"wihich qualities do you / would you appreciate in a male you already decided you want to fuck
with
"which qualities made you interested in the first place".
Height, symetry, health markers, both physical and mental ( compusure, skin, hair, grooming, speech ), visible muscle definition, ect, all rank higher in priority than everything the "study" claims is under-estimated by incels.
Strenght training for muscle definition + grooming will do a major difference. Alot more women will start doing those small physical contacts during conversations.
"But muh receeding hairline". It's not comming back. The treatments's hormonal side-effects are not worth the modest improvement. Shave your head on a regular basis and you'll tick the "groomed" box. Not as high as if you had nice hair, but way above unkept male pattern baldness.
Yes women's height standarts are retarded ( they want the top 5%, many the top 0.2% ), but they will lower that significantly if you stop overeating and build some arm muscle definition to make their fee-feels tingle.
Short women will claim the same height standarts as their female peers and they all want a mate taller than their friend's mates, but when she's with you, if you're 2+inches taller, her instinctual "male taller than me" vetting will be ticked.
Income standarts are to bypass their physical fitness and social adjustment standarts ( grooming and adjusted speech ). They will fuck a low-middle class Chad ( and some, usually black females, also fuck an unemployed, ill-mannered ghetto Tyrone ). If Chad demonstrate he's not just a wh0re-chasing gym enthousiast, she'll lower her income standarts for a potential hot dad-material.
It seems they deliberately conflate "wihich qualities do you / would you appreciate in a male you already decided you want to fuck with "which qualities made you interested in the first place".
Right. "Kindness, humour and loyalty" are qualities they might wish Chad had, but they'll still choose the good looking guy who lacks those qualities over an average looking guy who has them. Which means the incels (and the rest of the Manosphere) are correct that physical features trump everything. They're not overestimating or underestimating anything: They're accurately describing women's mate choices.
Also because "kindness, humor and loyalty" are the most socially acceptable and agreeable answers, no woman is going to say looks else she will look vapid or money because she'll look like a gold digger
Disclaimer, joke advice: Just lie. Women are short and can't do math. Unless you're a manlet or she's a giant, you're still going to tower over her. You're 6'3", and she can't prove otherwise.
"wihich qualities do you / would you appreciate in a male you already decided you want to fuck" with "which qualities made you interested in the first place".
This is a really good point. I also want to add that self-reporting is not the same as reality. A lot of self-reporting is aspirational, i.e., "I want to be attracted to men who are kind, funny, and loyal... so this interviewer will validate me."
It seems they deliberately conflate
"wihich qualities do you / would you appreciate in a male you already decided you want to fuck
with
"which qualities made you interested in the first place".
Height, symetry, health markers, both physical and mental ( compusure, skin, hair, grooming, speech ), visible muscle definition, ect, all rank higher in priority than everything the "study" claims is under-estimated by incels.
Strenght training for muscle definition + grooming will do a major difference. Alot more women will start doing those small physical contacts during conversations.
"But muh receeding hairline". It's not comming back. The treatments's hormonal side-effects are not worth the modest improvement. Shave your head on a regular basis and you'll tick the "groomed" box. Not as high as if you had nice hair, but way above unkept male pattern baldness.
Yes women's height standarts are retarded ( they want the top 5%, many the top 0.2% ), but they will lower that significantly if you stop overeating and build some arm muscle definition to make their fee-feels tingle.
Short women will claim the same height standarts as their female peers and they all want a mate taller than their friend's mates, but when she's with you, if you're 2+inches taller, her instinctual "male taller than me" vetting will be ticked.
Income standarts are to bypass their physical fitness and social adjustment standarts ( grooming and adjusted speech ). They will fuck a low-middle class Chad ( and some, usually black females, also fuck an unemployed, ill-mannered ghetto Tyrone ). If Chad demonstrate he's not just a wh0re-chasing gym enthousiast, she'll lower her income standarts for a potential hot dad-material.
Right. "Kindness, humour and loyalty" are qualities they might wish Chad had, but they'll still choose the good looking guy who lacks those qualities over an average looking guy who has them. Which means the incels (and the rest of the Manosphere) are correct that physical features trump everything. They're not overestimating or underestimating anything: They're accurately describing women's mate choices.
Also because "kindness, humor and loyalty" are the most socially acceptable and agreeable answers, no woman is going to say looks else she will look vapid or money because she'll look like a gold digger
Disclaimer, joke advice: Just lie. Women are short and can't do math. Unless you're a manlet or she's a giant, you're still going to tower over her. You're 6'3", and she can't prove otherwise.
This is a really good point. I also want to add that self-reporting is not the same as reality. A lot of self-reporting is aspirational, i.e., "I want to be attracted to men who are kind, funny, and loyal... so this interviewer will validate me."