Note: Tl;DR at Bottom

I recently made a discussion on PPD about the kind of discourse "Good Men" (GMs) as I defined them (men with virtuous, attractive traits) want to have if they are falling behind in dating. But everyone on the sub was basically being an asshole. Evidently, it's not possible to have those conversations outside of GM communities yet because of misconceptions about attractiveness. In the comment thread of my other post, I emphasised that there are a broad array of traits that could be described as "attractive" and that attractiveness could be determined by three possible criteria:

(a) social conventions regarding what is attractive

(b) evolutionary theories regarding traits resembling reproductive fitness as attractive

(c) individual perspectives on what constitutes attractiveness, which can change with time and hindsight


However, these foundations about what constitute attractiveness and how it is determined clearly had no resonance with PPD users in order to continue the conversation into the topic of "Good Man Discourse" because everyone there seems to think that attractiveness is purely correlation with sexual / dating success. This is to say that if you have romantic or sexual success, you are attractive. If not, you are not attractive. And that view is limited for reasons I'm about to explain.

Firstly, attractiveness can refer to a combination of the following traits:

  • Social prowess: Social awareness, communication, charm, understanding
  • Worldliness: culture, intellect, fascinating conversationalist
  • Masculine attractiveness: height, muscularity, chiselled jaw line, deep set eyebrows, thick hair, penis size
  • General social status: popular, cool, witty, interesting, entertaining, relaxed, extraverted
  • Masculine social status: masculine, charismatic, socially dominant, slow & bold movements, competitive, high testosterone
  • Economic status (virtues): ambitious, either successful or good potential, hard-working
  • General attractiveness: facial symmetry, nice eyes, nice smile, good shape, clear skin
  • Intelligence: scientific, mathematic, logical, analytical
  • Responsibility: financially independent, financially prudent, diligent, parental qualities
  • Creativity: musical, artistic, passionate, soulful
  • Belonging to a preferred ethnicity
  • Preferred ideological convictions (same politics, religion, ethics, etc.)
  • Economic status (possessions): excellent career, material possessions (house, car, etc.), excellent business contacts, large bank account
  • Appearance: fashion, grooming, hygiene, skin-care, etc.
  • Emotional stability: maturity, serenity, excellent conflict-resolution
  • Virtue: compassion, empathy, kindness, generosity (just not sufficient alone)


Second, people can end up not getting with people that they are sexually attracted to. For example, there was a SchoolOfAttraction video that covered this quite well, basically he asked an attractive woman what makes her want to have sex and as I remember the video, she replied that she had to talk to the guy to gauge him not just for value (attraction) but comfort (safety) and connection (emotional rapport). So those three things together constitute the overall process of psychological attraction. For some of the intrinsic qualities mentioned like charisma, accomplishment, passion, etc. the woman has to engage with the man to find these things out. For the extrinsic stuff (mainly looks but also body language, appearance - which could signify wealth, confidence and looks) she can see immediately and thus the spark is instantaneous in this regard.

So you see, attraction is a complex phenomena and this is before we have even begun to look at some of the social pressures / barriers that are emergent partially from the traditionalist-feminist paradigm. These things can interfere with the psychological process a woman needs to go through to

(a) become sexually attracted to a guy

(b) build comfort with a guy / know that the guy is safe to be around

(c) develop emotional rapport with a guy

(d) know not just that the guy himself is safe but the situation itself is safe (she won't be judged by friends, society, etc.)


Then there are logistics ("my place or yours?"), as well as the varying emotional states a woman herself might experience and various other factors that can interfere with the process of attraction. For example, we can talk about location - and how being in a small town can affect someone's social and dating opportunities. And that's true, but here's another perspective: small towns are more likely to be friendly and opening to people who are already part of the community assuming they have not been ostracised for some reason. This could be either due to small mindedness from the town's inhabitants or bad behaviour on part of the outcast.

There are small towns with friendly, family type atmospheres where people can actually thrive socially. Many big cities are quite the opposite and metropolitans are quite cold and distant to strangers, especially in a world where social isolation has been dictated to by the expansion in technology and social media. People just don't want to talk to you if you're not an "insider" to their personal clique and it's extremely common - in this generation more than any other generation before - for people to find themselves increasingly social isolated. For anyone who believes, "well if the guy was attractive, he'd get laid, surely?", ask yourself this:

  • If a man's biological or social characteristics would contribute to social evolution when inherited genetically or socially but he is unsuccessful in dating regardless does that make him "unattractive"?
  • If a man would be subjectively attractive to a woman but she does not spend time to get to know him because she is afraid of what her friends might think and this man falls behind in dating regardless, does that make him "unattractive"?
  • If a man's biological or social characteristics would not contribute to social evolution when inherited genetically or socially but he is successful in dating regardless does that make him "attractive"?
  • If a man would not be subjectively attractive to a woman but she does spend time to get to know him and date him because it is the done thing in her circle and encouraged by her friends, does that make this man "attractive"?


The truth is that in a world determined by the traditionalist and feminist dating complex, social pressures and barriers can make it more difficult even for guys who would be considered attractive to even talk to women in the first place:

  • "I'm a strong, independent, smart woman who has control over her own shit ... but you can still buy me drinks and pay for the date"
  • "I'm a strong, independent, smart woman who doesn't care what other people think ... but I only want to sleep with guys my friends approve of (wouldn't want to get slut-shamed or anything!)"
  • "I'm a strong , independent, smart woman who is open-minded about consensual behaviours such as polyamory ... eww look at that creepy beta male virgin trying to hit on women"


The following view is just an appeal to simplicity:

  • "if a man is unsuccessful in dating, he is not attractive"
  • "if a man is successful in dating, he is attractive"


It doesn't account for a broad array of variables, such as what it means to be successful in dating in the first place. Like, we could say Hugh Hefner was "successful in dating" but at the end of the day he was just splashing his cash at some gold diggers. We could say an extremely attractive man who women adored was "unsuccessful in dating" if he wouldn't sleep with anybody because he was embarassed about the size of his member but actually these women wanted to sleep with him anyway and might not have cared if he had a small penis.

Basically the theories on PPD about attraction are all "before the fact" (ex ante) rather than "after the fact" (ex post). People in the comments section of my old post said explicitly that if a woman has drunken sex with a man then regrets it the day after, she still found him "attractive". So clearly most people there were stuck in a simplistic, ex ante perspective of human value, rather than taking a broader ex post analysis because ... it's difficult / complex to do this. But clearly, ex post is the only position that has relevance because people do all kinds of things they wish they hadn't. We can't always see the future but it's better to at least try and have some foresight than say "ah, fuck it. I'm just going to live in the moment: life is more simple that way".




There are men with are genuinely kind, empathetic and attractive qualities that can still struggle with dating because of a wide range of nuanced social contexts. No, these men are not all Greek adonises without any possible flaws or imperfections. The point is they have more attractive qualities than dealbreakers and what's more is, they want to have conversations about what happens

  • if there is a crisis among males who are depressed and not getting what they want from their sexual/romantic lives? depression has been widely linked to a lack of productivity and other problems
  • for future generations if we cannot pass on intelligent & virtuous traits (as inherited biologically and through child rearing)
  • for post-wall hypergamous women who are ending up single and asking "but where have all the Good Men gone?" after years of ignoring, neglecting and harshly rejecting Good Men (GMs) who pursued them, ridiculing us, calling us "Nice GuysTM" (NGs)
  • if there is a general absence of non-black pilled platforms which are dedicated to the discussing the above kinds of topics rather than to general zealotry and worshipping the damnatio memoriae?

These conversations are more important and more productive than the metaphysics of what constitutes attractiveness, virtue, desirability and so forth. Counter-conversations to these are not only based on flawed premises and misunderstandings of what constitutes attractiveness, virtue and desirability, they are derailing strategies to the conversations GMs want to have.

If you want to know what I mean by GMs in a little more depth, I will explain this: the narrative on GMs that I promote is based on Mark Manson's conceptualisation of a man that is authentic, polarising, confident and makes decisions in his life (see: Models). These are men who think about the wider implications of their actions than small acts of benevolence for the sake of "feel good" benefits, such as giving to a charity that does not do the good you think it does, or spoiling attention seeking women with gifts, expensive dates and attention.

Alternative perspectives are just appeals to simplicity:

  • "if a man is unsuccessful in dating, he is not attractive"
  • "if a man is successful in dating, he is attractive"



Tl;Dr of the Tl;Dr

Attractiveness alone isn’t the only determinant of sexual success, there’s other things like logistics, networking limitations, double standards in dating and location. It's fallacious to assume that sexual and romantic success is directly proportional to attractiveness (Red Pill thinking), just like it's fallacious to assume proportionality to virtue (Blue Pill thinking).