mASF post by "finalD"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, September 9, 2004TheGame» wrote at Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:45:00 GMT in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Oh yeah, your post mentions hot girls with shitty clothes
> and less attractive girls with hot clothes... but I think
> the top HBs are the ones who are hot AND wear hot clothes
> ;-)
I have to interject (into this otherwise stimulating
conversation!) that I think the whole "has fashion sense" thing
is a lot more subliminal, and subjective, than most males would
admit their observations to be. I believe almost any female
(under the age of 30? 35?) can make herself "hot".
Primarily by losing weight. OK, presume she's lost enough that
she's within the fuckable range.
Then, secondarily, by GETTING A GODDAMNED CLUE about appearance,
no longer dressing for the benefit of her female peers, and
learning how to "please a man" visually. Fashion, makeup, hiding
flaws and accentuating assets -- I personally believe it isn't
just an issue of raising a girl up one or 1.5 points out of 10;
I think those things can get her up a full four or five points.
(As long as she's lost sufficient weight to have a good hip-to-
waist ratio, etc.) I think some experiments on hot-or-not-dot-
com and other places actually bear this out.
And I also think, males are very unreasonably picky about the
"necessary level" of looks they want their mates to have. If you
do the math, presuming a chick can up her looks by 4 or 5 out of
10 merely through ancillaries, and also presuming you "need"
about a 7.5 or 8 to think the chick is fuck-worthy, then all you
REALLY "need" is a 2.5. (Who has lost enough weight, goddammit!)
I don't mean to advocate the idea of going after UGs. I think
that some AFCs and small-r rAFCs might read this post and take
it as an excuse to go after chicks who are "less intimidating,"
and that's a bad bad bad plan. But I do think that you'd be
surprised (and delighted) at how far you can go with a "fixer
upper." And I also think it's really beneficial to realize, that
the ONE AND ONLY THING that makes a chick "difficult" to
approach because she's "so hot," is YOUR OWN PERCEPTION THAT SHE
IS HOT.
So, really, males hold all the reins. All we need to do in these
"looks" discussions, is realize that our own perception of
female beauty is both what holds us back, and gives them the
upper hand.
Sure, there are some rock-solid 10s out there. Women who have
nature's gifts. They will always exist, and I am happy when I
hook up with one. But I don't usually enjoy their company half
as much as an almost-rock-solid 7 who has "made" herself into a
9.5. And that "making" is, in many ways, simply a female's own
level of SOCIAL SKILLS. The ability for a female to look hot, is
the ability to project into another human's (different)
priorities and actually try to fulfill them. What, after all, do
we do here on mASF, if not, learn to figure out someone else's
priorities and try to fulfill them? Chicks who have undergone
that mood-enhancement and consciousness-raising are always
better catches than chicks who simply rest on their natural
laurels and kind of "float" forward through life.
This means, that what I'm looking for in a woman, is HER ABILITY
TO PLEASE ME.
This concept follows through in lots of portions of PU theory.
For example, the "how to compliment" chapter in the layguide
suggests that you say something positive about one of her
choices. "Oh, I notice your belt matches your toenail polish.
How interesting." Or, "Hey, you have done a good job of picking
out accessories." Or whatever it suggests, DAFS. :) Anyway, this
is to me a way of keying in on the central thesis that females
appreciate males who appreciate their ability to please males.
Likewise, for example, NEG theory. If you neg a chick, what
you're saying is, "you aren't good enough for me. PERFORM
somehow to prove otherwise." Aside from all the other obvious
advantages of this frame of mind (discussed elsewhere), there's
also the benefit of the fact that you are asking her to DO
something, to prove her social skills, to demonstrate that she
can ACT worthy. Chicks dig the opportunity to DO instead of
merely BE. They're all waiting for males to ASK THEM TO DO
SOMETHING. (Be a leader. Get it?)
Likewise in other aspects of PU theory, I really think that if
you look deeply enough into your own preferences, you'll see
that some of them are "societally conditioned" and probably AFC,
unproductive, and make you a follower of females rather than a
leader. But some other ones of them are "your real self" and
probably PUA-oriented. Hone in on those preferences, and you'll
see that what you really want (I think; maybe some of you are
kinky, I dunno ...) is a chick who looks great TO YOU, not to
YOUR PALS; a chick who is nubile in youthfulness, with springy
soft young flesh that "pads" her whole body firmly rather than
"waggles"; a chick who knows that YOU HAVE TO BE SEEN NEXT TO
HER, and so she goes out of her way to NOT FUCK UP with silly
little things like lipstick on her teeth, smeared mascara, too
much pancake makeup, a goddamned HAT, shorts or underwear that
are so tight they bulge at her flabby hips, LOSING WEIGHT
GODDAMMMOTHERFUCKIT, and within-the-norms levels of attention to
fashion, makeup, fitness, etc.
Also, getting to know the "real man" rather than the "I want Pam
Anderson" in you will help you screen out the unwantably
"overly" attractive. The high-maintenance women who are obsessed
with too much beauty accoutrements like extra-long fingernails,
or diamond studs in their toenails, or too much hair-streaking -
- those chicks are a TOTAL DRAG to be around, because it's all
about them and how they can control you with their "feminine
wiles"; whereas chicks who know what a SOCIAL NORM is, know how
to COOPERATE WITH SOCIETY, and in the long run not only are
better catches, and better in bed, and better partners in
general, and more likely to cooperate with MLTR, but also are
BETTER LOOKING than the desperately needy suburban princesses
that most sitcoms suggest we ought to be attracted to.
Get out of the sitcom mindset.
Just a suggestion. :)
--
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher esteem those who think alike than those who think
differently.
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
