The Mainstream Trains Men In Compatibility, Not In Attraction Where Most Men Need Work

In the peanut gallery at Alpha Game, van Rooinek riffs on the female attraction algorithm and social training therein.

I think Cail summarized it best: the point which the article clearly makes is not that being Godly makes you unattractive to women. It’s that being Godly just isn’t relevant to the process of attracting women

To put it another way:
(a) Attraction is not compatibility. (Surely you know this, you must have at least once in your life been strongly attracted to someone that you knew was a poor match).
(b) Almost all romantic advice given to men, by parents, pastors, and female friends, involves improving your compatibility – eg, spiritual growth, communication skills, dealing with emotional damage, cultivating outside interests, etc.
(c) But, all the compatibility in the world, will not get you a relationship without attraction.

Even when the issue of attraction IS dealt with,
(d) Attraction is one-dimensional for men: Looks (which are a good proxy for health and fertility). This is universally known.
(e) Attraction is TWO dimensional for women: Looks AND Status. (The desire for a higher status mate has a technical name, hypergamy).
(f) Hypergamy is NOT widely known – women themselves, despite the strong effects it exerts on them, appear to be unaware of it, and simply cannot explain why they like one man over another, especially when the one they rejected is clearly of higher quality in every compatibility dimension and may even be taller and better looking!
(g) Most romantic advice given to men, ignores hypergamy and is therefore at best worthless.

A few reactions:

1. We can quibble with tiny pieces, but he’s boiled the whole thing down pretty well: when it comes to mating and dating, there is attraction and there is relationship fitness/compatibility; social factors weigh much more heavily in the female attraction system than in the male; society lacks good advice to give men especially wrt maintaining attraction; and most men who want to be boyfriends and husbands and fathers lack attractive value far more than they lack relationship skills. (This last part is especially true in the educated class, where men have been domesticated wholesale but at the price of neutering their leadership and dominance attraction traits.)

1b. Churchian culture exhibits a strong streak of denialism on this topic, refusing to acknowledge the need for attraction in the open and instead replacing attraction psychology with fairy tales about “the Holy Spirit told me to marry this person” and churning out self-flagellating men whose debasing exercises in boisterous humility are spiritually masturbatory. This is on top of society-wide acculturated misandry that shames and excoriates men for the things that attract them, while defending and encouraging women to chase their own preferences.

2. Much male failure in mating and dating results from trying to build attraction with traits that are just plain not relevant.

3. van Rooinek’s comment dovetails perfectly with the universal Manosphere advice to never take dating advice from women. When a man asks a woman “how do I attract a woman [or this particular woman I am attracted to],” she usually answers a different question, instead listing behaviors she wants to see out of a man to whom she is already attracted. In short, men ask for attraction advice, but receive compatibility advice that presumes attraction – not attraction to him, but to a idealized and usually fictional male. He will have no idea she’s answering a different question, and she most likely will not understand her own mechanisms of attraction to begin with and won’t comprehend that she is answering a different question at all.

In reality, men are giving women too much credit for knowing their own secrets and giving them away – no one asks the prey for advice on hunting itself. Just follow the rule, it will not lead you astray. Besides, those nuggets of good advice you might occasionally get are ones you can get from your male game advisor too, so you lose nothing by following the rule.

About these ads

31 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

31 responses to “The Mainstream Trains Men In Compatibility, Not In Attraction Where Most Men Need Work

  1. It’s this easy-

    If I’m not attracted to you, I could give. Fuck if we’re compatible. When I’m attracted, she get’s put through the “compatibility” test.

    It’s that simple.

  2. Houston

    “In short, men ask for attraction advice, but receive compatibility advice that presumes attraction – not attraction to him, but to a idealized and usually fictional male.”

    This prompted a thought: Just as leftists consider the personal to be political, so women consider the emotional to be actual.

    I visited with a female relative the other day. She confided, with tears in her eyes, that her husband is a weakling (“a big child”) and that she hates being the stronger spouse in the marriage. Woman in emotional mode: hypergamy confessed.

    Only a couple of hours later, I mentioned that the reason I didn’t strike out with my future wife was because, after years of nice guy floundering and rejection, I had learned to be confident and project dominance. “Women want dominant men,” I told her. She was genuinely mystified and would not agree to this. Woman in rational mode: hypergamy denied.

  3. Good article, Badger. I think van Rooinek hit it squarely on the head.

  4. van Rooinek

    men ask for attraction advice, but receive compatibility advice that presumes attraction

    A perfect summary. And I am honored that you considered me worthy of a repost.

  5. Fantastic analysis. Concurs perfectly with what I’ve seen all my life.

  6. whatever

    Totally wrong.

    The “mainstream” trains men in what girls want that they can’t just get via their current strategy of “chase tingles”.

    Women don’t need the man they are dating to have alpha traits, girls don’t be giving the first date to no loser who isn’t loaded on alpha.

    Having spent all their “choosing” power getting that alpha, he now needs to be somehow convinced to act beta. And so you get the lying about “what she really wants”… from the man she is currently screwing. For some reason, a lot of men don’t pay attention after the woman has already popped her legs open. How odd.

    Now wasn’t that simple?

    [You and I are saying the exact same thing.]

  7. whatever


    (d) Attraction is one-dimensional for men: Looks (which are a good proxy for health and fertility). This is universally known.

    Ha ha. And no, you don’t deserve more respect than that.

  8. Guestopher

    I wonder what response “What can Nice Guy John do to get more women interested in dating him?” would get. There’s always “wait for the right girl” and “relax and be confident”, but this question forces a woman to focus on a particular man as he is rather than her ideal man’s missing qualities.

    Thinking about this made me realize that men’s sexuality is demonized when men are very explicit about what women can do to get more men interested in dating them. In a sick way it makes sense that women wouldn’t be explicit since that would make them hypocrites. However I’m still inclined to believe that women just don’t know their own sexuality rather than are actively trying to mislead a large number of men in order to determine who the sexy, rule-breaking asshole is.

    I’m having an inner chuckle right now imagining some guy proudly stating in a mock superhero voice “I throw compatibility out the window and get laid like crazy!”

  9. A very deti-like concise list of truth, VR.

  10. stevie tellatruth

    I am going to print this out, make copies,
    and pass them out in my church.
    (if for no other reason than to see how many church girls I can piss off, Ha!)

  11. Excellent. There is a societal pressure for guys when dating, that if they acted more respectable, kind, patient, nice, that they would get what they want from women when in actuality the opposite is true. More sensitive guys feel this pressure more and respond to it more as well.

  12. 3rd Millenium Men

    Absolutely spot on. Will be including this in one of my best of the manosphere posts soon. Men who try and sacrifice attraction for compability will never truly be happy, and never be able to get a girl worthy of them or the best they could get.

  13. Infantry

    In short, men ask for attraction advice, but receive compatibility advice that presumes attraction – not attraction to him, but to a idealized and usually fictional male.

    The above is an old PUA truth, but explained very succinctly. What I wouldn’t give to have been told these few lines when I was 12.

  14. van Rooinek

    If i may chime in again…. Both sexes, failing to understand the others’ attraction mechanism, make characteristic mistakes based on projection:

    Plenty of women mistakely believe that higher education, professional achievement, a “status-telegraphing” wardrobe, etc, makes them more attractive — because that’s what they find attractive in men. No. The hypergamy circuitry is genetically switched “OFF” in males.* To be sure, an educated professional woman is more compatible with educated professional men, but remember that attraction isn’t compatibilty. Attraction can only be improved in the gym and the kitchen.

    Conversely, some decent young men who are endlessly rejected for no reason they can discern, and being clueless about hypergamy, can only conclude that they’re something wrong with their looks. Such men may torment themselves in the weight room for years on end, improving their physiques with no romantic results. (I personally made this mistake when I was young.)

    *Random thought…. does hypergamy matter for homosexuals of either sex? No personal stake in the question but it would be illuminating for research purposes… Is the lesbian world an endless war of hypersaphy? Or does hyperarsenokoity affect the pair bonding of male homosexuals?

  15. stevie tellatruth

    van Rooinek,
    I don’t know if this will answer your question but I can tell you something I observed once while attending a WNBA game. There was a section of seats filled with lesbian couples. Fooled me at first because I saw all these fine women partnered with what I thought were dudes(due to the short hair cuts and semi-thuggish attire) until they turned around and I saw that they were girls, too. It hit me then that, apparently, the Dominance/Submission dynamic is a must for gays/lesbians, too. So, for that reason alone, maybe hypergamy rears its head for them, too

  16. van Rooinek

    ….women partnered with what I thought were dudes(due to the short hair cuts and semi-thuggish attire) until they turned around and I saw that they were girls, too…. the Dominance/Submission dynamic is a must for gays/lesbians, too.

    But in a lesbian couple, BOTH parties are female.. hence both parties are hypergamists (technically, for lesbians, hypersapphists)… so if each is seeking a higher status partner, by definition only one can be content, as the higher status one must “settle”…. I can see how this could lead to endless discontent.

  17. Guestopher

    On hypergamy in queer women’s community:
    There is a thing called a lesbro (a man who hangs out with a group of butch and/or femme lesbians). Side note – Lesbros with game score a lot of “I’m attracted to women, but…” tail. Anyway, many a lesbro who is aware of game has spotted hypergamy in feminine lesbians competing for butch lesbians. Butch lesbians have a less feminine/more masculine hormonal balance so that probably explains their lack of hypergamy.

    Fem-fem lesbian couples are a bit of a mystery. It’s possible that one partner is really butch, but seeks to pass as heterosexual. Butch-Butch lesbian couples are probably the least happiest. It’s likely a “let’s just do this gay thing together buddy because we’ve got to pair up with someone” situation.

  18. DC Phil

    @van Rooniek

    Refer to one of my previous posts about my interest in classical music. I can riff off of that there:

    In my younger days, it was important for me to be an “educated” person, but “educated” in the sense of liberal arts and the making of a well-rounded person, whose “education” could teach him to think critically and see the bigger picture. Being unemployed for long periods of time due to this “education” (but also by choice) enabled me to take a break from the rat race to see some connections that I’d have otherwise missed out on. Shame that the Manosphere — much less the Net — didn’t exist in those days.

    One detriment of this “education” is that I expected high standards of people, which were in some ways an outgrowth of a core insecurity about being a person and, less so, about being a man. Those high standards meant that I didn’t get along with most of my peers and so didn’t have many friends. Even worse, I never had a girlfriend. Just other priorities, obviously.

    But, over time (and now with the benefit of hindsight), I could see that “educated” women weren’t that attractive to me. Not careerist women, mind you. Those always repelled me from the get-so and I socialized with them only when I wanted job leads, etc. from them. Ditto for party girls (though I probably could have used some advice on how to ply them with Game when someone else plied them with alcohol and made them more receptive. ;)) The “educated” weren’t the most feminine, and the worst were too cerebral (like I was) and had no clue about attracting a man. Smart chicks, to be sure, but not attractive to me over the long term because “compatibility” couldn’t trump attraction. In short, the thin, frail, quilty skirt-wearing, and Birkenstock-clad lassie who could recite Byron and Keats flawlessly didn’t harden my dick as much as the slutty blonde cheerleader did. As David DeAngelo made famous, “attraction isn’t a choice.” Unfortunately, due to my ignorance, I couldn’t reconcile the attraction-compatibility problem. The flip side was that the some of the same frail lassies found ME very attractive because my brainpower and “education” was DHV for them. But, I wasn’t attracted to them sexually. Ah, well . . .

    Compatibility is for the long-term. But, we guys have to be attracted first. That presents another problem: viz., once you bang her once or twice and have her on the hook, is she worth investing in in the long term? What do you want at that stage in your life, eh?

  19. van Rooinek

    Compatibility is for the long-term. But, we guys have to be attracted first. That presents another problem: viz., once you bang her once or twice and have her on the hook, is she worth investing in in the long term? What do you want at that stage in your life, eh?

    I operated in a different order. I determined first if she was worth investing in, then I got her on the hook at the altar…. After banging her the second time, I fell asleep… in the honeymoon suite.

    What did I want at that stage of my life? Children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren…

  20. van Rooinek

    … and yes, she was both compatible and attractive.

  21. van Rooinek

    … and 10 years later, still is.

  22. On lesbian couples:

    I thought I read that David Buss had done some research into it and found that gay men and women looked for similar factors in the same sex as their straight counterparts looked for in the opposite sex – men sought physical excellence and sexual availability in their partners, women sought personality novelty and a range of comfort traits.

    Hence the very apparent promiscuity of young fit gay men in fast-lane circles, and the legend of lesbian bed death (with all comfort and no testosterone).

    Certainly there are couples that exhibit a sort of sexual dimorphism, as in bitch-butch lesbian couples or top-bottom male couples. But I’m inclined to nod to Buss if he has a significant corpus of data to back it up.

  23. Guestopher,

    “I’m having an inner chuckle right now imagining some guy proudly stating in a mock superhero voice “I throw compatibility out the window and get laid like crazy!””

    That’s a true story for plenty of men in the game. It really is counter-intuitive to what we’re brought up to believe, when we witness that women go crazy for guys who explicitly do NOT go out of their way to cultivate compatibility or try to sell themselves as relationship partners.

    One of the first things I advise men in is that they just have to stop caring so much what women think of them – either in polite discussion or in overt rejection. They are just people, and until they show it they haven’t earned the right to have you be concerned about them. Sure, if you tell women daytime coffee that you’re a practiced raconteur and don’t really feel like getting tied down to one girl, you’ll get howls of protest and shaming. You just have to ignore that, maybe take it with amused mastery as Roissy says. Then project that same personality on girls you’re interested in, leave enough mystery so they think they can chase and change you, and you’ll have them eating out of your hand.

  24. vR,

    “Conversely, some decent young men who are endlessly rejected for no reason they can discern, and being clueless about hypergamy, can only conclude that they’re something wrong with their looks. Such men may torment themselves in the weight room for years on end, improving their physiques with no romantic results. (I personally made this mistake when I was young.)”

    I’ve been spinning a theory in my head that there are two separate and distinct bonuses to getting in shape. One is the aesthetic benefit of tight abs, big biceps, taper, etc.

    Another is a more visceral or pheremonal effect, where women’s hindbrains find you more attractive because you are more fit, absent any sensory concerns about whether you look “good.” We know that hard exercise boosts testosterone, I’m sure women can literally smell it on us, and that counts just as much as do we look nice in the mirror.

    I always advise men get into good shape. But beyond “good shape,” you are right that there’s a point of diminishing returns where the extra effort to get into really really good shape would be much better spent honing another aspect of your attraction or game. I enjoy being in pretty good shape; I am not motivated to get to my ideal weight, trim body fat, etc, I can get good quality women with just-good shape plus all my other factors.

  25. FFY

    @Badger

    As far as being fit goes, there is a certain baseline you have to get to but don’t necessarily need to go past before you get to “diminishing returns” land. Strong shoulders, chest that pops out a bit, and the V shaped back. In a good fitting shirt, that alone will do wonders for lots of dudes.

    One can obviously go farther than that and take it to the nexxtlevel (ha!) but I would definitely say game newbs need to work on other stuff first before putting more of their time pushing for aesthetic ideal.

    As far as the “testosterone smell”, I really do believe there is something to that theory. I haven’t been able to find any concrete studies or anything regarding that, but there have been those studies of chicks smelling shirts of high T guys and liking it more than lower T dude’s shirts. Also, Rollo had that post awhile back- “The Pheromonal Beta” that there is evidence that this occurs-

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/the-pheromonal-beta/

  26. van Rooinek

    Two or three time, upon returning to weights after only running for a couple of years, I’d notice a SLIGHT attraction bounce. Not enough to get a relationship, but, at least I was noticed and talked to…a little bit…

    The attraction bounce would happen IMMEDIATELY when I started the weights. So it couldn’t have been muscle growth, there wasn’t time. So yeah, perhaps squats and romanian deadlifts changed the pheromones.

    Not enough to make a difference. But YMMV

  27. Guestopher

    @ Badger,

    I’ll have to find some time to glance at that Buss research.

    “That’s a true story for plenty of men in the game.”
    I’m not doubting the validity of improving attractiveness instead of compatibility. It worked for me. I must have laughed at the thought of someone proudly contradicting the compatibility myth. Probably because you never hear this particular counter-point verbalized IRL

  28. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: Truncated Moving Week | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  29. van Rooinek

    Well… hot dang… just stumbled on this:

    Roissy Maxim #35: Never trust a woman’s advice on how to please women. Her advice is designed for alpha men she already finds attractive and from whom she seeks signals of attainability and commitment.

    Hmm.

    Badgerhut, above: Men ask for attraction advice, but receive compatibility advice that presumes attraction

    Me, above: Attraction is not compatibility….Almost all romantic advice given to men, by parents, pastors, and female friends, involves improving your compatibility

    Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall a matter be established….

  30. Pingback: Manosphere: Attraction, Desire and Love (Part 1) | 3rd Millenium Men

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s