TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

54

[Manipulative, asympathetic, arrogant bullies have higher numbers of sexual partners and have sex more often.] (http://archive.is/ZGvcF)

[Same thing as the previous one.] (https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40806-017-0126-4)

[Aaaand same thing.] (https://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/sex-and-relationship/161217/dominance-may-make-bullies-more-attractive-leading-to-more-sex-study.html)

[Bullies have more sex and more sexual partners than non-bullies.] (https://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/research-news/all-english-research-news/do-bullies-have-more-sex-/15305552)

[Bullies have more sex and higher self-esteem.] (http://www.wdish.com/life/bullies-sex-study)

[Antisocial bullies get more sex than others. Men who are abusive and manipulative to women get more sex.] (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0126-4)

[Child bullies grow up to be sexier, more popular and have more dates than their victims.] (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3177486/Child-bullies-sexier-popular-dates-victims-grow-new-research-suggests.html)

[Women really don’t like nice guys.] (https://www.timesofisrael.com/women-really-dont-go-for-nice-guys-study-indicates/)

[Unempathethic, narcissistic criminals are one of women’s first sexual choices.] (http://archive.is/e6p19)

[Women find narcissist assholes more attractive.] (https://scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Dark-Triad-Personality.pdf)

[Science explains why women like narcissist assholes.] (https://www.elitedaily.com/women/women-are-attracted-to-narcissistic-men/992989)

[Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that wives' total narcissism and entitlement/exploitativeness scores predicted the slope of marital quality over time, including steeper declines in marital satisfaction and steeper increases in marital problems. Husbands' narcissism scores generally had few effects on their own marital quality or that of their wives.] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098378)

[Why do women fall for serial killers?] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201204/why-do-women-fall-serial-killers)

Men, on the other hand, prefer nice women:

[Men prefer nice women but women do not prefer nice men.] (http://www.newsweek.com/study-finds-men-nice-women-not-other-way-around-261269)

[Why Do Men Prefer Nice Women? Gender Typicality Mediates the Effect of Responsiveness on Perceived Attractiveness in Initial Acquaintanceships] (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263424760_Why_Do_Men_Prefer_Nice_Women_Gender_Typicality_Mediates_the_Effect_of_Responsiveness_on_Perceived_Attractiveness_in_Initial_Acquaintanceships)


[–]empatheticapathetic15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sticky.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Somebody please enslave these bitches already so I can have a normal relationship

[–]empatheticapathetic4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

U gotta do it urself unfortunately

[–]CommonHistorian911 points12 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

What about this study?

"Previous research has found evidence that the Dark Triad traits are associated with particular facial features. These facial features tend to be rated as less attractive — yet people with dark personalities tend to report having a high number of sexual partners.

Brewer and her colleagues were interested in seeing if alcohol could be a factor.

In their study, 96 women (ages 18–26 years) drank either water, lemonade with vodka, or a placebo drink before being shown photographs of male faces. The faces were manipulated to indicate the men had either high or low levels of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism.

The researchers found that participants were less likely to rate faces with high levels of Dark Triad traits as attractive short-term partners. The women also rated such faces as more dangerous."

https://www.psypost.org/2017/12/study-women-dislike-men-dark-triad-facial-features-even-theyre-drunk-50507

"While studies show that most women find prestigious men more attractive than dominant men for both short-term affairs and long-term relationships, the research also suggests that, when given the choice, some types of women will still pick the dominant asshole over the upstanding prestigious man. Women with a “fast life” history (meaning they grew up in an insecure and unstable environment with little or no parental support), insecure attachment, and who hold hostile, sexist attitudes about their fellow females typically prefer a short-term mating strategy and engage in frequent, uncommitted sexual activity (Olderbak & Figueredo, 2010; Bohner et al, 2010; Kirkpatrick & Davis 1994). These sorts of women typically prefer the stereotypical dominant and aggressive “alpha” male to the more pro-social, prestigious male (Hall & Canterberry, 2011)."

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male/

altruistic, kind men have more sex and date more?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160804141642.htm

Nice, sensitive guys make her cum best?

" While we found attractiveness (note that this may or may not have been interpreted by participants to refer to physicalattractiveness) was rated higher in high-orgasm partners, we found no significant difference, after correcting for multiple comparisons, between high- and low-orgasm partners in terms of putative ‘good genes’ traits such as intelligence, athleticism, and fitness, nor sexually dimorphic traits such as height, dominance, muscularity, and voice depth. The pattern found in our results suggests, conversely, that women's orgasms depended more on traits potentially representing investment and attentiveness (e.g. faithfulness, emotional warmth) than classic markers of good genes and masculinity. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5084725/

Being an asshole makes you uglier, huh?

"At the start of the course, one of the researchers asked students to rate each other on a bunch of measures, including how well they knew them, how much they liked them, and how attractive they were. The students filled out the same questionnaire on the last day of class.

Results showed that attractiveness ratings changed considerably over the course of the six weeks. In fact, for female students rating male students, final attractiveness ratings were more related to how much they ended up liking the person than to how attractive they'd found the person in the first place."

https://www.businessinsider.com/laziness-can-make-attractive-people-look-uglier-2016-7

Being kind and nice makes you hotter?

" Previous studies examined physical appearance and personality mainly as independent sources in predicting attraction. By presenting this information in installments, the study simulates a more typical context in which seeing the person’s appearance precedes learning about their personality, and shows that perceptions of a person’s physical attractiveness may change over time due to their positive or negative traits.

“This research provides a more positive alternative by reminding people that personality goes a long way toward determining your attractiveness; it can even change people’s impressions of how good looking you are,” says Lewandowski."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm

Evo explanation for women liking serial killers likely bullshit?

"But there are a couple of problems with the sexual-selection theory of male dominance. First, the theory is poorly supported by anthropological evidence. Studies suggest that our pre-civilization ancestors, who were nomadic hunter-gatherers, were relatively peaceful and egalitarian. War seems to have emerged not millions of years ago but about 12,000 years ago when our ancestors started abandoning their nomadic ways and settling down."

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/01/09/viewpoint-women-instinctually-attracted-dominant-men/

[–]jackballjohnson10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

does any of this matter if my experience is different from these "studies"? I'm 48, I've been single for over 20 years now, and not for a lack of trying. Ive never been married or engaged. I'm kind, thoughtful, emotionally available, but I'm also short, skinny and unattractive. All the studies in the world will not change how women view me. And for that "personality makes you more attractive" bait... Oh pluheeze. Give me a dating app with no pics and nothing but personality descriptions and I will show you a failed business model.

[–]CommonHistorian9-3 points-2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

How far have you dropped your standards?

[–]jackballjohnson8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

insightful question. Over the years my standards have dropped considerably, trying to find where I belong has been eye-opening. Since women determine who procreates (and who doesn't), it's no small comfort that very large women swipe me on bumble. Maybe I should be happy with that, but I'm not. Lonely is better than miserable, as the old saying goes.

[–]CommonHistorian93 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You just have a stupid idea of the reality of a single dude.

https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=168948903&page=1

That is male thirst, right there. Behold how ugly and SICK.

Regarding your matches...

https://legionathletics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/body-fat-chart-women.png.pagespeed.ce.9463keJYYr.png

Very large is fine...between 30-40% whatever. It's about the boner, not your pride. I just can't get a boner for the 50% one.

The idea is that you get your needs met with woman who at minimum satisfy the boner test while living your life and doing your thing until you meet a nice woman who gets to know you over a longer period of time.

If you're gonna try and get an actual hot girl while being a male 5, well, you need to think smart.

She's going to have to be fucked up and weird in some way (sorry dude).

Maybe she's BPD/Crazy

Maybe she has some mild disability (did you know women can have super mild cerebral palsy that will only affect them when they're fatigued or some other shit like that? or they can have RA, or psioriasis, or diabetes, or...) the amount of hot women who have health issues like that is a huge world. They tend to be more introverted and open to 'not hot' guys.

Maybe she's super fucking poor.

Maybe she's really stupid.

Now, personally I never minded. If you're dating a 9 who has diabetes (yeah that shit happens to non-fat people!), like, her having that condition when she's young will sort of suck, but it will open her mind up to what it's like to be vulnerable. she will like you because you know what it is to struggle.

You gotta find people who know what it's like to struggle...THAT is the common interest that will allow you to exceed your looks.

And it will be a fulfilling relationship, too. Because you'll both understand one another.

[–]jackballjohnson1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe it's a generational thing, but by fat I mean 50% and up according to your chart. They love me, which likely means they are swiping on every guy. I get that I'm ugly and not attractive to women, I just had to chuckle at the notion that personality matters.

[–]SophisticatedBean2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Contradictory preferences are actually pretty common in nature. The fight or flight response is a prime example thereof: You could either decimate the enemy or save your own life; both has advantages and disadvantages in expectation, hence, evolution has equipped us for both, even though it is diametrical. In a dangerous situation we want both at the same time, but some behavioral process decides for one of them.

Another example is female coyness. Women want to reproduce, but at the same time their prime intuition is to lie about their true sexual desires because deferring sex encourages competition among contending males which selects the most dominant, reliable male for them, which is a huge advantage for childrearing.

Preference for "dark triad" vs "benevolent sexism" might also be such a diametrical adaptation. The former is evidence of high status (only high status males can behave arrogantly), the latter demonstrates commitment. Both is conductive for optimal conditions for childrearing, especially since humans have the most dependent offspring of all animals.

[–]CommonHistorian92 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, we could just be seeing the interplay of several equally successful mating strategies.

[–]SophisticatedBean0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It should be noted that both DT and BS are submissive preferences, so the two things are not even entirely diametrical.

[–]TrannyPornO1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

No. Trait rating studies are worthless, having basically no ecological validity. Why don't you even know the mod, /u/subSaharanAmerican?

[–]CommonHistorian91 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

...and this critique can't be applied to most every other study within this field?

the speed dating study, for instance...

ell

o

ell

[–]TrannyPornO2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Speed dating is not trait rating. It is speed dating. It is valid for analysing dating. If you can't see the difference or understand the term, first, you didn't read the sidebar or the main posts here, and second, you're a low IQ lost cause.

[–]CommonHistorian90 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

A study regarding speed dating does not have "ecological validity" for the mainstream dating world. First, it's a convenience sample (HELLO MCFLY), second, it doesn't capture the full variation in how people meet and start dating, third, initial date choices are not final date choices, so it doesn't even capture enough of the courtship process to inform us as to who actually chooses who.

"If you can't understand the term" ecological validity, which it seems like you can't, since you just baldly asserted that speed dating is "valid for anlaysing dating," "you're a low IQ lost cause."

That's the critique --- lack of ecological validity. All of the research in this area is vulnerable to the same critique.

Lulz

[–]TrannyPornO4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

does not have ecological validity

Yes, it does. The people on this sub do not care about propinquity effect and other long-term interactions in the dating market, instead, they care about having a chance in short-term mating and getting to even humour the possibility of an ideal longer-term partner without being rejected for appearances and such. If you misunderstand this sub and community, then you may want to ask why they lament posts where fake twitter accounts for models are shown to get absurd responses.

doesn't capture the full variation.

This doesn't even make sense as a criticism. No set of observations can capture all variation in how people meet and start dating. It's absurd to think this is even in the ballpark of being criteria for assessing the generalisability of a study.

initial are not final

They're highly related, especially in the contexts which matter. People being passed over for looks and other traits, often contrary to stated preference, is the essence of the results. Failing to understand that, and what it means, is not an argument, nor does it disqualify the validity of a study which gives us data on exactly that.

Trait rating studies which do not generalise to actual chances for people to make impressions, like speed dating experiments, are a different matter entirely. How you fail to understand this is beyond reason.

Do not reply unless you actually understand what's said.

[–]CommonHistorian9-2 points-1 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

instead, they care about having a chance in short-term mating

...it's not delimited to one-night stands. Short-term mating means that you mate without commitment for a short duration of time.

Based on the OCSLS, only about 10% of 'hook-ups' (all types) occur with someone who is pretty much a stranger, about 24% are with someone the person knows 'very well,' and another 30% said 'a little bit.' So the propinquity effect still would be at play in the majority of short-term mating opportunities --- it's rare that total strangers hook up, that's not the majority of short-term mating.

If you misunderstand this sub and community,

I don't misunderstand anything, it just seems like YOU have a weird idea of what actual occurs in casual sex/short-term mating situations. MOST OF THE TIME you KNOW THE PERSON beforehand. Sorry, Charlie. That's even true for the mythical 'Chad.'

It's absurd to think this is even in the ballpark of being criteria for assessing the generalisability of a study.

Whether range restriction occurs is not even in the ballpark of being criteria for assessing how "generalizable" a study is?

ell

o

ell

No set of observations can capture all variation

Not the critique --- whether it captures enough to be meaningful. Apparently you think speed dating events capture A HUGE slice of dating variation.

ell

o

ell

They're highly related, especially in the contexts which matter

How do you know?

Point me to a study about initial versus final and the procession from first date to marriage among multiple partners...

...once the actions are repeated, behavior starts to have a positive (or negative) effect on attractiveness.

How you fail to understand this is beyond reason.

The same critique about ecological validity applies to both studies. "How you fail to understand this is beyond reason."

I literally just told you that most SHORT-TERM mating encounters result from REPEATED INTERACTIONS, which necessarily means that speed-dating does lack ecological validity, at least to the same extent trait rating does.

You're just asserting that people rate traits and will act in a way that isn't meaningfully correlated with their assessments (yeah hohkay, they're all just wild wild liars)...

"How you fail to understand this is beyond reason."

You just don't like one set of studies and like another set.

[–]TrannyPornO4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

not delimited

No one said it was, luckily.

propinquity

Again, not what the interest here is.

you know the person

Not really relevant.

range restriction

Not related.

capture a huge

Not stated. Their divergence from trait rating studies is unrelated to how much of the dating market they capture.

initial versus final

The outcome of interest being sex, that's amply covered by the numerous studies posted and well-covered by users like SubSaharanAmerican.

first date to marriage

Uncertain relevance.

same critique applies to both

It doesn't. They're not the same. One is trait rating and the other is actually assessing real people, in the real world.

just assuming

No. This is a proof that you've failed to read much of anything on this sub. I've linked to SubSaharanAmerican before, but you apparently didn't even look at the first comment from him.

like another set

No. This is factually untrue, being contradicted by my own posting history. How you draw this observation is also beyond reason, since it's directly contradicted by a moment of looking.

[–]CommonHistorian9-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No one said it was, luckily.

Oh, well that would be the only way that what you said about short-term mating would make any fucking sense. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt, then old sport.

Again, not what the interest here is.

"instead, they care about having a chance in short-term mating" is what you said.

because most short-term mating involves repeated interaction, personality matters, and the propinquity effect (even though that's not what I'm referring to) matters.

[a lot nuh-uhs]

Range restriction isn't relevant to generalizing a study's results? Really?

Their divergence from trait rating studies is unrelated to how much of the dating market they capture.

It is related to whether the criticism of ecological validity applies to both types of study, though.

The outcome of interest being sex,

Once again, the result of sex tends to occur after repeated interactions. So studies that do not follow people over repeated interactions are not capturing or simulating short-term mating...

Uncertain relevance.

Uncertain to you, sure.

They're not the same

Both fail to generalize but for different reasons, that's the point. The SAME CRITICISM applies.

This is a proof that you've failed to read much of anything

No it isn't. Unless you're going to sit here and tell me there is A ZERO OR NON-SIGNIFICANT correlation between stated values and values-in-action, your criticism doesn't have much force.

Assuming people are liars isn't 'good science.'

Research doesn't even support physical attractiveness outweighing all other traits, it supports the existence of a minimum attractiveness threshold with personality traits being more important after that base level is reached.

being contradicted by my own posting history

Your critiques of the studies I brought up (not being generalizable) definitely does apply to your pet studies. That there are different reasons the studies fail to generalize is irrelevant. Most studies in this arena have problems, for various reasons, with ecological validity. So you're just picking and choosing which studies to level the critcism at, and deploying ridiculous amounts of DERP to turtle your studies from criticism (I mean, really, range restriction being "irrelevant" to how generally applicable a study is, GTFO).

[–]TrannyPornO1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I told you not to make another reply in which you evidence not understanding this topic (while remaining smarmy, snarky, and cocksure) and you went and did it. No more replies - you just have no clue what you're talking about. It's no wonder when you make such egregious contradictions as, for instance, claiming high heritability is evidence against sexual selection while simultaneously holding that it isn't real.

[–]whatwasthatcat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

These "studies" are retarded and full of flaws. They are all done by pro-feminist sources. Do some more research: women get the best orgasms with alpha guys, regardless of his personality or how good he is at sex. It is all about looks.

[–]abolish_the_divine 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy Link

one of those articles said that women's experience with narcissistic assholes only makes them more attracted to them. i have a female friend who can't get enough of me, even though i tell her what i'm like, with these words, "i'm probably a sociopath, like your exes, who abused you."

i just tell her because it doesn't matter to me. she thinks it means i'm different. like oh, he admits it, so he must be making an effort to change.

no one really changes unless they have to. whole thing depresses me. people slaves to their biological impulses and our brains only built to fool us long enough so we reproduce. and then the cycle continues.

[–]satansbarbedcock2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Like a fat chick with huge tits (like the massive kind that would still be huge if she lost weight) She never has an incentive to lose weight the way a more circular fat girl might because weird skinny dudes with a huge tit fetish will always be around to date her. Maybe not the dudes she most wants, but close enough.

Abusive men, too, might not get to date, let's say, the best women, but so many skanks will be so available, they'll never have an incetive to change.

[–]chek0mon-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I remember in high school when I was edgy and “cool” I would outwardly say I was a sociopath. Girls did not care, they still wanted the D.

[–]Hoodwink1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Spend years away from high school and then talk to high school kids, again.

You were so try hard, it was probably pathetically cute. Like you were trying to perform masculinity as a girl tries her first make-up sessions.

Girls get to do it in private - while for boys it's all social.

P.S. When you have experience with real sociopathy in the family, it's easier to tell the punks from the monsters.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's hard to tell if you're the monster or they are if psychopath

[–]thewilloftheuniverse2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A difficulty that this research poses to blackpillscience is that these findings often indicate redpill results; that women will choose a less attractive asshole over a nice guy. But other research indicates the opposite too, and other research is mixed.

[–]whatwasthatcat2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A man's personality is completely irrelevant in terms of arousing females. They are only turned on based on muscle/alpha facial features such as square jaw and piercing eyes. The reason these guys tend to be assholes is because they can get sex and societal status even if they are assholes. Same thing goes for rich people. Personality is completely irrelevant. It is all about looks. If a skinny guy became an asshole that wouldn't get him laid, but if he put on muscle that would.

[–]takeyourfill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

AWALT.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The flipside to this is that if you're bullied (or abused in any way as a kid/stressful childhood) you'll probably have a smaller dick than you would have, because cortisol hinders penis growth in teenage boys

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter