This post is a continuation of my series on attraction. The most recent post in the series can be found here, and the first can be found here. Today’s post is going to focus on a specific feature of female attraction, commonly referred to as “Hypergamy.” This post is by no means meant to be exhaustive- there is a lot to cover and I won’t attempt to do so in this single post.
An Inaccurate Name for an Accurate Observation
Merriam-Webster defines Hypergamy as “marriage into an equal or higher caste or social group.” For anyone familiar with how hypergamy is used in the ‘sphere, you will realize that this definition is not what most people mean when they use that particular word. In fact, it is hardly ever used in conjunction with castes or social groups. Unsurprisingly, this trips more than a few people up. Those individuals who come across this part of the ‘net, and who upon seeing the word “Hypergamy” look it up, will quickly become confused. This often leads some people (mostly but not always women) to reject any “Red Pill” concepts which are connected with hypergamy.
Here is an example of a post where a woman “rejects” hypergamy. A quick review of her post will reveal that she has a better understanding of the subject than most who come to that conclusion. She knows that it is about more than just “marrying up” to a higher social group. However, her understanding is still imperfect (more might be said about her post but I’m keeping this narrowly focused here). To help her out, and to help out anyone else whose knowledge of this area is lacking, I will (try to) explain what “Hypergamy,” as used in the ‘sphere, actually means.
The thing to understand is that hypergamy is not about “marrying up.” And by that I mean its not about marrying, and not necessarily about “up” in a social status sense. No, hypergamy is about maximization.
Hypergamy means the female drive to maximize a woman’s access to a man, or men, who can meet her demand for the best genetics, provision and protection possible.
This “drive” breaks down into two specific drives, both of which can be (and often are) independent of one another. As Rollo has explained in the past (and I’m sure he can include a post or two in the comments below as examples), women want “Good Genes” and “Good Dads.” In other words, they have a drive to mate with a man with the best perceived genes, which will be passed on to their children. And they have a drive to secure or “lock down” or get “commitment” from a man who they perceive will be the best possible “dad.” Such a man will protect and provide for a woman and her children. Arousal (or sexual attraction) is tied to “good genes”, and (non-sexual) attraction is tied to being a “good dad.” Often, attraction and a man’s skills or ability as a provider/protector are tied to his social status, but not always.
The female ideal is to get both “needs” met in the same package. Essentially, a man with (perceived) good genetics who will also stick around and care for the woman and her children. However, it is not common (at least in this day and age) to find a man with both sets of qualities. And its even rarer to find that kind of man who is free and is interested in settling down. This is where things get more complicated.
You see, women are more than willing and able to seek out different men to meet each individual “need.” In fact, I would argue that women who cannot get both in the same man will naturally employ this strategy unless they are reared not to. This strategy entails sleeping with men with (perceived) good genes, and then trying to get men who are perceived as good providers/protectors to take care of them. It is called by some “AF/BB”, or “Alpha F—s, Beta Bucks.” Potiphar’s wife, whom I mentioned in my latest Sunday Scriptures post, was likely trying to employ this strategy. Bathsheba, on the other hand, was (assuming she was trying to get David’s attention) trying to get David to carry out a “relationship coup”- that is, to remove Uriah from the picture so that she could marry David. David, after all, was an upgrade from Uriah as far as both drives were concerned.
My suspicion, which seems borne out by evidence all around us, is that women primarily focus on “good genes” when they are younger, and as they get older and have children, “good dads” take preeminence (Rollo refers to this as the Epiphany phase). This, along with some things I will explain in the next few paragraphs, will explain why a stable-hand might draw the attention that a banker doesn’t.
Now, I’ve used “perceived” at several points in the last few paragraphs because it isn’t always clear which men have “good genes” and which men would be “good dads.” Usually the latter is easier to figure out than the former. Women use various shortcuts to try and determine how well a man rates on both. The primary tool that women use to determine “Good Genes” (aka, arousal) is a man’s LAMPS/PSALM score. The higher a man ranks in LAMPS value, the more sexually attractive he is to women and the more he will arouse them. The stable-boy, who is somewhat mocked in the post linked above, is an example of a man whose LAMPS score is high, at least compared to the banker. The banker’s decent Status value helps him, but if he has a lower Power value then it doesn’t matter, ultimately. Likewise, the reference to rogues and pirates all showcase men with high LAMPS scores, primarily focused on the Power attribute. These are all men who can arouse women, and since young women are primarily looking for arousal (rather than non-sexual attraction), that is why they garner such attention.
Something else tied to all of this is the behavior of “trading up.” This is a natural outgrowth of the drive to maximize access to “good genes” and “good dad” in a man. If a better man is found, then women will subconsciously want to “trade up.” That they don’t all the time is because of a number of factions: socializing, a sense of morality, a lack of opportunity and social penalties. Investing in a man over time can also reduce this likelihood. Remove these and women will often leap at a chance to trade up. Only, their idea of trading up may vary, depending on what particular drive they are trying to maximize at the time. Also, their perceptions of what constitutes “higher value” may not always be crystal clear.
One additional note: hypergamy is one drive among many that women possess. Albeit a powerful drive. But for women who are raised properly, its nastier effects can be limited, or even controlled. Unfortunately this is no longer the case for most modern women.
Hopefully this provided at least a half-way understandable explanation of hypergamy, as it is used by people in the ‘sphere. It is an inaccurate use of a word, that much I will grant. A better term needs to be invented, I think, to really encompass everything that falls under this umbrella. But until then hypergamy remains an inaccurate name for an accurate observation of female behavior.
Good Enough v. The Best
As mentioned above, hypergamy is about maximization and a desire for the best. Its arousal component means that a woman will be drawn, sexually, to the men around her who she perceives as meeting her drive’s demand for “good genes.” More specifically, she will be drawn to the best among them- those men with the highest LAMPS values. However, this isn’t the only behavior in play.
Women also have what is called an “Attraction floor,” which is a point below which they won’t consider a man as a viable sexual partner. This means that in a population where none of the men are above this point, women won’t be able to satisfy their “good genes” hypergasmic impulse (that one never gets old). If they do pick a man, it won’t be based on arousal. Rather, it will be based on his being perceived as a “good dad” candidate, aka, (non-sexual) attraction. There is no guarantee that they will pick such men; some women would rather do without (just as some men will choose to do without if they can’t find any candidates they consider acceptable/worthy).
What this means for a man is that he needs to make sure that he isn’t simply the best. He also needs to be sure that he is above a woman’s attraction floor. The problem is that there is no clear indication where this floor is. The fluid nature of the LAMPS model makes it difficult to pinpoint values. Furthermore, each women values each attribute somewhat differently, and also has her own floor for that matter. All of which makes it next to impossible to know where this floor is. It is much easier, on the other hand, to know where it isn’t. If a man arouses a woman, he is above the floor. If he doesn’t, then he is likely below it. Consequently, a man should always endeavor to build his LAMPS values as high as possible, to ensure that he is not only the best, but that he is good enough as well.
Toxic Hypergamy
One subject that comes up from time to time around these parts is Toxic Hypergamy. This refers to the notion that some women’s hypergamy “filter” has become so warped that they can no longer (realistically) meet it their hypergamic requirements. In other words, what they find acceptable or worthy in a man is at such a high level so as to be unattainable by all but a few men (or in extreme cases no man alive could ever be acceptable). Naturally enough, there aren’t enough of these men to go around. And often such men won’t have anything to do with women exhibiting this behavior. Further, the women who have this often aren’t high enough value themselves to justify having such standards. In many (most?) instances they are often quite bad at estimating their own SMV.
Toxic Hypergamy seems to be especially prevalent in Christian circles. More than a few posters and commenters around these parts can attest to personal stories of Western Christian women who demonstrated this particular condition. EAPs, or Entitled American Princesses, often have Toxic Hypergamy, and can turn down countless men while they wait for a “worthy” man to show up. This has only exacerbated the problems inherent in the American Church.
What I find interesting about this phenomenon is that it serves as further demonstration that a woman’s hypergamy can be influenced by her surroundings and by how she was raised. In the present age this is a cause of sorrow. But at the same time there is some hope for the future. Parents who raise their daughters right, either now or in the future, can account for this and hopefully take steps to help their daughters rein in their hypergamic instincts.
A Debased Currency
Rollo’s post Loyalty & Hypergamy is an article that I think some of my male readers would find illuminating (I guess women might find it interesting, but it is less likely to be illuminating for them, and would be a difficult read). It delves a bit into the concept of loyalty and how that intersects a bit with hypergamy.
Donal Graeme 
Well, thedeti, what do you mean when you say “attract women?” Attracting women is not difficult to do, and therefore, having sex with women would not be difficult to do. Attracting the kind of women you want is (unless you’re extremely blessed).
@ Deti
Another model would be the Godly Masculinity model that has been talked about on occasion around here. Or you could call it Righteous Alpha, named after the post that Donal wrote months ago under that title. That’s what most gets me, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. A man doesn’t have to have a proven track record of having slept with a bunch of women in order to be attractive.
He has to have a proven track record of being able to attract women; not actually sleeping with them.
Hank, uh, yes, attracting women is difficult to do. So is cultivating and maintaining attraction. That’s why there’s a manosphere. A bunch of men started showing up here because they couldn’t attract women, or couldn’t attract the sorts of women they were willing to commit to. Or they couldn’t maintain that attraction. Or they were frivorced. Most men are here because they aren’t attractive, can’t attract women, can’t maintain attraction, or attract damaged and (I guess) “abnormal” women.
If attracting women is easy, then there’s no need for the manosphere. Let’s all fold up our tents and go back to doing whatever we were doing before we got here.
Feminine But Not Feminist
And now that Donal has lumped humor into the Power category, I think that settles the question of where it belongs.
I kind of overlooked that he did that even though I quoted it in my response, but I was actually just responding to the fact that he said someone could compensate with one kind of attractive trait versus another. In response, then, I’ll say that I’m not sure I’d put funny in the power category in but rarest of instances. Sure, funny celebrities manage to leverage their humor into a certain kind of power. People who use humor to in effect “control the room” in certain social situations could be considered powerful, and I’ve even been that guy sometimes. I even try to be him all the time when I’m around women I find attractive, but it’s not always easy to maintain.
Deti, I said attracting the kind of women you want is difficult to do. However, as you know, women literally come in all shapes and sizes.
Heck, even my uncle who’s in his 60s, is in bad health, is poor, and has been divorced multiple times has never seemed to have a lack of women interested in him. The quality of those women, however…Well, let’s just say I wouldn’t be attracted to them.
Hank, men have a pretty low bar for attraction. It’s not too hard for a man to find a woman he’s attracted to. If a man can’t find any women around him that he thinks are attractive, then his standards are too high.
Attracting such women is a different matter. If a man can’t attract a woman he’s attracted to then either his standards are too high or he has structural problems that need fixing.
“or attract damaged and (I guess) “abnormal” women.”
I did that twice. Twice divorced. But I share custody of my wonderful son.
“Since we’re on the subject of other attractive traits, though, I’d like to point out that I don’t actually consider athleticism an attractive trait unto itself any more than I consider any other talent an attractive trait unto itself. If I’m really fast or can jump really far (both of which I was particularly good at when I was younger), that ability alone doesn’t help me attract women (or didn’t help me attract girls), and I never joined any school sports to demonstrate my athleticism in these areas. ”
Hank, I believe the point here about attraction is that if a man can do athletic stuff then he has an athletic body such as a V shape and such. The athletic body is visually attractive to women, kinda like perky breasts are attractive to us. It’s not the quantity of push ups, it the look of the muscular pectorals that permits the quantity of push ups.
thedeti
Attracting such women is a different matter. If a man can’t attract a woman he’s attracted to then either his standards are too high or he has structural problems that need fixing.
Yeah, but most guys’ standards for who they would simply have sex with are pretty low. I’m probably no different in this regard (although they’re higher than my uncle’s). I don’t avoid sex with women because my standards for who I would have sex with are too high. I avoid sex with women because I consider premarital sex immoral, and since I’ve waited this long, anyway, I might as well not ruin a good track record by losing my virginity at 35 to some promiscuous woman when God could have the one I’m to marry right around the corner. I will admit that my standards for who I’ll marry are pretty high, but I don’t think this is unusual, even and maybe especially for men who do have sex with multiple women, as evidenced by the fact that the women they have sex with will complain that those men won’t commit, yes?
My overall point, though, is that I don’t believe that a man proves his value to women by having sex with other women to demonstrate he can. When you had mentioned that earlier in the thread, I thought you were being somewhat facetious. You’ve been right about a lot things in this thread but not this one in my view. My own preferences for women and morals notwithstanding, I can’t for one second believe that the women I’m most interested in would be impressed if I started living a promiscuous lifestyle and was obvious about it. This would go double if the women I’m interested in believed the women I was having sex with were low quality.
“My overall point, though, is that I don’t believe that a man proves his value to women by having sex with other women to demonstrate he can. When you had mentioned that earlier in the thread, I thought you were being somewhat facetious.”
That’s not what I said. I did NOT say a man “proves his value to women by having sex with other women to demonstrate he can”. I said a man proves he is sexually attractive to women by having sex with other women. “Sexually attractive” is one part of “proves his value”, but it is not ALL there is. Does a man HAVE to have sex with women to demonstrate sexual attractiveness? I suppose not, but I’ve not seen a more effective way.
I also said that the only thing that keeps a woman with a man in this SMP/MMP is her sexual attraction to him. I stand by this statement. There’s ample evidence to support it, from the 90%+ sexual activity rate among unmarried Christian women, to the 50% divorce rate, to the 38% divorce rate among Christians; to the 25% divorce rate among Catholics, to the highly publicized extramarital sexual affairs among high profile Christians.
@ Poseidon
I’m glad you have at least some role in your son’s life.
Deti,
You must believe that 75% of Catholic men are sexually attractive to women, then. Or is there some other reason those marriages are still intact?
thedeti,
When I said, “proves his value to women,” I thought that statement kind of implied I was talking about sexual attractiveness, especially since we’re discussing sexual attractiveness, but that part doesn’t really matter I guess.
In any event, I can’t see being immoral as a viable option for a Christian man simply because women or society in general are immoral. I believe increased immorality and further acceptance of it leads to the very divorce stats you mention. Besides that, I just don’t think practicing sexual immorality would work with the types of women in whom I’m interested. In my circles, premarital sex is not something people brag about or admire. If a woman were to admire it, it would probably be because she engages in it herself and thinks it’s OK, in which case I wouldn’t be interested in HER.
“You must believe that 75% of Catholic men are sexually attractive to women, then. Or is there some other reason those marriages are still intact?”
It could be that 75% of married Catholic men are sexually attractive. That’s possible. For the purposes of the last question you asked, though, and vis a vis this discussion, the relevant inquiry isn’t why the marriage is intact, or why he stays with her. The crucial inquiry is why she stays with him.
Poseidon
Hank, I believe the point here about attraction is that if a man can do athletic stuff then he has an athletic body such as a V shape and such. The athletic body is visually attractive to women, kinda like perky breasts are attractive to us. It’s not the quantity of push ups, it the look of the muscular pectorals that permits the quantity of push ups.
That’s exactly my point.
Not knock offs, but perhaps people wanting to fit into the world and market to the world (the non-Christian part).
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/ten.amazing.christian.rip.offs.of.fifty.shades.of.grey/46136.htm
A fun parody:
http://topekasnews.com/christian-book-review-fifty-shades-grey/
In any event, I can’t see being immoral as a viable option for a Christian man simply because women or society in general are immoral. I believe increased immorality and further acceptance of it leads to the very divorce stats you mention. Besides that, I just don’t think practicing sexual immorality would work with the types of women in whom I’m interested. In my circles, premarital sex is not something people brag about or admire. If a woman were to admire it, it would probably be because she engages in it herself and thinks it’s OK, in which case I wouldn’t be interested in HER.
Exactly. Which is why I object so strenuously to Deti’s insisting on using what was essentially a disastrous way to begin any marriage (let alone a Christian one) as some kind of template.
If I were to be completely honest, I would have to say that I wasn’t a woman worthy to be married to a righteous man. I had something of an advantage over many young women because I was raised with a clear example and expectations of marital hierarchy and masculine leadership. My husband was as well. Even if it was sometimes flawed,at least it was at least there. Our mothers did not run the show and knew their places.
If anything besides grace, THAT is the overriding factor in our success, not the wrong behaviors that preceded our marriage. We can give our parents credit for at least giving us that. But we were sinful immoral people who were granted enormous grace in Christ.
We are not in any way to be emulated by people who are walking a righteous path.
Not to mention deti, not only do such men get all that but all the fun they want on the side too cause the woman is just so darn attracted to ever leave. Its a win win for men. The scandal affair stories you hear in the news where the wife stands by her man its more likely that is because she is just so darn attracted and not always because of morals. The ones who leave after an affair scandal are those who were never attracted in the first place and this is her ticket out while she can also play the poor victim card at same time.
I’m less interested in the personalities involved than I am in the male characteristics that comprise a successful marriage (“success” defined as “she is attracted to him, doesn’t want to divorce him, wants to stay married to him; and he has his wants/needs met).
As I’ve said, it appears to me that in the current SMP/MMP, the men with the most successful marriages are those men who are sexually attractive. It’s their sex appeal that keeps their wives with them.
It’s challenging, I think, to discuss these things across regional and social class lines. Much of the manosphere’s leading voices on attraction are living in the larger cities on the coasts (or their inland equivalents): NYC, DC, LA, Toronto, Boston, Dallas, etc.
If you’re in a smaller place, the basic ideas still apply, but they apply in that very different context, which means that how things play themselves out differs a lot from how they play themselves out in a huge megalopolis, where there are millions and millions of people to choose from.
In the cities where I have lived, which are in the Eastern Coastal Megalopolis, the ideas of the manosphere apply more or less directly in terms of what arouses, what attracts, and what women do when they are around 30ish. Including the Karen Owens of the world. Why? Because Karen Owens (not her personally, but “her” as a type) are precisely the kinds of women who are in the UMC in the coastal Megalopolis. Her behavior is the behavior I have seen, because she was the girl next to me in university/law school, the peer-age young lawyer living it up in Manhattan at 25 next to me at the office cocktail party, who is now the soccer mom living in the burbclaves of DC.
I know Karen Owen, in the sense of having known many of her. I don’t know many women who choose men in other ways – not among attractive, successful women in the megalopolis. Most of them end up marrying men in their late 20s, early 30s who are nothing like the men they dated between 15 and 28 — nothing at all like them. These are the BBs. What happens? At some point the woman has the epiphany that none of these fun guys she’s dating/etc. with is good marrying material, and she’s finally ready to get around to marrying, so she targets different kinds of men. It isn’t that these men are “objectively unattractive as husbands” — they’re not. But they’re also not the kind of men these women would ever “date for fun”. Different guys.
Heck, even Sheryl Sandberg, who is also of my cohort and education class (as is Hannah Rosin, etc.), now explicitly advises women to date the fun guys while younger and the serious, good husband types later on. This is a very successful woman, a married woman (never divorced), but it’s all AF/BB in another language. AF/BB is what this cohort of women *does* if they are attractive enough to pull off the AF part of it and are in a place (location) where there is enough anonymity and enough abundance of AF to make it feasible. It just *is* the case.
Most guys don’t want to be the BB in this situation — they don’t want to be a guy who is picked for stability, rather than the guy she can’t help but be aroused by. Ideally, a man is both arousing and attractive, and that’s what guys should aim to be … but very few guys want to be the guy who is attractive but not arousing.
——-
Re: Hypergamy
To me, regardless of the term we use, the key is that the main difference between men and women here lies in the floor — that is where is the cutoff line in terms of lack of arousal. For men, it’s below their own SMV, whereas for women it is above their own SMV. A man can be aroused by a woman below his SMV, whereas a woman cannot be. A woman is only aroused by men who are above (or in a limited number of cases, at par with) her own SMV. That is the key difference.
It isn’t about maximization. Both sexes maximize, so if you describe it as maxmization, it will be quickly pointed out that both sexes maximize. True enough. What is different, is that women’s attraction floor is inherently hypergamous in that it lies above themselves, whereas men’s attraction floor lies below themselves and is therefore not hypergamous. That’s where the key distinction lies.
This key difference is why there is such a thing as AF/BB. The BBs are generally either par SMV or perhaps a notch lower SMV than the woman is. This means she is generally not aroused by them, at least not in any way approaching the degree to which she was aroused by the AFs she dated before she decided to get serious about finding a man to marry. The reason why she marries the AF anyway is because she wants to have children, wants the father to be around (again, I am speaking of UMCs here who generally abhor both single motherhood and divorce), and realizes that the fun, sexy AFs she has been dating aren’t the marrying type (or the type to get married to), so she finds a man who fulfills the “attraction” traits (stability, etc.) but doesn’t ring her bell the way the AFs did. This is no way means that the BB is “ugly”, “objectively unattractive” and so on — it just means he isn’t arousing. This is socially acceptable as well, because the women in this cohort are all generally married to BBs and know the difference between the arousing guys they dated before marrying, and the attractive (but not arousing) men they married later — and so they lose no social status for marrying BB. It isn’t generally a case of gold-digging, either — these women have their own incomes, and in many cases, it’s substantial. It has to do with wanting to be married to have kids and for social respectability, and not being able to make that happen with a marriage-suitable (and willing) AF, after trying for years to find that.
@ Hank et al
I think, generally, a better term would be “excellence” (in a specific area) or perhaps “aptitude” if you want to keep the A for the PSALM moniker. Technically, the Greek word “arete” which means virtue/excellence/manliness would be the best term for this in my opinion. A man who is excellent on the sports field, or has talent in a certain area, or is really good at something can be summed up by all of those descriptors.
This is also dependent on hypergamy/maximizations. A woman who has released a couple of platinum selling CDs with her musical guitar and singing skills isn’t going to be as attracted some random girl who probably has no musical talent at all.
Thus, we’d have PSALM:
~Power/personality
~Status
~Athleticism -> arete/aptitude (or excellence perhaps)
~Looks
~Money
Deep Strength-
As you describe “arete/aptitude,” “accumen” also works!
In other words, he has shown better than average skill and mastery of his profession/chosen field.
@FBNF: My explanation wasn’t that much better than yours. 😉 😛
Hey, did anybody see Rollo Tomato’s recent post? Apparently, if you’re a strong, independent feminist slut, you can go there for website promotion. I have a lot to learn from a woman like that. On the topic of hypergamy…
It’s like, when you go hunting for bucks, you leave some apples. When you’re hunting for a Beta Bucks, you leave your apples all over Rollo’s page.
Excellence, by nature, assumes a superior position to Domain Dependence. It’s like a split: attraction potential v. attraction dynamic. Attraction Potential > Attraction Dynamic, because overall success with women depends on a person’s ability to adapt. Attraction Dynamic is important in terms of your immediate value to a given woman, or how you are viewed.
“Hawtness” a two-part thing for men, just based on what I’ve read. First of all, what’s your potential and where are you at with maxing it out it? Are you A-L-M etc. enough? Second of all, where are you at in your current *dynamic(s)*? Are you maxing-out your status in the pecking order?
Attraction Potential is an investment: work at it a little bit every day.
Attraction Dynamic is where you should throw most of your energy: play to win.
PSALMS is a mixture of attraction and desirability. Although I’m just a woman who knows nothing very, very little about my own attraction triggers, I think it’s safe to say that money is desirable and athleticism is attractive. I believe that in the end, it doesn’t matter what ratio a woman is attracted to you or desires you. It only boils-down to one question: Are you satisfied?
The prize of game is to gain your own satisfaction from the opposite sex. Yes, female attraction is one necessary factor of male satisfaction. But if that’s what satisfies you, you’ll find it. If you’re not satisfied, you’ll reject it.
Work on things that both make a woman desire you and make a woman attracted to you. Follow these rules of game, and you’ll be satisfied. Attraction vs. Desirability is irrelevant.
So, to wrap it up, that’s my thoughts on Attraction.
My thoughts on Hypergamy is that it is 1) a misnomer and 2) better described as the Feminine (Female?) Imperative being advanced by the system of Feminism. It’s an irrelevant concept.
And now for the most alpha male ever:
And now for the funniest frivorce ever:
As always, if you like an article or idea that I share, regardless of your feelings about me as a person, do the intellectually honest thing and attribute these ideas to their source.
And with that, I end my contribution of generating other people’s comments to this side of the internet.
@ Tru:
“do the intellectually honest thing and attribute these ideas to their source.”
Specifically what do you mean by this? How would I attribute an idea of yours to the source?
In my original LAMPS model, Athleticism referred to those physical features of appearance that a man could change their diet and exercise. So weight, muscle tone, muscle mass, etc. Looks referred more to those features which a man couldn’t change or couldn’t do so directly, such as height, skin tone and facial structure.
“Excellence” from a man would seem to tie into both the Power and Status attributes, rather than something new. How good he is compared to others and where that places him in a hierarchy of skill would fall under Status. His attitude while perfecting or carrying out his craft would be Power (think drive).
Also, for humor, it isn’t directly a component of Power. But usually it is strongly tied to confidence, assertiveness and self-confidence, which are tied to power. So there is a link, but not a direct one.
Since the dreaded “H word” is so inaccurate, I’m not going to use it further in this post, and probably future posts (except in quotes to indicate its questionability).
Yet, even if women aren’t hypergamous in the literal sense, they definitely have unique behaviors which sets them aside from men. Novaseeker gets to some of it with attraction floors, although “arousal floor” would be more accurate with the present terminology. However, there is more to it than that.
Specifically, what is unique to women is the combination of a preference for serial monogamy with their dualistic “needs” vis-a-vis arousal and attraction. This creates a dynamic that is quite different from male behaviors except in very tightly regulated conditions. The female strategy of AF/BB is quite different from either the preferred or secondary male sexual strategies.
Remember, AF/BB is a backup strategy- a woman employs it if she cannot satisfy both needs in the same man. Ideally she wants just one who Has It All. Men, on the other hand, naturally want more than one woman. Our natural inclination is polyamorous , not serial monogamy. Thus, men are not inclined to “trade-in” the old product like a woman is. Instead, we want to add a new woman to our existing harem. The male strategy of replacing the old woman with a new woman only occurs when social (or environmental) conditions prevent a man from having more than one.
Another critical difference is that while women have two “needs”, men only have one, or rather, just one baseline of attraction. We have our “1 to 10 scale” which we employ to rate a woman’s physical attractiveness. Only after accepting a woman as above our attraction floor do we then screen for whether she is a “keeper” or not. Women, however, screen for both AF and BB at the same time.
There are clear differences here. It isn’t just feminism. Or sexual liberation. Or anything of the sort. Again, just look at the Old Testament: Potiphar’s Wife. Jacob and Rachel and Leah. David and Bathsheba. Different strategies, different behaviors. All about maximizing, but in different ways.
Perhaps I should write a post where people can suggest new names for this line of behaviors….
To go back to my original statement: “sexual attractiveness and provision are mutually exclusive goals that can not fully exist together”, I’m stating something that is more true because of the man rather than the woman that she must deal with. There are a number of biological reasons for this.
To harken back to my very first comment on this thread, I’ve come to believe that things are often taken too simply, “confusing external motivations with biological ones, or removing motivations of the men.” I know for sure in studying these things on whether to own them that a man’s motivations (and true biological drives) are often left on the table, especially since empirical observations of women are a reflection of those. Effectively you end up with a theme I’ve hit upon several times myself: These observations often reflect the appearance of such things and not the essence of what is going on.
By what I wrote, I’m saying this is a distinct impossibility. Since this is the case, all women have to employ AF/BB unconditionally. Since Elspeth and her husband was brought up as an example, I can’t say I know the answers to all the questions I would have in fully assessing that situation (I seem to remember her answering one or two a long time ago in another blog post, but not conclusively).
As I intimated above in my comment to FBNF and in the question, the qualities of what is “attractive” to a woman is dictated by whether she has adopted an AF or BB strategy towards men. Hence, a man has to identify which strategy fits with his own desires and goals and identify what women are employing that strategy.
More is explained by what strategy she is employing, to the point I’ve come to believe you literally have to take each separately when explaining women. For instance, something like this is legitimately explained in that a woman is operating with a BB strategy. I see comments like thedeti’s which seem to dictate this.
To summarize, thedeti’s problem is that he (and most men) are trained for the BB strategy in dealing with women and are not even made aware the AF strategy is legitimate, nor how to operate in it.
Anyway, there’s lots more text that can be written in posts to round out more correct models than the typical manosphere ones, as well illustrated by the hypergamy one here, which can be extended to numerous other concepts.
Being a guy who doesn’t live in a coastal megalopolis or its inland equivalent, I can say that AFBB is definitely a thing here and it does play out more or less the same way. The differences are largely in terms of time and degree. There’s also been a time lag, as the cultural trends migrated inward from the coasts (as happens with all cultural trends in the US). Cultural and media portrayals of the “fabulous single female life”, which portrayals are almost always based in Los Angeles/Orange County or the Boston/NYC/NJ/DC/Philly megalopolis have also had a huge, huge effect in the Midwest on intersexual relations, AFBB, marriage delays and the like.
Coming up in the late 1980s and early 1990s in university and grad school, from my perspective and observation, women seemed about evenly divided between early marriage and AFBB. That is, half pursued a “traditional” strategy of lifetime marriage by early 20s. The other half were going to college with no expectations of finding a husband before establishing themselves in a career. This latter half of women were pursuing a masculinized life strategy — very much like the men they were in school with.
For the women who married early and stayed married, it worked out OK but this cohort shrank with each passing year. Increasing numbers of the “early marriers” were getting divorced mostly because the women didn’t want to stay married. Some married early to high school boyfriends. Some of them got knocked up and had to get married. A big number of them just weren’t “done growing up”. Mostly it was because their life goals diverged widely from those of their young husbands. The men were satisfied – they had jobs and wives and a kid or two. Done and dusted – good enough. But that wasn’t good enough for their young wives who saw media portrayals of plucky, witty, sassy/brassy working- and middle-class women making it on their own after widowhood or divorce. Sometimes the wives wanted more schooling and careers of their own, and doing that even away from smaller population centers wasn’t an option. I knew a few women who divorced simply because they didn’t want to live their whole lives like Mom and Grandma, down on the farm or in the towns and small cities of under 100K population they grew up in.
Often, an “early married” wife in her mid 20s and with a kid or two found she was still attractive to other men. An increasing number of those women decided to cash in on that, particularly if the “other man” was BB and could promise a wealthier, more materialistic lifestyle. Sometimes BB wasn’t a parachute for carousel riders as much as it was a “second chance” for early marriers who felt they’d chosen poorly the first time.
The career girls’ lives resembled those of their coastal sisters in terms of AFBB but was time compressed and on smaller scales. A lot of these women figured out a lot earlier that they weren’t going to get an AF husband, so instead of spending 10 years on the carousel, they spent 3 to 5 years. Lack of anonymity wasn’t a problem so much as the pool of men available within close and extended social circles. What would happen typically was that women were having AF sex with the attractive men in their social circles. It was common that an attractive man would have sex with many, if not most, of the women in a particular group of friends, and that fact was one of common knowledge among the women in that group. It was also common that that attractive man knew and had grown up with most of those women in high school. Women who really wanted to live the AF lifestyle had to go increasingly further away from their social circles, so there weren’t too many who actually did this.
And at the end, they are all still marrying BBs. It just doesn’t generally take as long for them to get there. And they don’t always have to go outside their social circles to get there, though some do.
Something I didn’t see is that women were trying to lock down AF men for marriage through deploying rapid sex. Among the half that were trying to marry early, that might be. But among the half that weren’t, I just didn’t see that. Most of these women were about having fun, getting drunk, getting high, partying down, and fun sex with hot men.
Culture and media have had an incalculable effect on sexual mores in the heartland. Women pretty much live here the way it is depicted on the coasts. Women grew up seeing single, never married and divorced women living singly or with roommates in the eastern seaboard megalopolis; living lives they can afford only in Hollywood or TV land. But in the heartland, costs of living are lower. So a single woman can live on her own or with a roomie on an entry level salary. And after a few years as a single woman with no dependents and earning routine salary increases, she will live quite well. The archetypes were the female characters on “Friends” – they all wanted to live, and did live, like Rachel, Phoebe and Monica. They have their own money and their own places, and they date and have sex with attractive men, for as long as they wish to.
And there are single living, metrosexual, cosmopolitan enclaves in most every city and college town in the Midwest. The culture and lifestyle seeped inward from Chicago and DFW into Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Des Moines, Omaha, and Memphis. And it’s into college towns like Madison; South Bend; Ann Arbor; Bloomington, Indiana; Iowa City; Jackson, Mississippi; Austin, Texas, and the like. These are all politically, socially, sexually and economically liberal and socialist, heavily Democratic areas; surrounded by sprawling conservative and rural areas. But the attitudes of later marriage, easy divorce, and no strings attached sex have infiltrated all the way down into the rural areas as well. So there has no doubt been a huge cultural shift that has made it all the way into the heartland. AFBB is just more time compressed and on a little smaller scale.
I think generally AF/BB is rooted in biological clock, but it can be bypassed by religious moores and/or wise counsel.
Obviously, the vast majority of women at their peak market value somewhere between 18-25ish, and these women are primarily looking for AF. However, if a woman is actually a Christian (not an EAP) or has been taught by their parents or other wise counsel about femininity and locking down a man with potential then they are concerned about AF/BB and getting married. The AF component is still the primary goal at this point because that is what is the most sexually arousing/attractive.
Then women hit “the wall” which is around age 30ish or so where looks start to decline with a noticable decrease in male attention either perceptably or imperceptable to her and in context of her biological clock for her desire to have children. Rollo terms it epiphany obviously but this is where BB becomes more important but is still not a primary driving factor. Maximizations are still going to occur: women are going to look for the most AF they can get while getting all of the qualities of BB.
Due to distortion of her expectations (from CC or even being around the CC) I suppose it will vary a lot depending on how much she “settles.” Men are almost never settling because men control commitment to women… it is the men who ask women out on dates and it is they who will be proposing.
Granted, we know that approximately 40% of first marriages end in divorce with the max rate of about 50% for all marriages. We know that a non-majority but still significant minority of marriages are unhappy as well. When I ran the numbers off of the frequency of sex per week study by the Kinsey institute a while back, it was almost as if 20% of marriages had high amounts of sex everyday or every couple days, another 20% were a few times a week to weekly, another 20% of the marriages fell into the weekly or monthly range, and then another 40% of the marriages were monthly to yearly sex. Pretty much close to what we observe with the spectrum of men and the 80/20 rule.
Obviously, the bottom percentage of marriages are the ones where the wife is not sexually attracted to the husband and will most likely implode to be the 40% of divorces. Then the weekly to monthly range will be those that are unhappy but they’re not unhappy enough to divorce and there might be cheating there. Then the other ones are for the most part on the spectrum of happiness where the husbands are relatively more sexually attractive.
The most scary thing is that if a woman’s expectations are so warped that she can’t find any man who is decently AF with BB, she will go into the marriage assuming that she will get pregnant a couple times to get her children, and then she will divorce rape him for child support and/or alimony. If you read the stories of women now it’s overt and premeditated.
Overall, something that has cropped up time and time again is that “smart” males and females will usually end up sacrificing a bit of sexual attractiveness if their potential spouse has desirable traits in spades as those tend to make the best marriage partners. If you marry solely on sexual attractiveness and ignore other yellow/red flags you’re playing with fire.
The MMP has always been a bit distorted because you have to look for both AF(sexual arousal)/BB(attractiveness/desirability) for women and for physical appearance (sexual attractivenes) and desirable traits (kind, loving, respectful, submissive, etc.) for men. Since the major thrashing of masculinity by feminism, the hard part to find for women will always be AF(sexual arousal) and the hard part to for men to find will be desirable women.
As I intimated above in my comment to FBNF and in the question, the qualities of what is “attractive” to a woman is dictated by whether she has adopted an AF or BB strategy towards men. Hence, a man has to identify which strategy fits with his own desires and goals and identify what women are employing that strategy.
Many women employ the strategies serially — that is, the AF strategy from 15-28, and then the BB strategy from 28-35 (or earlier if they marry). For this rather significantly large number of women, the BB strategy is a fallback based on biological clocks.
I’m interested, Deti, in pursuing a little bit the point about 75 percent of Catholic marriages surviving. Obviously not all of the men in these marriages are sexually desirable; there must be other reasons for these marriages lasting (for example, one would hope that many of these Catholics stay married due to their devotion to the sacraments). The interesting question though, at least in my mind, is not whether the wives are willing to stay with less-than-sexy men (for certainly at least a large portion of Catholic women are, not to mention other religiously observant women and AMC-women), but how many of these marriages are actually fulfilling for the men even if they do not have alpha or greater-beta traits. It’s an important question, because although hopefully men will improve themselves in order to be more sexually desirable, realistically the number of Catholic, religious, and secular men who will be willing or even able to do this will be – at most – a substantial minority. Are the remaining majority out of luck then, as I suppose you would argue?
My sense is that probably most men who are married to good, observant religious or secular women are out of luck, that is if they want to have a spouse who just doesn’t “choose” to stay with them but who also really cares about them and is willing to give herself to them (sexually, emotionally, intellectually, and otherwise). However, I do think that there are a lucky minority of men who are quite ordinary yet have wives who are still infatuated with them. How can this be so? I would guess that intelligence, character, biology, and – for a believer – supernatural grace all play a role here. It would be nice if there were a way for ordinary men to better find such women, since they probably know they’re not going to be able to alpha a way into a woman’s heart.
I’m curious as to what you guys think is happening when a girl skips the whole AF stage and tries (from the start) to lock down a good guy (her being successful or not in locking down said good guy early on being irrelevant). When she intentionally (again, from the start) puts a lot of focus on certain traits that seem to be called “beta traits” or “comfort traits” around here (which really annoys me, because they’re talked about negatively as if a girl is bad news if she seeks them out). How would you define her “sexual strategy”? I’m really curious because the whole AFBB model includes the F part *outside of and pre-marriage* by default, but not all of us go that route.
You’ve misunderstood AF. AF merely means sexual attractiveness/sexual arousal whether one is having sex or not. No woman who wants to get married early is going to marry a man she is not sexually attracted to.
The only time there is an actual skipping of AF is if a woman’s expectations are like an EAPs (entitled american princess) and she has to massively “settle” in her mind or if she is just marrying to get pregnant and then divorce rape the man for child support.
To clarify what Deep Strength said, AF/BB is the particular strategy of sleeping with sexually attractive men on the Carousel until you eventually switch over and “settle” by marrying a non-sexually appealing man.
Personally, I don’t like using AF or BB outside of that context, as it gets confusing.
With regards to your question, you are asking about a situation where woman doesn’t follow that strategy and seeks out marriage material men from the get-go. My answer is that such women don’t lose their desire or drive for men who arouse them, but will filter out ones who only bring that and aren’t providers/protectors. She is looking for both, if you well, rather than choosing one and then the other.
Feminine But Not Feminist
When she intentionally (again, from the start) puts a lot of focus on certain traits that seem to be called “beta traits” or “comfort traits” around here (which really annoys me, because they’re talked about negatively as if a girl is bad news if she seeks them out).
Who’s said this? If they have, then I disagree with them. I think it’s great if a woman seeks out comfort traits. I just don’t believe comfort (desirable traits?) are what most women, especially women with options, actually respond to.
I can’t tell you how many women who state in their online dating profiles that they want a man who loves Jesus but then those women don’t respond to a man who makes it clear Christ is a priority in his life. If I were ugly or acted inappropriate in some way, I might could understand, but let’s say I’m about average in looks. I actually think I’m at least slightly above average, but objectively speaking, I’m not fat (or super-skinny), have a good complexion, have hair, proper spacing between my eyes, and my nose and ears are not too big or small. I also have a decent jaw-line. My drawback is I have somewhat of a baby face. I guess that’s just not very masculine looking.
At first, I thought maybe I was messaging women who were too young to be interested in someone my age (35), but when you also don’t hear back from the ones 27 to 35 either, you start to think something else is at work. I’ve tried all types of different messages but never anything vulgar or inappropriate, and I also stay away from just saying, “Hi, how are you?” so as to not be boring either. It’s usually a question or comment about something in her profile, something that could hopefully spark at least a decent conversation. Therefore, I don’t think the content of the messages is problematic.
I get the most interest from women who are older than myself or women who are overweight, divorced (usually with kids), and usually combinations of any and all of the above. However, they don’t put in ANY effort into messages if they send any at all. Usually, I’ll just receive a wink, a smile, a “favoriting,” or a “like.” In the rare event I get a message, it’s just the standard “Hi, how are you?” message.
I was talking to three women, two of whom showed initial interest in me (of course, by using the favoriting and smiling features), but those communications seem to have ended, which is just fine by me. One was divorced with two kids, but she was above average in looks at least, assuming her pictures weren’t several years old, and she was also fairly local, so I was a little more open to seeing where that led. Another included a woman who initially “smiled” at me, and she was above average in looks as well, but there was a geographical problem there. The last one was the one I’d been talking to the longest, but she was too passive. She’d usually message or text me back, but I always had to initiate the contact, and I got the impression she didn’t much like to be physically active either. At one point, she suggested we get together and watch some movies, but when I tried to set up a meeting for the first time, she wasn’t available, which was understandable, but she never made a counter-offer either. As a side note, only the woman who was located several states away expressed that Christ and living for him were priorities in her life. I’m not sure the divorced woman was a Christian at all, because she identified as “spiritual but not religious,” and I hadn’t really had time to find out exactly what she meant by that yet.
Now, of course, these are just online experiences, but people on dating sites come from the planet Earth, so I don’t know that the way they act online is that much different than the way they really want to act in person. That is, a woman is going to be more polite and try to answer your questions in person, but an online venue simply gives her the opportunity to ignore you without the same social compulsion to respond. Besides, I’ve been interacting with women in person for years, whereas I’ve only used these dating sites for a few months, and I’ve seen the same things play out in person.
Women have a right to ignore whomever they want, just like I do. That’s not the point. The point is that they say they want one thing (e.g. a man who loves Jesus, has a good sense of humor, etc) but respond to something else…or maybe they don’t respond…to anyone…ever…I don’t know. Seriously, though, I can openly admit that I’m looking for more than just personality traits and that both looks and personality matter. Women in general seem to have a harder time admitting this even in cases where their reputations wouldn’t affected by doing so.
TL; DR: Refer to the first paragraph.
By the way, I’m sure women will say that looks matter to an extent. What I’m saying, though, is that apparently just “not hideous” isn’t good enough for many of them. I know there are exceptions to this. In fact, I’m counting on it.
HF, In fact, I’m counting on it.
I would never count on women for anything except that:
1) Women rely on you to to define your own SMV
2) Any man on FB (except fleetingly and randomly) has low SMV
3) Few women (or men) date based upon religiosity
4) The best way to raise your SMV for women is by…
Changing how you think:
a) never chase woman; build it and they will come
b) never take a woman seriously and assume the worst
c) embrace a hostile dating environment (1/20 American women is worthy)
d) embrace suffering as per Jesus
Changing how you live
aa) work hard to build a wide network of social contacts, focusing on men
bb) get of the internet or tv and do things: parties, dinners, dances
cc) work out hard daily (at home, P90X works fine here) and eat right
dd) work hard & play hard; build a career & have hobbies in lieu of women
Always know that just because things aren’t clicking doesn’t mean women aren’t desperately seeking men. Remember the immortal words of Rollo, It might not be you, it might not be me, but she is f**king someone.
Yeah, but having hobbies, being social, exercising and being active, working on your career, and other things like practicing hygiene, dressing well, and just generally trying to look presentable are all givens. Any man should already be doing all of these things if he’s physically and mentally able. Beyond these things, attracting women is just a matter of persistence, and I don’t mean persistence with the same woman. As soon as a woman stops responding to me, I don’t keep trying, so in that way I don’t chase women, but on the other side, I do grow weary of people who say, “You’ll find somebody as soon as you stop looking.” Yeah, because that’s worked so well in the past (not that that’s what you were saying about not chasing women, but some people do explicitly state this). I believe in chasing women to the point of actually initiating conversation with them, but I’m not the least bit into begging them for attention if they show any ambivalence towards me.
HF —
Online dating is only suitable for men who are very, very physically attractive. The reason is both that the environment is inherently that way (you don’t have much to go on, so the picture is critical) and that women are bombarded with messages in that environment, and so they act even more picky than they do offline — again, because they can in light of the huge torrent of messages they get. Any man who is not in the top 5-10% looks wise is going to way, way undershoot in an online environment. Best to stick to offline ways of meeting women unless you are like that.
FBNF, I’m curious as to what you guys think is happening when a girl skips the whole AF stage
I think she opens up more marriage options. I really don’t think the F part is necessary IF the woman is aggressive enough yet remains humble. The problem I see is that few men will believe her and so she would have to be extroverted about her views. Most quality men serious about marriage want to kick the tires first…since there are so many lemons out there.
HF, I do grow weary of people who say, “You’ll find somebody as soon as you stop looking.”
I say: You probably won’t find anybody. Period. And if you do, you will probably regret it.
Sorry. You can’t find water in the desert. Ideas have consequences, the West is dying, and Christian marriage is history except for Trads. Going overseas gives a fighting chance, but it’s still no sure thing.
donalgraeme
In my original LAMPS model, Athleticism referred to those physical features of appearance that a man could change their diet and exercise. So weight, muscle tone, muscle mass, etc. Looks referred more to those features which a man couldn’t change or couldn’t do so directly, such as height, skin tone and facial structure.
That makes sense.
“Excellence” from a man would seem to tie into both the Power and Status attributes, rather than something new. How good he is compared to others and where that places him in a hierarchy of skill would fall under Status. His attitude while perfecting or carrying out his craft would be Power (think drive).
This is along the lines of what I was thinking, too. It takes more than merely being good at something. One has to leverage that talent into something that others notice and appreciate. In fact, one doesn’t even have to be good at something. He just has to make others think he’s good at something in order to gain money, power, and status and consequently, admiration from the opposite sex (e.g. Justin Bieber’s experience, but to be fair, I’ve never actually listened to his music and based on his behavior alone, don’t intend to).
@ DS
I don’t know… I understood AFBB to mean what Donal said:
AF/BB is the particular strategy of sleeping with sexually attractive men on the Carousel until you eventually switch over and “settle” by marrying a non-sexually appealing man.
@ Donal
With regards to your question, you are asking about a situation where woman doesn’t follow that strategy and seeks out marriage material men from the get-go. My answer is that such women don’t lose their desire or drive for men who arouse them, but will filter out ones who only bring that and aren’t providers/protectors. She is looking for both, if you well, rather than choosing one and then the other.
Yep, that basically describes it. I’m glad that hasn’t gotten lost in all the talk that typically goes on when people start talking about AFBB. Thank you for seeing it.
@ Hank
Who’s said this?
Nobody has said it directly (as far as I know), but it’s implied in some of the talk that is made about AFBB. Like, when people say that a man can’t be attractive and desirable (or alpha and beta) at the same time, that implies that if a woman is looking for “beta” traits then it’s only because she is finally deciding to hop off of the carousel and settle down before it’s too late, that she won’t be attracted to him at all (considering he can’t be both alpha and beta at the same time, according to them). And it is talked about that a woman who marries a man she isn’t attracted to is bad news (and really, she is). So, the conclusion that I’ve come to is that if a woman shows interest in “beta” traits, then most of the men around here will have a “stay away!” attitude concerning her.
And I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to hit a nerve for you Hank… 😦
@ mdavid
I think she opens up more marriage options
Not really. Perhaps she will have a much better chance with certain men, but certainly not “more” of them.
Feminine But Not Feminist,
You have nothing for which to apologize. You couldn’t possibly hit any nerves with your post, and it would be someone else’s issue if that had happened. I was just sharing some observations based on my own experiences about women in general, but like I said, there are exceptions, and you may very well be one of those exceptions. Further, obviously, no virgin woman is getting off the carousel, so the “stay away” attitude some men might have concerning her interest in “beta” traits most definitely doesn’t apply here.
@FBNF —
I think it’s pretty much acknowledged in the ‘sphere that ideally women will get the AF and the BB in the same guy — sometimes referred to as the “alpha provider” or the man who triggers both arousal *and* attraction. And that this is the El Dorado that all women are looking for. I think we all know that.
The issue is that very few of these men exist. Most of the guys who are naturally very arousing to women are going to abuse that, because they are in the small minority of men who have sexual access widely available to them (other than gay men, who also abuse it often). So most of them are pretty poor on the “attraction” traits while scoring high on the “arousal” ones.
Conversely, most of the men who score high on “attraction” traits are naturally low on “arousal” traits. There is disagreement about whether this is a new phenomenon or not (I am in the camp who does not think it is a new phenomenon), but whatever the case it is the situation today. This is one of the main reasons why the ‘sphere is loaded with sites where guys who have those characteristics are trying to up their arousal quotient (by lifting weights, developing social skills, dressing better, etc.) — the idea is that in doing so they will become more attractive in the “arousal” area so that more women are willing to date them — again, precisely because, as Donal says and as you confirm, very few young/peak women are going to choose a man who does *not* trip the arousal triggers, so these guys want to trip the triggers so that they can attract young/peak women.
Of course, once women get sufficiently past peak, they do begin to settle
(not all of them, but many of them), which almost always means compromising on the arousal traits for someone who has good attraction traits. This is perilous for the men, as Deti has well described numerous times. So guys in the ‘sphere are also trying to avoid this (aka “getting settled for as a BB”) by upping their arousal profile so as to attract women who are at or close to peak, instead of being settled for as an unarousing yet attractive BB in the 30s.
So, yes, we know that women are looking for the combo of arousing and attractive — alpha and beta. It’s just that almost all guys who are strong in beta/attractive are weak in arousal/alpha.