| Offline | | MPUA Forum Enthusiast |
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:29 pm
Posts: 74 | From The Reality Method:
The Hot Guy Scale (Social Value Theory)
I got on the street car today to go to the store, and instantly noticed something that I see quite a lot in this city, and in this country in general…
A not-so-cute girl (maybe a 6.5) with a really good looking guy.
Now, I’m not gay, but I can tell if another guy is good-looking enough to be considered “attractive” or not by the opposite sex. I think most guys can tell this, too, even if they don’t admit it to themselves.
Anyway, immediately upon seeing this happy, lovely Hot-Guy-with-Not-Girl couple, I shook my head inwardly. I see it all the time; but I still feel let down every time. You can do better I silently think at the guy’s head. I don’t care how good the girl is in bed, or how great her personality is, or how funny or talented she is (though God only knows what that means), if she’s not physically attractive at a certain minimum level, she’s not relationship material.
Guys forget this all the time, or never understand it to begin with, and therefore get into relationships with girls that aren’t good enough for them, making the mistake of comparing their own self-perceived “value” on a 1-to-1 basis with the “total package” of girls value, not just their looks.
I’ve made this mistake. Hell, when I started getting laid, this was the only mistake I made consistently: I look back at my first string of girls, and while they all had “interesting personalities”, most were downright fugly. In fact, I got to thinking about it today, and out of the first 10 girls I laid, there were probably only 1 or 2 that would be considered traditionally “hot” (i.e. 7’s).
Which brings me to the topic at hand, Social Value Theory: how it functions in male-female interactions, and why forgetting it will land you in a relationship with girls who aren’t hot enough for you.
What Social Value Theory Says
SVT is very simple. It basically says this:
“In terms of dating and sex, guys are measured on very different criteria than women. Women are measured based on their looks. Full stop, period. Guys are measured on the strength of their personalities and character, and all the accessories and accouterments they can garner as a result of their personalities and character.”
That’s it. That’s the whole kit and caboodle right there.
In what is easily the most-popular article I’ve written thus far (at least in these first three months of having this site up) I put down a concrete measurement scale for women purely based on their looks; and I’ve gone on and also said that maybe we should consider other factors, since women are complex; but ultimately I think we as men know that the vast majority of the determination of our “value” of a woman is on looks.
This is just not the case for guys. So I guess this post can be considered the Hot Dude Scale, because in the next paragraphs I will lay out exactly what it is that makes men attractive (and therefore valuable and desirable) to women.
What Creates ‘Value’ For a Man?
This shouldn’t be too hard to figure out, right? We already have a solid understanding of what we as men value in women: body symmetry, healthy-looking skin, proportionate hips and breasts, childlike facial features with big eyes, slim waist, long legs…all these things, especially when put together in one “package” in one woman, create a “valuable” woman that we rate as higher in value than a woman who, for instance, is short and tubby, has square masculine features, is overweight, and walks with a limp because one leg is longer than the other.
Similarly, there are a number of things that “create value” for men.
In no particular order:
(1) Their self-confidence. Key.
(2) Their social status and position. (High or low? Leader or follower?)
(3) Their ability to create rapport and vibe (social skills).
(4) Their level of life experience (perspective).
(5) Their drive and motivation (where are they going?) or, if they’re older:
(6) Their accomplishments (real world, concrete stuff).
That’s a pretty exhaustive list. Everything else that is considered “attractive” by seducers of all stripes can be fit somewhere in that list: for example, “being sexual, not horny” = I consider that part of self-confidence. “Be mysterious” I consider part of social skills. “Being the prize” and “be alpha” = again, self-confidence. “Show her that you’re safe” = part of rapport. “Be different from all the other guys” = social status. “Show her you understand her” = rapport and vibing.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made the point. There’s maybe those 6 fundamental categories that create value for men; they may be labeled slightly differently elsewhere, but it’s the same stuff underneath.
So let’s use those 6 categories to create a hypothetical Perfect “10<= of Male value, just like we did above with women.
He would have to be:
(1) Extremely self-confident: not cocky, but confident, owing to all his past success and his own demonstrable prowess in many different areas of life. Imagine Richard Branson type self-confidence.
(2) Extremely socialized and sociable; able to talk to just about anyone, anywhere, about anything, under any circumstances, regardless of social pressure. Bonus points if he speaks more than one (or two, or three) languages.
(3) Able to create an almost instantaneous feeling of “incredible connection” with a woman, just from speaking to her for a few minutes. Perceived as really opening up and listening and communicating on a deep, soulful level if appropriate.
(4) Has many, varied, interesting, entertaining, shocking, dangerous, fascinating life experiences in his past, that have helped shape who he is, and perhaps more importantly, lives a life that opens him to varied, interesting, entertaining, shocking, etc new experiences. A guy who loves learning will always be higher value than a stick-in-the-mud.
(5) Has drive, motivation and goals and (6) accomplishments: a perfect “10<= would either an older guy with experience (see #4) and lots of accomplishments under his belt who is still pushing on to bigger and better things, or a younger up-and-comer on the make who is really going to make it big. They’re equally attractive in a woman’s eyes.
NOTE: If you don’t believe young up-and-comers can be as sexy to women as older established “proven” successes, talk to my good friend Angela. She had a huge crush on a very popular well-known rock star for a while, even going to his concerts, meeting him backstage, drawing him pictures and so forth. She was literally dripping for this guy and probably had a chance to fuck him (he was responding quite well to her).
Then, several months later, she got involved with a guy who was a few grades behind her in high school — total comedown, right? But he happens to be an insanely talented vocalist and musician, a guy who can probably legitimately get record deals and make it big.
Notice the transition and value comparison: one guy, already a rock star, much older: another guy, much younger (younger even than her), a nobody, but a nobody with real talent, who hasn’t blown up yet. The only significant difference is it’s easier for her to “get in on the ground floor” of a good thing than break in to an established circle of groupies.
The male analogue would be fucking a rural girl who doesn’t know how hot she is yet.
The Most Important Part of the SVT is Not Included
Take a second and go back and re-read the list of 6 categories above. Look carefully, and see if you can spot something that is conspicuous for its absence. Got it? Good. Here it is:
PHYSICAL APPEARANCE DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ON THE LIST IN ANY FORM!
Of course women like it when guys look good. Of course women like the V-taper, and the good body symmetry, and the well-developed muscles, and the good teeth, and a light tan, and strong legs, etc etc.
But to women these things are like a bonus. As long as a guy is not HIDEOUSLY DISFIGURED, he can be any size, any shape….and if the 6 categories above are all in place (or even mostly in place, or even one of them is in place way more solidly than it is in most guys) he WILL GET LAID.
I’ve had girls even tell me this flat-out: “Guys looks don’t matter. I’d rather he was intelligent.” I’ve also had girls tell me, “It’s so disappointing…I’ll see a hot guy and be all excited, and then he comes and sits down and starts talking, and as soon as he opens his mouth he starts saying the stupidest boring things. It’s such a let down.”
They don’t care what a guy looks like. Absolutely DO NOT CARE. The 6 components of the SVT are far, far more important in their determination of whether they will sleep with a guy than looks.
The Strength of SVT
The above section on looks is how Social Value Theory also, incidentally, predicts not only why “hot” (high value) guys are often seen with uglier girls, but why “ugly” (physically unattractive) guys are often seen with the HOTTEST women: because those men knew that their PHYSICAL looks didn’t matter, and also knew that their actual SOCIAL values in those categories were high enough that they started demanding hotter women for themselves.
SVT also correctly predicts that many of the things that guys obsess over getting, the external status symbols that many guys think are actually responsible for them getting women, are important only inasmuch as they suggest that the guy has social value.
For instance, in stands to reason that a guy who is motivated, self-confident, and socially skilled would climb the corporate ladder, maybe even make a good manager, or perhaps, having courage (self-confidence) and ingenuity (part of drive and motivation), be an entrepreneur that starts a multi-million dollar business.
As a result of these qualities he has, he becomes wealthy and buys himself a Rolex watch and a Mercedes-Benz.
Now. Those status symbols are NOTHING without the social value that were responsible for the guy being able to afford them. But many, many guys chase after these symbols AS THOUGH the symbols are what the value inheres in.
But in fact nothing could be further from the truth: the value inheres in the man who has the power, the value, to warrant the symbols. The symbols are just symptomatic.
Some Eastern philosophers have put it this way:
In the West, the problem is that people think that when they HAVE certain things, then they can finally DO that which will allow them to BE who they desire to be.
In the East, the idea is first to BE who you are, which will naturally lead you to DO certain things, which will finally lead to the result that you HAVE certain things.
The pertinent example: guys think that if they HAVE a fancy car and expensive clothes, they will DO better with women, and therefore suddenly BE a player and realize all their fantasies.
Do you see how absurd that logic is?
The presence or absence of a fancy car or expensive clothes has NOTHING TO DO with your skill at interacting with women.
The Eastern way, on the other hand, would call for a guy simply to BE who he is, which might lead him to DO more to improve his interactions with women, which in turn would result in him HAVING all sorts of great sexual adventures as he becomes more and more skilled.
That’s it. Social value theory predicts it and illustrates; Eastern philosophy simplifies and validates it.
That’s the simplest, most direct explanation of not only how to be successful in this Game, but how to be successful in the Game of Life.
|
|
CHAT
