I am only asking if you believe because it is a theory that isn't accepted 100% yet.
I was specifically talking about your opinion on the percent of men that foids find unattractive. You said the majority but didn't give a number, so I'll take that I guess.
So then we agree that most men don't have the physical attraction part. If they don't offer physical attraction they need to compensate with other factors (that are most likely conditional), if the factors are conditional then the love is conditional. Therefore most men are in relationships where the love is conditional, thus betabux. Agree or disagree?
D
fuck no FUCK NO unless u have several unattractive traits there is still someone out there that will find u attractive stop with this volcel bullshit
C
I believe that sub 4s are pretty fucked unless they luck out, so they have to rely on luck theory or betabux some chick. Most foids want nothing to do with very unattractive males.
I have no idea tbh. As I said, I have no idea what percentage of relationships are based on betabuxing, just that we shouldn't assume that every relationship is a betabux one.
Online dating is pretty common nowadays. There have also been studies on Tinder that show roughly the same results.
I'd say legit manlets (5'7 and under) can be a strong 6/10 or even 7/10 but never 8+/10. If you are 5'6 with a 10/10 face you'd be an overall 7/10 to me. If you were 5'0 with a 10/10 face you'd be a 4/10 (truecel)
C
I am pretty sure with a 10/10 face you could get laid regardless. 10/10 face would be so rare and good looking that at least one foid would find you attractive despite your midget height.
Hmm. I believe that women are only sexually attracted to men with good facial esthetics, namely the features outlined in Face's WAW series.
A good rule of thumb is, if you can EASILY get casual sex you must be attractive to women.
That doesn't mean that only attractive men can have sex, it just means that only attractive men can be attractive.
Attractive men get higher quality sex than average men get (there's research showing that women have more orgasms when their partner is attractive). So, while I acknowledge that women will have sex with ugly or average men, I'm not convinced that they truly enjoy it.
Women are pressured into monogamy with men they don't like, but rest assured - if it was up to them - only the best looking men would have sex. This observation forms the basis of sub 8 theory...what we call 7s, 8s and 9s is irrelevant in the end.
A good rule of thumb is, if you can EASILY get casual sex you must be attractive to women.
That doesn't mean that only attractive men can have sex, it just means that only attractive men can be attractive.
Attractive men get higher quality sex than average men get (there's research showing that women have more orgasms when their partner is attractive). So, while I acknowledge that women will have sex with ugly or average men, I'm not convinced that they truly enjoy it.
Women are pressured into monogamy with men they don't like, but rest assured - if it was up to them - only the best looking men would have sex. This observation forms the basis of sub 8 theory...what we call 7s, 8s and 9s is irrelevant in the end.
Even on here you're one of my favorite posters, it really is a shame that you don't post often.
Thanks, "breh"
Your post summed up my thoughts concisely. Had I seen it, I would have quoted instead of writing all that shit.
You're not a truecel if you're above 4 tbh
You sound like somebody's mom. For an incel community this place is pretty bluepilled. If there was no pressure to pair bond with their equals, women would allow the vast majority of men to die virgins.
I think 7 is the cutoff.
I
A 7/10 is still good enough to be in a regular relationship. I buy into the sub 6 theory.
This
Surely blacks are proof that "FACE > ALL" isn't universal.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
