Submit this for an IgNobel.
It’s also funny cause it’s mocking this BS in such a good natured wonderfully overdone way. Guy in my college house who got laid the most was on the shorter side, poor, and kind of acted effeminate at times to the point that people mistook him for gay. Never saw his wing wong so maybe it was like ten inches but I doubt it. He was also kind and not a jerk and did not act like an “alpha male.”
What was he? Fun, hilarious, and confident.
I got zero until I decided to stop pretending not to be a weird nerd and just chat about stuff I was into, which at the time was evolutionary information theory and hacking. Guess what? Leading with who you are is confident.
It’s attractive in women too, at least for me.
The incel stuff is just men catching up with women when it comes to dumb anxieties about looking right according to arbitrary external standards.
> Guess what? Leading with who you are is confident.
That was always my attitude, why hide who you are in the first place, I'm a computer geek who likes playing Chess,Cycling and heavy metal music - I put that on my dating profile and it didn't hurt me in the slightest.
I am pretty sure this 3 6's rule was a social media clickbaity phenomenon anyways. There are people this shallow and silly, but they are actually rare.
To be fair, "confidence" and knowing "who you are" in college is largely an illusion.
I would argue that "success" at that age is more a matter of being interesting and entertaining in a nonthreatening way.
It comes across as insincere to the majority of women who are also getting ignored by the majority of men at that age. That's what you get when you optimize for cheap and easy attraction instead of long term relationship appeal. A lot of younger people don't know the difference.
[flagged]
Exact opposite of the point they made, brother. Worth a reread and think depending on your headspace.
Guys let’s not pretend that him being taller and more stereotypically handsome would’ve hurt his “achievements”.
It would’ve of course helped.
The fact that height and stereotypical beauty standards are not the only things that matter does not change that on average they have a significant positive impact.
The point is that stereotypical beauty standards, while they matter, they matter less than one would think when it comes to a hetero man approaching a hetero woman.
Give women some credit. Confidence and fun are way better heuristics than a strong jawline on a neurotic wreck. They are smarter than men socially, on average, so any theory should account for that.
Might be you who needs to reread...
Since I'm feeling generous, the words you missed are "fun and confident". One could expand to "comfortable and happy in one's skin", very much not a synonym for cockiness which is prickly and challenging. You can't fake it, it comes and goes for all of us.
OPs friend got laid a lot despite "traditional" defects because of wholesome, fun confidence.
And you don't think the tall, rich, well-endowed man is more likely to be a little more confident than the short, poor micro-penised man?
Put "I'm fun and confident" in your dating profile and I'll put "6'4"" and we'll see how that pans out. You won't be having much fun and your confidence will be shot.
BEING fun and confident matters. Saying you are is, well, not fun or confident.
A friend of mine, well below 6 feet, once had a dating profile where he went into a weird tangent about loving mac and cheese. A weird, sexual and hilarious tangent, where he started arguing with you, the reader, about why are we still talking about this? I said I never had sex with a bowl of mac and cheese! It was classic and he got a ton of dates from it.
Admittedly online dating sucks and my friend there could have been a comedy writer in another life. It's hard to stand out. But in person? It doesn't matter how many dates your profile did or didn't get, you must be fun and comfortable in your own skin, why spend time with someone who isn't both of those things?
Rich and handsome 6'4" men have no problem standing out. This is the point. Online dating does not suck for them.
Your goofy friend might get lots of updoots on reddit but if he's short and broke it would be <1% of women who don't immediately reject him. They will never even see his mac and cheese bio. Online dating would be a waste of time for him at best; at worst, kiss goodbye to this delusional confidence once the crushing reality manifests.
That's what I'm trying to help you understand. My goofy friend was plowing a trail of pussy through NYC at that time with his fun and confident antics. Below 6 feet and definitely not rich back then.
There's a point past this where racking up a number is hollow and meaningless but that's beside the point right now. The thing I'm trying to tell you is that you can have a better and more positive personality even if you can't grow 6 inches. And that better personality is not some incel shit or "negging" or whatever.
If none of this makes sense to you, look up Stavros Halkias on youtube and compare his looks to his general confidence and attitude.
Look I'm >666 but that is so outrageous I feel mad on behalf of other men. "Oh you're short and fat? Just be one of the funniest men on earth with multiple massively successful world-famous podcasts and comedy tours, bro!"
Do you think Stav would be less popular with women if he was a 10/10 physically? Of course not. In fact, he wouldn't even need to be funny. He wouldn't need to be rich. He wouldn't need to be famous.
Maybe we're arguing different things here, I don't know what's going on. I mean many women will literally set a filter so that their apps don't even show them men under six-foot-whatever. These men are invisible. Yes, as the author proves, short kings can still get it. No shit. It's not a binary: 666 or permanent incel. I know you know this so I'm genuinely confused what you're trying to argue.
> "men catching up with women when it comes to dumb anxieties"
It's weird to watch all those fans of patriarchy step right into their own trap. Didn't they get the memo that this stuff was set up to control women? Or is it just a reflection of how these self-proclaimed "alphas" secretly see their own proper place as subjugated by men higher up in the hierarchy?
It’s all very obvious hysteria that parodies itself loudly.
It’s also a big con. Andrew Tate might be an abuser of women but his big marks are men. Look at how much money he makes selling that BS to insecure guys. That was his whole schtick as he rose to fame.
I suspect the manosphere stuff is designed to make men repellent to women to keep them hooked on it. If you find a girlfriend you might not pay $25K to attend an alpha male boot camp to have an idiot yell at you.
It doesn't have to be designed, can be an emergent survival property. Wholesome and helpful dating advice just never builds a cult of loners.