Friday, February 24, 2012

Alpha Mail: How much do male looks matter?

Anonymous asks about the importance of men's looks:
Yohami and Rollo both posted on the value of looks to a guys game. Rollo seemed to value looks (physical appearance + phsyique) more highly than Yohami, who looked at it from a total package kind of view. What do you think the correlation is between a man's physical appearance and his status on the socio-sexual hierarchy? Is being good looking alpha? Does being physically attractive automatically raise a man's rank?
Spacebunny and I were just talking about this last night. I definitely come down on Yohami's side, which is to say that looks are one important factor in a man's socio-sexual rank, but not a conclusively definitive one. I perhaps have a useful perspective on this because I have the highest socio-sexual rank in my family despite having been the least physically attractive among the brothers.

My brothers all had minor stints as male models after they were "discovered" when the family was out to dinner one evening. The agency scout didn't so much as look at me, while she was very intent on getting the others into a photographer's studio for some headshots as soon as possible. The most handsome brother always did very well with women, (and he was sufficiently good-looking to cause women to openly gawk at him), but he was always handicapped by an inferiority complex and tended to underkick his coverage to a certain extent.

The general rule when we went out in a group was that women always noticed him and immediately gravitated towards him. However, once we were all engaged in conversation, they often tended to shift their interest towards me due to the group dynamics. But not always. I found it more than a little amusing when one beautiful young girl, who was bright, charming, and a bit too young for me when my brother started dating her, subsequently lamented a few months later that she had gone after the wrong brother.

I habitually socialized as part of two very different core trios. One was with two men who were very intelligent but of average appearance, the other was with two men who were notably stylish and handsome. I think it's fair to say I was the best-looking of one trio and the worst-looking of the other. There was no question that the average caliber of the women in the female groups I encountered in the company of the latter pair were usually 1-2 points higher on average than when in the company of the former, but there was no real difference in the quantity of women encountered.

My chief observation is that very good-looking men tend to be quite lazy about women. This makes sense. What is the point of exerting yourself to obtain the rare 10 when you can easily rotate a sequence of 7s, 8s, and the occasional 9 without ever having to lift a finger? I think this explains why the best-looking men are quite often with women who are a point or two less attractive than one would tend to expect, whereas the most attractive women are often with less physically attractive men, especially when one considers that less attractive women are more likely to pursue men than their more attractive competitors.

So, I would slightly modify Yohami's list of female priorities thusly:

1. Game
2. Social proof
3. Looks
4. Assets

Now, assets definitely help, but in terms of attracting women, looks are more important. In answer to the actual questions, I would say that there is a strong correlation between a man's physical appearance and his status on the socio-sexual hierarchy. Being good-looking is not alpha, it merely prevents a man from falling below delta and increases the chances that he is a natural alpha. Being physically attractive doesn't "automatically raise" a man's rank, but it plays a major role in permitting him to establish a higher rank.

Of course, it would be interesting to hear what the women have to say. So, ladies, if you have 100 points to allocate between Game, Social Proof, Looks, and Assets in building The Ultimate Attractive Man, where would you spend them?


Anonymous said...

That's been my experience: I'm handsome enough to turn heads, with mild aspergers and the kind of microscopic social confidence that comes from being the in-house C++ syntax guru.

Looks get you initial attention from hotties, but you need game to get anywhere with them. It's easier to be confident with lower rank girls.

Now that i'm aware of game i should shitcan the LTR I'm in and go for it. Lazy, though.

Anonymous said...

what about the sigma? Does he work without any social proof?

Vox said...

Does he work without any social proof?

Easily, even to the point of subverting it. I always found I was most successful when I was alone even though my set was high social proof.

Trust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust said...

I read something quite a while back about how women were given pictures of the exact same man in different settings and rate his looks. The settings would hint to varying incomes or status, for example. The exact same man dressed, groomed, and posing in similar fashion would score much higher in looks if the setting hinted to more money or power.

No surprise to readers of game.

artie said...

Looks are important. It's a door opener. After initial opening, you are lost however without game.

I'm often out alone. When I want to stay alone, I just sit in a corner with my drink. No one ever approaches me.

When I get a neat hair cut, fine clothes and a well trimmed bear, I don't stay alone long. Women are searching me out.

That's why style, working out, haircut, etc. are such important aspects of game: it makes the initial contact so much easier.

Anonymous said...

There is a difference in how guys and girls judge socio-sexual rank. Think of this:

How many groupies (male) did Rosie O'Donnell have in her prime?

How many groupies do you think Chris Farley or Jack Black have in their prime?

stg58 said...

A few years ago, some of my friends and I posted pictures of ourselves on Hot or Not in and out of uniform. The pictures of us out of uniform averaged about a 5, and in uniform our averages jumped to a little over 8.

Stickwick said...

I need to understand some lingo before I can answer. What does "social proof" mean?

Aeoli Pera said...

Social proof relies on "preselection", i.e. people are more likely to buy something if they see other people buying it.

In the context of Game, that means a girl will be more attracted to a man that other women have been attracted to. The higher their SMVs, the stronger this effect is.

(Fun fact: The preselection effect is why hobos don't beg with an empty cup. They seed it with starter change.)

I'd appreciate a quick reply rating the clarity of my explanation. From 1-10, how much did this explanation help?

Jean-Luc LeGame said...

I think one way to put it if you're a woman, being fat or ugly is a deal breaker. Looks are a make-or-break factor. With a man, his looks are never really a deal breaker unless we're talking about someone seriously hideous or deformed. An ugly man with tight game, social proof, and assets need not worry about his ugly mug.

Anonymous said...


is it possible for one to reach you if one wishes to email you?

Sasha said...

Looks come before assets only on very short time-scale or if roles in a relationship are reversed (men being a boy-toy).

Stickwick said...

I assume we're talking about qualities that make one go weak in the knees as opposed to what goes into calculating LTR viability. In that case ...

Game: 40
Social Proof: 20
Looks: 30
Assets: 10

Here's the problem with "looks." It's subjective, and one woman putting a lot of stock in a man looking like Tom Brady is different than a woman who needs a man to look brutally masculine. So, do you mean "how important is it that a man's appearance conforms to what you find attractive"? I rated "looks" comparatively high, because it's important to me that a man look very masculine and kind of brutal (with reasonably symmetrical features). Model-quality men don't do much for me.

Vox, are you asking this out of curiosity for what women think they find attractive so you can compare it to what they demonstrably find attractive? I ask this, because you advise men to put little stock in what women say vs. how women behave.

Anonymous said...

As a woman in her early 20s, I tend to agree with Rollo's views on the emphasis women place on male looks and you'll find that him and Yohami are potentially saying what is essentially the same thing: looks aren't the only requisite for having what you term a high "socio-sexual" rank, but contrary to what is constantly echoed in the game sphere, it helps immensely. I don't know how either of them look, but I suspect they're both reasonably attractive and are aware of the fortune it has granted them with women.

Physically attractive men have little problem getting a woman's attention just based on their appearance and couple that with game, the results can be devastating. I've found that good looking men are generally granted a higher margin for error by women and their game doesn't have to be as tight as the average man's. The game of attractive, sexually successful men generally consists of confidence/charisma/wit/air of conceit, maintaining dominance/frame control, and quickly escalating "kino."

Anonymous said...

In my younger days my game if you could call it that was all about avoiding the faux pas. I could open just about any girl, because I'm tall and relatively good looking, but tripping myself up was my biggest problem.

The golden years were when I was a lifeguard at a city pool. Sun and chlorine bleached hair, tanned and toned body from the sun and swim team practice coupled to the position of minor authority and you get an eye opening experience for a young clueless teenage boy.

I'd get hit on by the other kid's mothers.

It wasn't that other girls didn't show interest but getting hit on by the mothers has stuck in my memory.

This is where I developed my patented ability to ignore the female indication of interest and rationalize it away as my brain froze up.

I couldn't flirt to save my life.

Still got dates though. It had to be mostly because of the looks because the game was all avoidance of saying something stupid and air of aloofness it created.

Athor Pel

Anonymous said...

(Anon from 8:43 AM)

Oh, sorry, didn't do the exercise. Assuming you're talking about what's attractive upon initial encounter as opposed to long-term, my breakdown of emphasis would be:

Game: 35
Social Proof: 15
Looks: 50
Assets: -

Wo Fat said...

Has anyone theorized on what impact birth order has on Alpha?

rycamor said...

I suspect that a major way women evaluate looks involves the expression on the man's face. I have experimented with that and was surprised how differently women respond.

In other words, for men even looks involve Game.

rycamor said...

For example, two pictures of the same balding, middle-aged man (Dr. Joseph Mercola):



SarahsDaughter said...

Game 40, Social Proof 30, looks 20, Assets 10.

Hot men with no game give me the creeps. I honestly think they are either gay or perverted and coincidentally hot.

In college there was this very good looking guy, no game, something about him just was "off," - turned out he was a stalker/prank phone calling pervert. I have other examples but that's what hot/no game is to me, stalker Mike.

My husband's one room mate is still the prettiest of the four of them and we're still wondering if he's gay. He's always posting pictures of himself in group photos with really hot women but is never dating anyone. He's quite liberal as well which doesn't help with his man card.

Where as my husband has a big nose and need for very strong glasses and when we met had a mullet of naturally curly hair. His morning appearance was actually comical and just...ugly. For our first date, he was going to show me around the UW campus. I woke up early and got myself all dolled up, got to his house and there he is in his "morning self" splendor. He did manage to put his contacts in and put a hat on before we went on our date. It got my hamster spinning, I knew I was not on any type of pedestal and he says my reaction showed him whether I was shallow or not. Later on that evening I got to meet a couple of his very attractive ex's.

Don't get me wrong, he cleans up well, but often jokes around about being a sexy beast, which, he is.

SarahsDaughter said...

That's awesome rycamor!
A - heebie jeebies
B - very nice.

Anonymous said...

How much is height important?

I've been told I have baby face. Is this good or bad?

Most women would probably say they value looks the most, except the ones who don't want to appear "shallow". In fact, this is what nearly everyone outside of the game community seems to think. Mystery, being aware of this fact, says that they don't know what they are attracted to.

I asked this before, but if power and so on is so sexually appealing, why was someone like George Bush (when he was the president) not considered one of the sexiest man on the planet? In fact, most women would probably say they would never sleep with him.

rycamor said...

That's awesome rycamor!
A - heebie jeebies
B - very nice.

I was going to use Vox's pictures for the example, but I'm a nice guy. Run away, ladies!

Vox said...

Vox, are you asking this out of curiosity for what women think they find attractive so you can compare it to what they demonstrably find attractive? I ask this, because you advise men to put little stock in what women say vs. how women behave.

Mm hmmm.

Vox said...

is it possible for one to reach you if one wishes to email you?

Yes. vday-at-wnd-dot-com.

TLM said...

Looks are outstanding at getting the initial attention and also passively increase social status. Being attractive is pea-cocking without actually having to put on a stupid hat or some other accessory.

However, the good looks are just good fishing bait. I have well above average good-looks. In my youth they allowed me to easily infiltrate and date amongst the top-tier girls and social circles. This was in spite of the many handicaps that came with my lower level social class (child of divorce with single mom (a big deal in the late 70's & early 80's), apartment vs. house, no father figure etc). Nevertheless, a pattern in my dating life soon materialized.

Although I could get the girls easily, I rarely kept them after 3 months or so. I was clearly a relationship beta-bitch. I freaking cringe when I think back to some of the gay ass S@it I used to pull with women. Nice guy ass kisser was my modus operandi. And it doesn't work.

So although looks are a great advantage, solid Game trumps looks in the LTR department. But looks dominate in the hook-up, same night lay category. That should be a no-brainer.

The best road to go is to have them all. After transitioning into a high level sales career, where I was surrounded by Alphas & alpha culture, my relationship skills with the ladies greatly improved as "nice guys" don't make quota and bonus. This mindset changed my whole way of approaching relationships and the world in general.

Combine the looks with Game and high income (social proofing IMO comes automatically with the other three) and the world is your oyster. Of course becoming a Christian after getting married put the brakes on the continued use of these things for adding notches to the bedpost, but I'll take salvation over bragging rights any day. And if you're not practicing "marriage Game", watch out.

Anonymous said...

Unless you are horrific or disfigured, looks don't matter much except for one thing - height.

It's hard to notice where tall men (6'2"+) don't out number attractive women, but in cities like Toronto, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen, it becomes immediately apparent.

Game can be used to successfully overcome this, but the more tall men you are up against, the steeper the slope gets that you must climb. In addition, you will always have to have your guard up and be working at your game, while a tall guy can relax and coast on his height from time to time.

TLM said...


Height is unimportant if looks and Game are in abundance. I know most women claim they want taller men, but who they're with proves this is bunk. There's nothing more visually awkward than watching a tall man with bad social skills and poor body language lumber through their daily follies. As is the short man who holds his head down in a submissive position and doesn't make eye contact. Both are losers. Short, medium, tall, doesn't matter if the guy has the confidence to project a strong masculine frame.

debbs said...

Using Yohami's definitions I'd say:

Game - 30
Looks - 25
Assets - 25
Social Proof - 20

I think game and looks overlap given that Yohami put clothes in the category of looks. Clothing communicates a lot about a person. I am not particularly attracted to men who appear to spend too much time on their clothing, so for the purpose of game, a mans clothing should look like it isn't too much of a concern to him. But, looks are important in that a man takes good care of his body and has good hygiene. Of course, what a woman finds handsome beyond that is very subjective.

Assets can mean that the man is deep in debt or that he needs to display his wealth in order to feel better about himself. Assets are good, but I prefer a man who is secure in what he has and doesn't feel a need to show them off. When I was young woman looking for a mate, the potential to sustain a certain level of wealth was more important than how much he had at the time because I didn't really want a future in debt and/or poverty.

I don't trust social proof on the surface, partially because I am attracted to introverts. The other reason is that I find real success more attractive than popularity. Sometimes it's that quiet guy who's really pulling the strings.

Stickwick said...

Unless you are horrific or disfigured, looks don't matter much except for one thing - height.

Meh. TLM is right. My husband is 5'9", and he has no trouble attracting women. I notice the short muscular, macho-looking men in the gym far more than the tall nondescript guys. Two of the short men are also completely bald, and they're still WAY more attractive than the boring tall guys. A lot of it is the deliberate way they move and the aura of danger they project (i.e. Game).

Daniel said...

Regarding baby face: when was the last time you heard of a woman wanting to make out with a baby?

Baby face means you are cute, comfortable and harmless on impression.

That does not mean you can't use it to your advantage.

Tell the next woman who mentions that you have a baby face, "That's because I still breastfeed. Are you offering me a snack?"

Anonymous said...


I have to respectfully disagree. In cities where tall men are plentiful and desirable women are scarce such as the ones that I mentioned, height + minimally passable game almost always trumps (relative) shortness + tight game always. Height + no game usually trumps but can be overcome with tight game. I did say that game can overcome this, but the level of game that you need is going to be MUCH higher than in other places. A level that may not be realistically acheivable for most men if one has no choice but to work long hours to live in those places. All 3 cities I mentioned are brutally expensive.

In a city like New York (and I suspect EE cities though I've never been there) this wouldn't really matter even given NYC's costs since the number of tall men is much lower than the number of desirable women.

Aeoli Pera said...

Not even a "thank you". Hrm.

I wish I could validate this anecdote somehow so I could claim it as proof for my theory of women learning from authorities to promote group cohesion.

DaveD said...

As a tall, extremely fat guy, I'll say this about the never ending looks-game question: yes.

I'm in college with girls half my age and 1/4 my weight. If my game is on (confident, strong eye contact, cocky-funny, teasing them etc), I can pull these girls away from thin guys their own age. If my game is off or if I slip up, the spell is broken. Looks get you more leeway to show beta traits early on. I have little margin for error.

There are some girls (about 1/4-1/3 of all I've met)who are as visual as men and therefore would NEVER date fat/ugly/short/whatever. There are an equal number of girls who seek out those attributes because dad had them or something. Then there's the 33-50% in the middle that are willing to be convinced. Game wins that argument.


Daniel said...

Isn't it possible that Toronto, Copenhagen and Amsterdam are, like New York, fairly devoid of men with game? Not to paint too broad a brush, but those towns are...well...kind of hipster. In other words, there might be a good reason why there aren't very many good looking girls there.

Any man in search of a mate with any Game whatsoever would certainly go off to happier hunting grounds. The Gameless Lost in the Land of the Tall have a lot bigger problems to face than the social-sexual hierarchy.

Such as deciding which pose is best struck whilst pretending to listen to a band no one normal has heard of.

rycamor said...

That's awesome rycamor!
A - heebie jeebies
B - very nice.

For further edification of our young men here: it has been mentioned in the past here that often women prefer a somewhat negative expression on a man's face. A wide-open, sunny smile is at best neutral, or even downright unsexy. Even worse is a weak, defensive smile (read: submissive). A smile with a bit of a smirk or a partial frown, on the other hand... portrays someone who knows what's up and is already on top of things. Also, maintaining a stony lack of expression can work wonders at making people play up to you rather than the reverse.

Control of composure is the key. Rather than being an open book, train yourself to only display the emotion you want, not what others are expecting from you. In high school terms, "cool"; someone who doesn't get pushed around.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous February 24, 2012 9:36 AM said...
How much is height important?

I've been told I have baby face. Is this good or bad?

My height has been very very good to me. Really.

As for the face, I've always looked younger in my face than my real age. Whether that's the same as a baby face I don't know. What I do know is that as I've aged this trait has become an advantage.

I'm in my forties but could pass for mid-thirties.

Having a baby face when you're younger can be a pain in the butt but you won't always be young and you will eventually look more like an adult. But the real bonus is your face will age seemingly slower than your age-related peers, much slower. Really.

Athor Pel

Stickwick said...

Not even a "thank you". Hrm.

Dude, too plaintive. If your definition had been wrong, someone would've let you know.

Isn't it possible that Toronto, Copenhagen and Amsterdam are, like New York, fairly devoid of men with game?

Judging by their looks and body-language, yes. The last time I was in Holland, I was struck by how wussy and feminine the men looked (at least the ones in cities). Only the guys from my dad's generation looked like real men. Ditto for Canadian city-guys.

CL said...

Aeoli Pera, it was a good explanation - short and simple.

Looks for a man is perhaps differently defined than for a woman. There are those studies that have shown women tend to be attracted to men who have low cortisol levels, which manifests in subtle differences in facial features.

Anyway, my guesstimate:

Game: 50
Social Proof: 30
Looks: 20
Assets: Honestly never cared about this.

I can vouch for Toronto being full of guys who talk like women, rising intonation at the end of statements and all. Not exactly "rugged and masculine". Most also avoid eye contact, looking away quickly as if frightened. o_O

R. Bradley Andrews said...

Attraction is not a conscious thought, so itemizing what makes someone attractive is likely doomed to failure from a self-reporting perspective.

Hermit said...

First impressions are always important. Looks and social proof are easily projected as soon as a guy enters a room, assets and Game are still there, but not quite as readily visible. A chick won't even know if you have Game, if she hasn't even noticed you. Of course, if you have game, she will notice you. It's a complicated weave of all 4.

Sensei said...

This may apply mostly in America or the South more specifically, since most of my experience has been in that subgroup, but height is a major factor for most women. (there are always exceptions, but we are speaking in generalities here)

Being short of even of medium height is an automatic hurdle in the looks department which must be overcome, especially in the presence of other tall men if they are not obese or weaklings.

Yohami said...


"The game of attractive, sexually successful men generally consists of confidence/charisma/wit/air of conceit, maintaining dominance/frame control, and quickly escalating "kino.""


Yohami said...


"I don't trust social proof on the surface, partially because I am attracted to introverts. The other reason is that I find real success more attractive than popularity. Sometimes it's that quiet guy who's really pulling the strings."

That only means you measure social proof in a different way. Example "the one really pulling the strings". Its still about social - power dominance.

Yohami said...

Its interesting people here disregards assets so much. Assets = tangible success.

I´ve been in both sides of the equation. I was once poor. Homeless poor.

Now I live in a luxurious apartment.

Guess what works more?

I got some girls back then. But the amount of girls approaching me based on assets is ridiculous.

Everyone knows the kid with the corvette is the shit.

The LP 999/Linda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

1. Game 35
2. Social proof 10
3. Looks 50
4. Assets 5

Jestin Ernest said...

yes, i have so very much further to go ...

CH said...

one thing we know for certain, both scientifically and observationally: looks are a less important mating criteria for women than they are for men.

on that, most sane people who aren't deluding themselves would agree. so now we're just arguing about degree of difference between the sexes. there was a study showing that men at the very right of the looks bell curve -- the top 5% -- get an inordinate amount of female attention, but that this attention drops off rapidly outside of that top 5%. since many more than just the top 5% of men are getting laid regularly, and regularly attracting women, it stands to reason that other forces are at work on female mate selection.

also, note that men are capable of staying in relationships with emotionally or financially incompatible hot babes far longer than women are capable of staying in relationships with emotionally or financially incompatible good-looking men. that is, a hot man turning to the beta side can sour a woman very quickly on him, whereas men will put up with a lot of shit from a hot girl for a long time. that right there will tell you how much more value men place on looks.

realmatt said...

If you're Kissinger, you're Genghis Khan and have no need for Game. Game is for the civilized. Game is for those men who realize they shouldn't or can't rape and pillage.

Vox, looking back on that situation, did you notice if Henry Kissinger had any "game"? or did he just radiate a terrible power and willingness to end everyone around him, like a reigning Silverback?

The LP 999/Linda said...

Not sure...some generalities without forcing the the numbers to reconcile as a exact figure.

1. Game 30 to 40%
2. Proof 20 to 35%
3. Looks 40 to 50%
4. Assets 10 to 20%

The LP 999/Linda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"Looks" matter a lot more than all of you are implying or stating. Two reasons for this:

(1) "Looks" include age, height and weight. The term is not limited to just facial design, bodily deformities, and skin complexion. It's a very broad term.

(2) If "looks" comprise age, height, weight, facial design, bodily deformities and skin complexion, that means it is, at best, very difficult to change. This means, more than the other factors, you play with wha you are dealt over time.

This means that people will downplay the importance of "looks" because it doesn't as easily fit into the comforting Stuart Smalley "self-help" bubble we like to live in. "If I just learned Game, if I just got more money, if I just hung out with different people..."

Enough. Some people are just screwed. Admit it.

The One said...

Most men are using game to score 18-25 yr olds, and it easier for a someone who looks 25 to score a 21 yr old then someone who looks 40 with a Rolex. So if youth falls in the looks category then that's why it is being rated so high. As for assets, If you can get 10mil plus then you can fly to foreign countries and buy girls. But making 400k vs the guy make 80k, not so much. Spend the extra money on wrinkle cream.

Nate said...

anyone that has seen me in person surely understands well that looks just don't matter that much.

Oh they can help... for sure... but they are nothing more than a contributing factor.

Eva Vandergeld said...

I'm over 30.

50% Looks
20% Proof
20% Assets
10% "Game"

M. Simon said...

I was never good looking. In my youth (up 'til age 30) I had very bad acne. Other guys were always wondering why I got the 8s and 9s and the occasional 10 when they had so much more going for them and had to settle for 3s and 4s.

What did I have? "I may want you, but I don't NEED you."

Plus I spent 3 years with outlaw bikers. It tuned up my attitudes.


Why politics is screwed:

The PTSD Party

M. Simon said...

Re: February 26, 2012 11:37 AM,

Uh. I'm 67 years old. I still turn the heads of very young (under 20) hotties. The first mate is usually most amused. She says it makes her hot for me (just like a woman - LOL).

I have no money. My clothes are shabbier than average. I'm very nothing special too look at. I carry some extra pounds.

So what do I do? I exude supreme self confidence. I don't have to make a move or say anything.

And it is not just the young ones. I had 3 - 40+s take an interest at a bar where I was watching my son play a couple of months ago. The first mate was there as well. If you want a woman the best attractant is to already have one. The first mate loves being my wingman. We have fun together. One reason we are still hanging in there after 38 years so far.

It is ALL attitude. The rest is strictly optional and may help you go from a 9.5 to a 9.8. Otherwise it just isn't necessary.

equitus said...

I think looks can help, creating attraction at first sight. But you all know that building attraction is just the first step.

I have that natural advantage - 6'6", fit and rather handsome. I look like an alpha. I'm aware that women notice me and I see IOI.

But my game has always been sub-zero, and I have deep issues that make that hard to overcome. So what usually happens is that, after an hour or so that I don't approach, I become that "creepy guy" that one commenter alluded to above.

The expectations are higher, and so the failure is worse.

Anonymous said...

Yes looks really matter. My brother had model looks. Girls stood in line to be with him and life was effortless and he played all day everyday. But everyone turns middle age and he wasnt prepared. He had no skills and fell way behind. He basically turned homeless. Not saying that happens to all great lookers but being spoiled has its potential pitfalls. On another note looks do matter for entry level jobs. But make no mistake at higher levels where the stakes are high looks mean nothing and can work against. Employers dont want you partying all night they want hard workers to grow their business. So in this sense great looks can serve as a red flag you are a bunch of hot air.

Blog AllAbsorbingCharm said...

Good day! I just have seen that the Rss of this site is functioning correctly, did you somehow all the options by yourself or you just turned to the default settings of the widget?

Anonymous said...

Αnothеr reason pгoductѕ сontaіning greеn Puгe Green Coffee Βеan Extract was provided to one group of mice and placebo was suрplied to the othеr group.

The ԁгied leavеs of green tеa state it
contаins the largeѕt amount οf antіoхiԁаnts.
Hoodіa and Acаi are both safe pure green сοffee bean eхtrаct,
but ωhat exactlу are the ѕide effects of іncгeаѕіng heаrt гate, blood pressure,
іrregular heaгt beats. Ideally, an hеrbal weight loss rоute be suге tο get most of the ԁrugs taken to cοmbat deprеssіon.

Look at my ωeb blog;

Anonymous said...

す "ヒステリアホーボー 'を含めて。または多分あなたはアイコンのビットは、その黒マルチカラーのレザーとなり、クラスの上位にあるすべての服をしたいと思います。これらおよび他の多くは今年グッチのハンドバッグのラインに含まれています。

My website ... グッチ

Anonymous said...

Always, always remove old and unwanted or outdated insight off your website.

Perfumes were being marketed for specific points during day, seasons, individuals.
Some distance away, Ash and furthermore Rocky take ranks atop two rocks.
Use simple developer work languages to reasons why basics and
begin today.

Feel free to visit my blog :: tiffany 店舗

Pussy-ManiaGirls: said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight


Collection Part 2:

Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car










Hardcore Porn Celebrity





100% MAKE you satisfy......

Reply Delete

Tudor Anghelina said...

These are my percentages :P

Looks: 70% (I am saying this because you are judged by looks on a first impression)
Game: 15%
Assets: 10% (Having more money attracts more people around you, making you gain social proof)
Social Proof: 5%

Post a Comment