, I think the strongest ones usually are "nice" or considerate because they can afford to, whereas at least where I'm moving, being an asshole or abrasive is a sign of weakness.
He didn't mean antonym, which is why he mentioned at the end girls could then find both a nice and strong guy. In other words, it's less likely for nice guys to have the trait, but not impossible: they don't have it because they didn't attempt it since they simply listened to girls who didn't know (or weren't willing to admit) what they wanted.
In my experience, girls do want first and foremost an alpha male, and being a nice guy on top of that makes it even better. It's just not a necessity so the jerks can succeed without that quality, whereas the nice guys can't succeed without "dominance."
It came about for evolutionary purposes, I'm sure, and the magnitude of their influence is quite debatable, and varies greatly from person to person. But do you believe status is not a factor in the eyes of most girls (this is, of course, simply a generalization)?
I'm sure you have friends who you would consider incredibly nice, but very shy, guys who never could get a girlfriend, and plenty of jerky, but confident, guys who you wonder why girls would date. Confident guys, even when not nice, just seem to win out over really nice, but not at all confident, guys. Guys with both win out over both. Whether or not it's a bad thing is your call.
(I'm not arguing guys are above their primitive desires: not by any means, it's just not the focus of this discussion.)
There's a difference between being physically strong, having a backbone as you put it, and being a badboy. There are extremely muscular men who are very nice people, and there's also a huge middle ground (into which most men fall) between being a boorish badboy and a spineless pansy.
If a woman has a preference for muscular men, or skinny hipsters, or even fat men, that's fine. We all have our physical preferences. And the fact that women want to date men with enough spine to have meaningful character is a good thing. However, women who are attracted to loud, boorish, and stupid badboys are utter garbage.
The attraction to badboys is not aesthetic; many badboys are out of shape and ugly. I think the appeal of the badboy is that it provides release from the pressure that is put on women to "marry up". It's not looked down upon for a man to marry a woman less ambitious and intelligent than he is, as long as she's good on her own merits (e.g. if he's a Wall Street quant with a 155 IQ, and she's in a lifestyle career and has a 130 IQ, that's fine, because she's still a smart woman who can hold her own in intelligent conversation). Women, however, are expected to marry men with at least the same level of earning potential and intelligence, because of a lingering concern with gender roles and the expectation that the man will be equal or dominant. This obviously places a lot of pressure on high-power women. The appeal of the badboy is that, although he's virtually never intelligent or ambitious, he's dominant on account of his sheer arrogance and narcissism, but at the same time worthless enough that he can be flippantly discarded. This enables the woman to enter a relationship where she takes a submissive role, but one that has an "off switch"; she can leave without pain, since it's unlikely that she'll form an emotional attachment to such a useless and defective man.
I think there are a lot of men who have the same complex. There are a lot of men who are attracted to vapid and bitchy women-- the popular bubbly/slutty girl. They have a similar mindset: sex is an embarrassing, dissatisfying, and stupid activity in their worldview, and they seek out the sorts of women who are likely to confirm their nightmarish vision.
sex is an embarrassing, dissatisfying, and stupid activity in their worldview, and they seek out the sorts of women who are likely to confirm their nightmarish vision.
I don't think we need an HN poll on this to disconfirm. The mindset of most men chasing sex seems to be based on the fact that it feels very good. Period. No nightmares needed.
Woman are programmed to find the leader of the pack attractive, even if said leader is an ahole.
That's the key point - alpha characteristics/interactions trump everything else. Girls like alpha assholes despite them being assholes, not the other way 'round.
This is completely wrong, because women who like alpha males have those preferences because they've been taught that sex is degrading, humiliating, and painful, and are therefore attracted to men who are likely to humiliate and damage them. Therefore, the attraction is because of these men being assholes.
Asking "aren't women allowed to prefer an alpha male without being accused of wanting to be degraded?" is like "aren't red octagons allowed to have 'STOP' written on them without being accused of being stop signs?"
No one is accusing anything. You don't see the red sign and "accuse" it of being a stop sign. You realize immediately that it is a stop sign (pattern recognition) and behave accordingly. Behaving accordingly with respect to such women is avoiding them entirely.
I wonder if we're using the same phrase but meaning two different things.
If what you're calling an "alpha male" is a domineering asshole, I actually agree with you 100%. There are definitely dysfunctional women who like that kind of guy and I've learned to steer clear.
If we're talking about "alpha male" in the evolutionary psychology sense (i.e. conveying confidence, virility, and leadership), though, I think you're incorrect to say that women who look for those traits in a partner are just looking to be degraded.
The women who believe that are the women who grew up in households where it was true, or who believe that they are worthless for some reason and don't deserve any better. A small minority of women, in fact.
If you see that mentality in most of the women you meet, then you're missing something about them or about the men they like. Or you're hanging out in strip clubs.
1. A number of people in the US find sex to be degrading and harmful, at least on a subconscious level, while most reasonable people would only apply those epithets to a small subset of sexual activity.
2. People who harbor unhealthy beliefs (such as those described in 1) have a tendency to behave in suboptimal ways according to those beliefs, often with results that confirm them. An example of this is the misogynist/misandrist; people who believe that all members of the opposite sex tend to repel quality partners and have a very limited range of experience, and those negative experiences reinforce their beliefs.
3. Men who fit into the stereotypical "alpha" category strive to humiliate and damage women; thus, sex with them is, in fact, harmful and degrading.
4. Ergo, according to (2), women brought up with the attitude described in (1) are likely to be sexually attracted to the sorts of men described in (3).
"In social animals, the alpha is the individual in the community whom the others follow. Where one male and one female fulfill this role, they are referred to as the alpha pair"
Girls want to be part of an alpha pair, it's as simple as that. I think you are projecting your own warped ideas about sex ("humiliation") onto this. But hey, whatever floats your boat, we're all grownups here.
The concept of "alpha" is highly variable among species and therefore doesn't generalize easily. In humans, it describes the type of man who would have a large number of wives in a pre-monogamous society-- narcissistic, brutal, detached, and without conscience.
Healthy women don't want to be anywhere around those sorts of men, who tend to be abusive husbands and terrible fathers. However, a certain class of psychologically damaged woman does tend to find that type of man sexually attractive.
A number of people in the US find sex to be degrading and harmful, at least on a subconscious level, while most reasonable people would only apply those epithets to a small subset of sexual activity.
Heh, I doubt this phenomenon is endemic to the U.S.
One thing that helped me a lot: investing some money in some salsa dancing lessons. First of all, I actually enjoy it, it's fun (if you don't like it you wont' get far). Second, it's sort of cool, compared to, say, talking about startups and computers with someone who is potentially not interested in either one. Also, it's something where practice does pay off, and where you can't fake it, so investing some time will get you results. It's a real dance, too, between a man and a woman (well, a couple in any case, but we'll leave out the PC stuff for the sake of convenience) where the man leads and the woman follows, and they hold on to one another, not one of those flaily club type dance things. You can learn a lot about someone in a 2 or 3 minute dance with them, actually, and if you go to the right sort of clubs, people often change partners, so you have the chance to dance with lots of different people (so it's sort of like speed dating, but not so silly) and see what works out. Most places I've ever been to, people are having fun and smile, which I find a lot more attractive than the pouty, I'm-too-cool look. Oh, and finally, women who know how to really dance salsa are hot. Moving and swaying like that really adds something! Getting up the confidence to ask people to dance is really good too. You'll get shot down lots too, but you learn to deal with that.
Totally. I did it not so long ago (still am) and it's a brilliant confidence boost; everyone's there for the same reason, so it's not like just going to some club and hoping someone there will talk to you! You've got something in common, something to have a laugh about with every person there.
Go into it with the right attitude and you will have fun. Don't fall into the trap that some men do and think "ooh, such-and-such a magazine says salsa classes will get me laid", cause on their own they won't. Girls there can spot the guys who go there with one intention from miles off and won't dance with them. Go there with the intention to have a bit of a giggle, meet a few new people, make a bit of a tit of yourself on occasion (something we ALL need!) and learn some sexy moves while you're at it and the world is your oyster.
(Sorry for the disjointed response, I'm rushing out of the door! Will probably come back and write more later.)
Exactly - I should clarify the "helped me a lot" in my previous post was more in terms of meeting lots of people and having fun than going home every night with some girl (although the owner of our favorite place once impressed us by showing up, spotting some girl, dancing a few songs and then heading out the door together). It eventually worked out pretty well because the woman I ended up marrying liked going dancing a lot when we first met:-)
> Don't fall into the trap that some men do and think "ooh, such-and-such a magazine says salsa classes will get me laid"
You might go just to meet people or just because you've always wanted to learn how to dance.
Salsa dancing is a meritocracy. Women want to dance with men who can lead well to the music. Why wouldn't they?
To be honest, if you have the hacker mindset, the danger of taking on Salsa dancing, is it will become a pursuit and a hobby. You might get addicted. I've been for over 2 years. You might go to your first class and flail but then you will see real dancers dance and be sucked in (I want to do that).
The hacker mindset of 'how can I figure this out/what is the hack to dancing' might hook you. Yes, there are tricks to become a better dancer faster (number one - start asking women to dance when the song is more than half-over as a beginner - so you don't run out of moves). The whole idea of going from canned set routines to dancing to the music is a bit of difficult hack that I'm still working on (but making progress). The hack for that I think is understand the structure of the song - (real-time Fourier analysis of a set of eight measures of 8-beats each..with your feet)
It is much harder for guys to learn Salsa dancing because they have to lead (see Salsa hell link below). The look of a woman with the most bored look in her eye because you don't know what you're doing while the music is on is something you will experience many times. Can't simulate social dancing. Classes are good/bad because the woman knows the pattern exactly (simulates being a good lead w/o being one)
At some point, if you get addicted, it will stop being about meeting people and joining a community of people who love music and dancing. A community where you can escape the real world 8 beats at a time. As addictions go, I think it is a pretty good one to have. As the "Magic of Time" article below illustrates, if you stick with it and continue dancing/practicing/going to classes, you will become competent (many guys will quit after several classes or two months but in two years' time, just by continuing trial and error, you start getting better by default).
If you choose to take on Salsa, good luck - it's not about you, it's about her, you, and the music.
"The Unlikely Salsero - Magic of Time: Last One Standing"
Just about the exact same experience with swing dancing as well. It's a slightly different crowd: higher energy, more into the flourish than the candles, but still it's easy to learn, fun to do, and a wonderful way to meet women.
Is that still a going concern? I was aware of it being quite a fad during the late 90ies, when one of my favorite bands, the Cherry Poppin' Daddies (from my hometown of Eugene) got caught up in it, despite being an extremely eclectic band. I guess it stuck with some people? Good thing; it's fun music and I could see it having a similar vibe. Salsa can be pretty high energy too, I think, although if you're treating it as a series of acrobatics, it loses a little something - there's got to be some sensuality there too.
The swing dancing fad that you experienced has evolved into a vibrant community of Lindy Hop and related dances. It's relatively small, and few people are aware of its existence... but it's very robust and spread across the world. I would say the community's size is on the same order of magnitude as that of ballroom dancing.
I started doing it 6 years ago. I've been stuck doing it ever since, because of my hacker mindset, but also because of the social scene. Imho, Swing is actually much better for hackers... plenty of women, it's full of other hackers, everyone's a bit geeky, and many folks are hyper-creative and artsy. It's also easy to learn but hard to master... lots of challenge when you get really into it.
I must note that the vast majority of people have many misconceptions about swing dancing. What you saw in the fad bears little resemblance to what's done today. No one really plays Cherry Poppin Daddies or other similar pseudo-swing punk music. Lots of swing DJs are true music geeks, and play swing, soul, blues, and R&B at dances. Real swing dancing is much more about having feeling and jazz musicality than it is about acrobatics. Think of it as tap dancing with a partner. The acrobatics are definitely still around, but are basically restricted to performance. Yes, Swing is not as seductive as Salsa, but the emotion is definitely there.
Swing dancing is a lot of fun. It seems to be somewhat popular around the few colleges in the area. Swing is somewhat simple, and like you said, it can be really high energy.
Sounds like a great idea, especially for people that spend most of their time in an engineering school. It puts you in a different crowd and takes you outside of the sexless place you spend your days.
YES! Dancing lessons and vocal training! Your movement and your tone of voice is the most inportant parts of your nonverbal language!
Each thing alone could be very useful. Take a look at those ballet boys! Even heir casual movements is an artisty, like movements of beast. The voice has an enormous power when developed well. You know all those famous BBC announcers, and of course, famous singers. But together it will be stunning.
And of course, such experience will add +1000 to your self-confidence!
Practice is the best teacher!
An incredibly masculine-focused article even if it made plenty of attempts to try to generalise across both the sexes.
Being a smart woman gives you totally different dating prospects than being a smart guy (and not just the obvious). Seriously.
It also gives you reasons to turn off the opposite sex that don't seem to be mentioned in the article - for example a lot of women play it dumb for fear of intimidating the guy they're flirting with. I've even caught myself doing it, which is saying a lot - I wear my IQ and education like a suit of armour most of the time.
I wear my IQ and education like a suit of armour most of the time
It's interesting how smart people build up various defenses to keep people at bay -- including hyper-competitiveness.
I remind my wife that you're supposed to let the boys win once in a while when we play cards, and we both get a laugh. She is merciless on my ego.
But there's something to be said for fitting in, going with the flow, taking things as they happen. That's not to say to act dumb, just being in the moment at a rock concert probably isn't going to elicit Shakespearean quotes. There's a fine line between being smart and acting smart. Appearing smart is not necessarily a desirably externalized attribute in all social situations.
for example a lot of women play it dumb for fear of intimidating the guy they're flirting with
Ironically enough, this doesn't seem like a very intelligent strategy. I definitely get it, but it doesn't seem like a very wise approach in the long-term. What kind of partner would you end up with by hiding one of your most prized qualities?
1. Sex is overrated. Like they said in the 40 year old virgin, don't put the pussy on a pedestal. If someone doesn't like you for who you are, they are probably not worth the time to sleep with. Find someone you can love, it's a much more rewarding experience, trust me.
2. If you are bent on being a "player", and you are smart (truly smart, not just smart as in able to program smart), then you can probably learn how to do it. Human beings are not that complicated.
1 - I would argue that truly good sex, despite all hype, is yet highly underrated.
I expect few people experience it though. Contributing factors include accumulated skill, anatomical compatibility, mindset, mood, physical fitness, etc. It's an outlier.
I'll sum it up: for a nice guy, the onus is on the female to say "yes" to his advances (if any) and for the dark-triad male, the onus is on her to say "no" to his advances.
As sexuality today is still very much mostly a powerful unconscious drive, it is harder for most females to say "yes" than "no," because saying yes is a conscious decision and the female instead finds it easier to remain passive to her powerful unconscious side around these aholes, and which is why she's even interested in either in the first place.
Aholes can muscle in on the nice guy, and we have not reached the tipping point for many females to take better control of their sexuality.
In the end you can be a nice guy, but when the ahole comes along, be prepared. Don't leave it up to her to say yes.
I think you're definitely onto something here, and I think the guy who puts himself out there and puts the onus on the woman to say 'no' instead of waiting for her to say 'yes' is more successful for a few reasons.
1. As you say, it's easier and less risky for the woman to remain passive and not make the conscious decision to say yes to the 'nice' guy who's waiting for her.
2. There is a lot of social pressure on females to not be a 'slut'. This is becoming less than it used to be but is also subtle and ingrained into society. By remaining passive and letting the man chase, she avoids the possibility of seeming promiscuous.
3. Some of the other comments are saying this as well: the theory that women have evolved to be attracted to a leader. Leadership, strength and confidence are demonstrated by a guy who will go out of his way to pursue a woman, even despite her initial coquettishness and playing hard to get. By doing this he shows that he's a confident man who has balls and is not afraid to get what he wants - themselves apparently attractive qualities in a bloke.
Also, the alpha and dark males probably get the bigger rejections, and that's what the nice guys are seeking to avoid. So that's another factor for the struggling males, being able to pursue but then being able to pick yourself up after a rejection.
There's another factor at work to, 'consent.' A nice guy wants the interaction to be consensual, and it should be, but in a way she doesn't because as you say there's a stigma to it, but then again if she never gives consent, she'll not only end up attracting the aholes and be quietly looking for them to satiate her 'guilty pleasures', but also on the downside she'll lock herself out of the nice guys because giving consent will be too painful, and when she does, he may be ultimately turned off.
In the end, she'll marry a somewhat inexperienced nice bloke to raise the kids after being used and abused by the aholes, and she may cheat on him if her issues are unresolved.
If you can't find a truly nice girl or someone you really connect with, you can go for someone younger, that also can be easier.
Another tip to ride the depression out: even though you want to call the new babe straight away, don't, no matter how excited you are, wait until the excitement wears off to the point you're almost depressed again, so to speak, then call. If she rejects you (she probably won't), it won't matter, you've found your center.
The guy has a number of things backward or set in stone.
First off you can have your cake and eat it. You don't actually need to cease being anything to get laid you just have to look harder. Honesetly, it is just that easy, somewhere out there is a woman/man/transgender looking for someone just like you. Hell, there are probably 10 people like that in every country.
Second, the author takes a very macho outlook on dating. You don't have to do that. People are quite varied. Some like X, some prefer Y and some really love Q. His entire 'be the (wo)man' bit just smacks of heterocentricism and ignorance. Some people like the same. If that is you I encourage you to pursue that because you will be far, far happier than if you repress who you really are.
Third. This point is just my advice. Don't deride people or look down on them. You will find love in peculiar places if only you look. So you're smart. Big deal. Don't dismiss that girl who left school before senior or the guy who never went to college. There are different forms of intelligence and you can find intelligent people who are not in the mold of the traditionally smart, educated and successful.
And lastly, get out of the house/town/country. You will never find anyone, not even for a date if you don't get away from your personal comfort zone. I'm not dismissing those who only want to meet people through friends only that you must be truly lucky to find love that way. It is always best to expand yourself and head to the horizon of the known.
Frankly, there's an opportunity here: make a dating site just for smart people. Don't just ask about people's alma mater, ask for their GPA and major. Don't just let people say what they do, ask what their employer and title is. Ask for SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, whatever other scores.
Then let your users screen on the stuff that they use as a proxy for smart. We all have different definitions for smart; just try to accommodate as many of them as possible. Women complain all the time about having to act dumber to find a man because the dumb men are the ones who ask them out.
There are already service that somewhat meet those needs.
Eg: http://www.rightstuffdating.com/. This site limits members to specific schools. Not all of the accepted schools are ivy league quality, and you could probably get in from a school not on the list. But the service is being advertised as for single adults from elite universities. There are other similar dating services.
Plus there is always Mensa and other high-iq societies. People have said that Mensa has just turned into a club to find people to date. Here's Kathleen O's experience with using Mensa for dating:http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-a-speed-dating-service-lik...
The problem with that is that when you exclude people based on something like GPA/major, you're going to attract a very ugly sort of good-grades person.
This has been done. (http://www.intelligentpeople.com)
They seem to use the same test for every applicant (a dusty scan of the famous Raven's Progressive Matrices.) So the system is easy to game, if you so wished.
I've always been shy and had troubles with relations with other people. I've met my wife by chance, and it was miracle that she didn't put me down when I've told her repeatedly "I'm so boring, really, let's speak about you" on our first "date" :).
I was expecting women will appreciate that I'm so humble etc. It turns out they just thought I'm really boring, if I say so myself. So this is lesson number one - don't assume women will appreciate that you are humble.
Still - my wife somewhat endured my "I'm so humble and nice etc" talk, and we're married now, so there is a chance to everybody :)
So - lesson number 2 is - when you meet right kind of person at right moment in life, it is really difficult to screw things up. So be yourself and don't worry - your time will come.
Just remember to be open to new people and new experiences.
PS when you are shy it helps a lot when you think about everything you do in terms of "what would be the worst outcome of this if I screw up?" It is often the case that the worst outcome is exactly the same that if you don't do anything. So expected value is higher than 0 :). For me it helped a lot.
All you really need to get laid is a willingness to eat humble pie while you climb the social learning curve.
It's simple: smile, make eye contact, show interest, ask questions. You will probably feel like an idiot. Repeat until confidence outweighs fear. If you're smart, use your brain for wit, not for showing off.
My female friends also tell me: "Tell her she's beautiful!" Apparently, most girls use this as the litmus test for whether a guy is into her. If he doesn't find her attractive, or isn't willing to say so, she won't find him attractive. This even seems to apply to girls that are already sleeping with you: they'll ditch you for a guy that compliments them more at the first opportunity.
I haven't had a chance to test this, since I'm still ignoring the first 4 steps. But I have on occasion accidentally made certain friends develop a crush on me by offhandedly calling them pretty. So it seems to work fairly well.
Not necessarily. Or rather, this works more for males than females. As Eddie Murphy once put it succinctly, "But you gotta be beautiful too. I don't want no funny, ugly bitch," or something like that. I find that appearances usually matter more to males than females.
For whatever reason this really struck a nerve for me.
It's erected on a false dichotomy: "given a choice between happy-go-lucky and picky-but-lonely, happy sounds like more fun."
I don't personally measure my completeness or incompleteness by my romantic status. My estimation of self-worth comes instead from my research, my projects, and my work. It's an arbitrary preference, much as it's arbitrary for some people to feel completed by a union with someone else.
I'm smart, I'm driven, and I'm incredibly picky when it comes to the people I socialize with. Life is short, and just like everyone else does I make personal value judgments as to how best spend what little time I have. And in the end I'm quite happy--and still single.
That's a loser's game. Sure, a ton of money will get you laid... with precisely the kind of women one should avoid in the first place. Money does not increase one's attractiveness per se, it only attracts scavengers commonly known as gold-diggers. Better use the money to improve oneself...
Mr. Foreman, who stared down financial collapse as an adult despite a troubled, impoverished childhood, said he knew real wealth when he saw it. “If you’re confident, you’re wealthy,” he says. “I’ve seen guys who work on a ship channel and they get to a certain point and they’re confident. You can look in their faces, they’re longshoremen, and they have this confidence about them...I’ve seen a lot of guys with millions and they don’t have any confidence,” he says. “So they’re not wealthy.”
This is why start-ups are so exceptionally cool. Get your SO when you're poor, so you know they love you for you. Then hit it big and be rich without a gold digger.
(Details left blank as an excercise for the reader, BTW. ;-))
If memory serves, Tom Hanks did that. He married when he was relatively unknown, and his marriage has lasted much longer than most Hollywood marriages.
who said anything about relationships? this is only about getting laid.
And if you are loaded and want to avoid gold diggers, nothing is stopping you from going 007 on it, rent an apartment, buy a beater, and pretend to be broke
What do you define as decent? If you want the vroom vroom get a cheap-ish sports car like the 350Z ($30K-range), which while being a bit high profile, is still low enough to ward off the gold diggers.
If you go higher into luxury sport car territory... that's your own fault :)
if you think a 30K car will ward off gold diggers you are way off. 20-25K is the most you can spend, and even then that accounts if you are buying new, if you buy a used M3 all bets are off.
How on Hacker News did we get into talking about which sports car will get you laid but still ward off gold diggers? There are at least three things there that, no offense because I'm including myself, this would be the last place I'd look for advice on.
I didn't say anything about relationships either...
Attracting gold-diggers can be fun if one sticks to pump & dump kind of debauchery. It might seem unscrupulous, but we're not discussing that. Worst-case scenario, one risks getting one of these gold-diggers pregnant... and be forced to see her again (or, preferably, her lawyer) in the future, which is never pleasant.
That is not a loser's game. I have more respect for the guy who is getting laid because he is rich, than the guy who was born handsome. The latter was born blessed, the former had to figure a way to become a good candidate for fornication.
That's not his point. His point is that you lose because though you get laid, the woman loves your money, not you.
Now, you could argue that if you're handsome, the woman loves your body, not you.
So I guess you really should have every negative quality possible, save your personality, if you want to truly "win." Except that you'll probably just totally lose.
This is also a blind spot. If you obsess over finding someone who likes you for your personality, you should take the time to consider, "Am I really the great, nice, etc. person that I think I am?"
Money without intelligence is a much worse problem than poverty! You should use your money smart way.
First of all, distrust all claims like 'money is not everything'. Without money you simply cannot stay physically attractive. You need fresh, organic, mostly veg. food, because a healthy diet is the most important part of your nonverbal value. The skin, the hair, even the teeth - they all depends of food.
Then banal clothes. They must be clean, they must be of appropriate size, they must be new. They could be not expensive, but new.
Then body. You must look young even if you not. So, fitness is the must. Without fitness it is almost impossible to attract people who are younger than you. That is obvious - everyone can see anything. Swimming (look at the bodies of professional swimmers) running, biking, rollerblading, and as mentioned above - active dancing.
So, fresh, organic food, dress code (I'm personally trying to follow anime-inspired style. I love that feeling) and serious training of the body - all these tasks requires great amount of money.
I didn't mention so-called verbal part which is the second side of the coin. In simple words - you must be selfless, interesting, useful - which requires even more effort and daily practice than all these physical activities described above. You need great deal of time, which is money.
So, if you do not have enough money, invest your time in seeking for knowledge and, as result, money. Girls then will find you themselves.
You can be a slob dress and grooming-wise 80% of the time but know how to look good 20% of the time when it matters. That's the key, to be able to shift up a gear.
It can also be cheap to be fit, exercise gives you new thoughts, and doesn't take long. The downside of exercise is injury, over-exertion and poor form. Again, like clothes, you don't have to be fit all the time, you can ramp it up when you want to start giving off some pheromones with your new clothes.
Diet is crucial all the time. Here's the key: avoid all processed foods and stay away from trans-fats. Choose water.
I'm surprised this comment has so many up votes. Money helps a bit, but trying to earn more money just to get laid is ridiculous. There are many easy and fun techniques that are far more effective. Examples: carry yourself with confidence, be social, cultivate an aura of mystery an allure, do interesting things, become a better conversationalist, be fearless in approaching girls, practice speaking to random girls and trying to entertain them, etc, etc.
I would have to agree with this. Being smart does not guarantee wealth. There are a lot bright people who got good grades in HighSchool, finished college, etc. This is because they have to -- get good grades. But after graduation, it becomes an entirely different story. It takes more than brains to get rich. Opportunity, guts, risk-taking are just some of the factors... Just my two-cents...
while i think this is true (have not experienced this myself), earning a ton of money does not necessarily automatically put you above the "getting laid" bar, it might just move you from -50 to -20.
it seems to be somewhat faulty logic to use "but when i do x, y will be better", both in the realm of getting laid, enjoying life, etc.
The classic answer (I don't know if Charlie actually said this, or some other wit came up with it): "I don't pay them to have sex with me, I pay them to leave afterward."
This is a such well written sales copy. I followed it through to the 'book' and eventually came across one of those scamy looking very long sales pages. Check it out
Your point came across much better in the original version:
"being smart will get you laid, for sure. being raised in a family/culture that quashes social interaction and activities is the thing that will salt your game."
As I mentioned in a different comment, I think the issue boils down to having unrealistic expectations -- and these unrealistic expectations preventing smart individuals from getting any sort of experience in dating (which builds confidence) or finding out what they really want (e.g. Are you unable to date someone who doesn't share your political views? Who isn't a fellow nerd? who doesn't have a specific body type? You'll never whether any of these "must haves" is really something you're looking for until you try).
In addition, getting into physical shape wouldn't hurt: initial attraction (what gets you the first date) is still mostly physical and being in good shape makes one confident (which gets you past the first three dates). Being in shape will also give you far more energy for 80 work weeks and all night hackathons (in no way, will being physically fit magically make you into a "jock").
Consider joining Carrotmob or some other "semi-hippie" environmental group.
Your odds might improve - or at least you're helping to save the world with your talent.
Being smart can get you laid - you just have to find women who find smart guys attractive (such as the lady who was my boss at my first programming job). Such women do exist, though they're not all that common.
I second this.. I've found that just being overwhelmingly interesting is like candy to the right girls, and independent of whether its just friends or more, those gals are a pleasure to be around.
For about 3 hours of work I can make it happen + tips.
But seriously, I'm not willing to "get some" because it requires me to do things I don't want or willing to. It's sort of like PG's essay on popularity.
I kinda feel that way too. From reading all the advice, I figure I'd have to have a wholly different personality when around girls and do all this work being this fake cocky jerk.
It's funny. Most of the people I know didn't take advice a) loosen up, they took b) move, and went to europe following a smart female they met during postgrad.
if one would realize it's all a hologram, that there's nothing to lose or gain except the amount of value one actually perceives.
is it necessary for survival?
i think the problem areas lay in the fact that everyone is buying into the greatest hood wink of life and turning it into something greater than it really should be.
I thought I was smart. I thought I was right. I thought it better not to fight. I thought there was a virtue, in always being cool. So it came time to fight, I thought "I'll just step aside," and that the time will prove you wrong. And that you would be a fool.
To fight is to defend. If it's not now then tell me when
would be the time that you would stand up and be a man. For to lose I could accept, but to surrender I just wept,
and regretted this moment that I was the fool.
'Cause I'm a man, not a boy, and there are things you can't avoid. You have to face them when you're not prepared to face them. If I could, I would, but you're with him, now it'd do no good. I should've fought him. But instead I let him... I let him take it.
That is just an advertisement of very well positioned niche book - no one thinks he or she is dumb.
Here's the thing: your romantic success has nothing to do with your mental jewelry and everything to do with how you make the other person feel. - this thing was painted on every wall from the beginning of the time.
The problem is much more difficult and this approach is suitable perhaps only for the Cosmopolitan magazine. The Freud's lectures of psyhoanalysis can be useful as an bird-eye overview of the problem.
The main idea is about altering a personal history to get rid of a fixations, regressions, and other things which were accumulated from the past and especially childhood, developing new habits, changing yourself.
And there is a top-secret-great-magic-word: practice.
If one in in his/her thirties and still looking at this kind of books or texts that simply indicates the very serious problem which requires an intensive therapy. Time waits for no one
Um...here's hoping that an insightful comment on the topic of geeks getting laid doesn't necessarily imply that I don't. Hope you got your giggles though.
Exactly. I can get action, as can most single people. But if I wanted to get laid all the time, I'd lie to women, entice drunk ones, etc. Not far off from what most "pickup manuals" encourage.
OK, I've not read the article or any of the comments. My theory is, well, it all comes down to Game Theory. All things being equal, if you are nice, an arsehole or rich, if a guy/gal suspects you are _significantly_ smarter than they are, they will (un-)consciously believe you will soon find a 'better' partner and move on. So they don't invest in you => you don't get laid.
The answer is not to become to an asshole, but you should cultivate an air of being more like a leader of the pack. Note you do not have to actually be a leader of a group of guys to do this. It's just about sending the right signals to the female's animal mind.
Things you can do to give that impression are: be confident when approaching girls, do not be needy or give off signs of desperation, tease her, be interesting, give off a sense of bemused indifference, don't act like your trying too hard, do not be afraid to touch her on the arm or shoulder, flirt with her friends, etc. I learned this stuff through experience and friends, but there are sources on the internet that can greatly speed up the process. You can read the archives of Roissy's blog, but be warned, it's very not PC - http://roissy.wordpress.com/