R
Women are biologically programmed to only be attracted to masculine men for the sake of ensuring their own protection. This is why no amount of gymmaxing matters, because at best truly "masculine" men can only be the evolutionary equivalent of betabux. Look at some of the gigachads who turned tranny and you'll see that they pass better than a lot of low T supposedly effeminate "soft-featured" incel- and normie-turned-tranny types. Look at Cloud9 Sneaky who trannymaxxed as a 4/10 skinnyfat gamer nerd to pulling a high-tier Korean gf.
Look at the way girls fawn over boy band members (traditionally long-haired and semi-androgynous even dating back to the 60s) and especially K-pop band members (the more extreme end of the spectrum, where the men literally wear make-up and female clothing). 7-8/10 Chadlites can spend all day in the gym, and their girlfriends will still be having wet dreams about Korean """men""" who look like lesbian aliens with the bodies of prepubescent children. Face still trumps height, body, race, or anything else, but there's something different going on here.
Traditionally masculine men that we wouldn't hesitate to designate as objectively more attractive than these K-pop guys are still ending up lower on the totem pole of true female attraction. This DOESN'T mean Chad and Chadlite don't get laid, or don't get married to Stacies, or anything like this. What it means is that conventional masculinity is NOT ATTRACTIVE to women in the same way that conventional femininity is attractive to us.
The implication of this is simple. If ANY part of Chad's or Chadlite's role in a heterosexual relationship is to provide perceived safety to the woman, he is performing a kind of physical and emotional labor that represents the non-monetary equivalent of betabuxxing. Think about it. No matter how chiseled your jaw, or how many women you've fucked, or how many Insta thots Dan Bilzerian pays to appear at his pool parties, she's always going to be thinking: "That six pack and those hooded eyes signal his ability to protect me from danger." The attraction is not simple euphoria. It's not a lighting bolt to the chest. It's a complex calculation of the benefits of engaging with a provider and a protector.
TLDR: The fact that the pair bonding equation results in many women settling with handsome strong men rather than K-pop clowns or sk8erboi emo faggots (or even other biological women) is NOT an indication that Chad has higher SMV, but only that either monetary or emotional betabux-style factors shifted her decision. If you have to prove to a woman that you have the ability to protect her and her potential children, and she's with you regardless of the fact that she's fingering herself to Min Yoon Kim every night, you're a betabuxxer. The only difference is the extent to which factors other than pure "sex" influence the decision; i.e. Mark Zuckerberg would contribute significantly more labor to a heterosexual relationship than would someone like JFK Jr.
Look at the way girls fawn over boy band members (traditionally long-haired and semi-androgynous even dating back to the 60s) and especially K-pop band members (the more extreme end of the spectrum, where the men literally wear make-up and female clothing). 7-8/10 Chadlites can spend all day in the gym, and their girlfriends will still be having wet dreams about Korean """men""" who look like lesbian aliens with the bodies of prepubescent children. Face still trumps height, body, race, or anything else, but there's something different going on here.
Traditionally masculine men that we wouldn't hesitate to designate as objectively more attractive than these K-pop guys are still ending up lower on the totem pole of true female attraction. This DOESN'T mean Chad and Chadlite don't get laid, or don't get married to Stacies, or anything like this. What it means is that conventional masculinity is NOT ATTRACTIVE to women in the same way that conventional femininity is attractive to us.
The implication of this is simple. If ANY part of Chad's or Chadlite's role in a heterosexual relationship is to provide perceived safety to the woman, he is performing a kind of physical and emotional labor that represents the non-monetary equivalent of betabuxxing. Think about it. No matter how chiseled your jaw, or how many women you've fucked, or how many Insta thots Dan Bilzerian pays to appear at his pool parties, she's always going to be thinking: "That six pack and those hooded eyes signal his ability to protect me from danger." The attraction is not simple euphoria. It's not a lighting bolt to the chest. It's a complex calculation of the benefits of engaging with a provider and a protector.
TLDR: The fact that the pair bonding equation results in many women settling with handsome strong men rather than K-pop clowns or sk8erboi emo faggots (or even other biological women) is NOT an indication that Chad has higher SMV, but only that either monetary or emotional betabux-style factors shifted her decision. If you have to prove to a woman that you have the ability to protect her and her potential children, and she's with you regardless of the fact that she's fingering herself to Min Yoon Kim every night, you're a betabuxxer. The only difference is the extent to which factors other than pure "sex" influence the decision; i.e. Mark Zuckerberg would contribute significantly more labor to a heterosexual relationship than would someone like JFK Jr.
