I am 75 years old, I have daughters and grandaughters and thank god none of them have ever been so desperately insecure that they would do anything but laugh at this misogynist nonsense.
If you don't mind my asking, which bit of Aria's advice in particular offended you? The part about losing weight, or washing your face periodically so you have clear skin?
Yeah, that's the entirety of what the article said... I am not overweight but would rather be than follow a lost of rules (including eating once a day) in order to "find a husband". I guess if that's red pill?
If you don't see a difference between telling someone they should wear clean clothes and telling someone they should only eat once a day to find a partner I don't know what to tell you. Have a nice day.
This is an uncharitable response. It's clear Aria takes more extreme positions like "never get a breast reduction regardless how much back pain you suffer" (although elsewhere the author is more nuanced, eg on implants and breastfeeding) alongside unsurprising comments like "men prefer long hair".
Honestly LessWrong needs an attitude adjustment. The reason so many people don't respect rationalists is because most of us (but not me) are too concerned with principles to clap back at the haters. Maybe if they studied Game Theory a bit more they wouldn't be like that
The whole thing is stupid because looksmaxxing just gives into adulthood insecurity and vanity. I'm just an average woman who happens to be thin, curves, big boobs, long hair, clear skin, etc and this is all just stupid. We should be taking care of ourselves because that's the right thing to do. It shouldn't be about vanity and extreme male attention. Should women create a version of themselves that's a temporary dopamine hit to a man? That's insanity. Women should be taking care of themselves so they're a wife that's loved.
My problem with her advice is that she seems completely offbase about what many men want. For instance, I could care less about hair length or tattoos, don't care about big boobs or butt, and like women who are skinny/slender. So while, yes, maybe some (many?) men are in to buxom long haired babes with an hourglass figure and no tattoos, there are plenty of us who like the way Taylor Swift looks (even a Taylor Swift with a pixie cut and all tatted up!) Personally, I feel women should aim to look like female figure skaters, who are all slender yet athletic and know how to put on makeup, and I feel like there are plenty of guys with my tastes.
I agree that slender women are hotter, though I strongly question your taste if you'd actually date narcissistic man-hater Taylor Swift.
Anyway, my point wasn't that she's right about everything, just that her advice "Lose weight, grow your hair out, and wash your face" is pretty solid for most women and it's crazy that so many women commenting here are such obese disgusting hogs that they'd rather criticize Aria than meet this bare minimum. Like I said, it's a real redpill.
just curious, im a fat hog as you might say and my partner is a multi millionaire who also cooks, cleans, and loves me, how does that work in your world ideology
LOL, I'm talking about Swift's looks. I don't care enough about her to bother finding out anything about her personality, though considering that she's dating a guy, I doubt she is a "man-hater" (and I respect less someone like you who just throws that term around and also can't seem to read/comprehend that just because I find someone physically attractive doesn't mean I'd date that person (LOL)). And really, the only thing we agree on is that women should be thin or athletic or have an hourglass figure and try to make their face as attractive as possible, but the problem I have with the OP is that she is as ridiculous as the incels losers who think only men who are over 6 feet tall and top 10% income/wealth and top 10% in looks can get women when those incel losers are so lacking in so many other areas (like confidence, ambition, risk-taking, humor/singing/dancing/athleticism) that many women find attractive. Just in the opposite direction. It really doesn't take a lot for a woman to be attractive to some men and vice versa.
Oh yeah, in that case I disagree with you entirely. Have you seen Taylor Swift without her makeup? She looks more like Tyler Swift, LOL. And the OP is absolutely correct: men in the top 10% usually have women fighting over them, and while those women often end up "settling" for lower tier men, it feels pretty shitty to know that a woman who is your absolute looksmatch (if not less attractive even) banged a ton of hotter guys before you and only settled for you because all those other dudes whom she thought she was in the same league as just hit it and quit it. The reason women get so upset about being called out on their shallow behavior is because it's 100% true, and they call any men who disagree with them "incels" because they think it'll invalidate their (accurate) observations.
Are you female, by the way? Grok tells me that your writing style is very femcoded and I noticed you were super quick to throw out the "incel" accusation. No hate if you are, I know Taylor has a lot of lesbian fans.
Ah, I see. It seems like you're an incel who's never actually seen a gal without makeup on before. See, unlike you, I'm a guy who's actually seen/felt/fucked women naked during/after they shower and when I wake with them sleeping next to me, so I know what women look like (LOL). And having to rely on AI to read? LOL, how pathetic can you be?!?
Whatever, I should tell myself not to interact with bitter losers like you. It's not like losers like you ever actually learn how the real world works.
My wife has extra pounds, but her weight was in line with her family and she worked out and didn’t eat like a slob, so I accepted it without resentment. We were equal on the attractiveness front and the problems for both of us were genetic (I had a bone defect and type 1 diabetes from birth).
Then GLP1s came out. I was the first to use them because they help a lot with my type 1 diabetes. I also work in the pharmaceutical industry and I was convinced by the data I was seeing in addition to my own experience.
My wife resists. She hates “unnatural” things. But we are now three kids in and she’s getting older and not having the time/willpower to work out and eat better.
I’ve put my foot down. I accepted her completely when it was something largely outside her control that she was doing a decent job addressing. But now that a literal magic potion exists that will make her thinner and healthier and make our lives better, I’m sorry but not doing it is a sin. She got sometime to hit a weight target in her own but when she didn’t make it I insisted on trying GLPs.
It’s a new age, and being overweight is now a choice that you can be held responsible for.
Recently there has been some debate around that phenomenon in Sweden after semi-autobiographical novel (Judas by Amanda Romare) told about the author pressuring her overweight gamer boyfriend to take Ozempic. I can't say I don't understand her. Although I can't say anything about the biochemical solution due to lack of experience, being normal weight is a privilege I wish for everyone.
I guess that finding a husband who genuinely prefers us the way we are is easier for those of us who are normal weight. But with that box ticked, I believe such men exist for real. I even find reasons to believe that they are rather common.
Did she have a good experience with the GLP1s? Was this something you were gonna keep insisting on if she didn’t (if it gave her unpleasant side effects for ex)?
Beyond simply maintaining health and being tasteful (no crust punk haircut or face tats) women faking an aesthetic they don’t enjoy maintaining, in order to get a husband, contributes to the narrative that women “let themselves go” after marriage or kids.
Some women do stop maintaining their health, become overweight, etc. or get bad haircuts out of supposed convenience, which isn’t what I mean.
If a woman doesn’t enjoy styling hair or wearing makeup, or getting fillers and botox, and she feels pressured to do those things, those aren’t going to be sustainable habits for more than a few years. She will likely fall back to what is sustainable, which may even be above average attractiveness, but it won’t meet the standards she catered to before/beginning the marriage.
I think we should be honest and get the person who fits what we’re actually about, not a facade.
I wrote this exact comment - should have read the thread first!
Completely agree. I certainly wore more make up when I first went out with my husband, but in the first year of us dating he saw me in my preferred state enough to know that that was what he signing on for. Anything else would have been terrible for my postpartum insecurities.
Exactly! I'm a simple woman. I can't force myself to wear makeup all the time. I take care of myself though. I have long hair, clear skin, and thin with curves. That's just me naturally. I would NEVER do any of the extra things because that's now who I am. And guess what? I'm married to a chiseled tall handsome athletic intelligent man. A good honorable man looks for a wife, not a porn star.
I'm honestly pretty confused by this comment. Google tells me that women worldwide are spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year on beauty products. What's wrong with a blogpost or two that helps you determine if you're getting your money's worth?
As a straight man I would happily read the corresponding "get sexier" post for men, and probably take notes on it.
My current hypothesis is that lots of women are very insecure about how they look, and they aren't able to express this honestly by saying "I'm insecure about how I look", they just lash out at writing which touches on the insecurity.
I would suggest that simply by being born a straight woman, you have already won the game and you don't need to take your appearance so personally? Step 0 is to love yourself for who you are, and have fun with it, and realize that you are stacking bonus points on top of an awesome foundation (being a straight woman).
Another possibility is that the ladies who enjoy frank discussions of appearance optimization are using Instagram, and the ones on Substack are looking for something different?
Sure, I do think there is a gender divide here however. If you look through the likes on the post, a strong majority are male. She seems to be giving good advice, women just don't want to hear it. I would totally understand if the response was "too much work" or "not my style". I don't get the disgust.
My audience is pretty male afaik so I wouldn't take that signal very seriously. I'm trying to get out of my existing bubble but started out in a very masculine corner of the internet.
This post is ridiculous, damaging, and focused on the wrong things. What happened to building a career, financial stability, independence, hobbies???? Why is everything about looksmaxxing these days
Because none of those have any bearing on what makes a good girlfriend. Be pretty, be pleasant to be around and be sexually available. Everything else is just window dressing.
Men literally do not care about your career, your financial stability, or your independence.
They also don't care about any of your retarded hobbies unless they are common male hobbies that they share and this has always been true. Keep doing what you're doing if you want a balding 5'8 soyfacing millenial type.
Hmm I think “be thin, have long hair and clear skin” is about as far as one needs to go, and further “optimizing” is not rly necessary and could be demoralizing and unsustainable if it leads to maintaining an aesthetic you don’t personally enjoy. IME men are really quite flexible about both face and body type, assuming you’re thin and have clear skin.
Also I think you may be over indexing on what has mass appeal (re: getting you OnlyFans subscribers and internet thirst) vs what appeals to high SES men. Taylor is a perfect example bc men on the internet fall over themselves to say she’s not sexy but IRL she’s dated a large number of highly attractive men.
I know some men who wouldn’t date the average women if all she did was be thin, have long hair and clear skin. More eligible men know they can afford to be pickier.
Hmm but were their rejections things those women could with sustainable effort looksmaxx their way out of? Doesn’t feel worthwhile to put a large amount of effort into barely squeaking by someone’s looks filters and then have to keep that up forever… like I don’t think any woman can get any man by just being thin with nice skin but not sure the juice is worth the squeeze after that. Feels like the drop off in marginal gain per effort is steep
Taylor Swift is engaged to a good looking, highly paid football player and someone online is saying “men don’t think she looks good”. Whatever! I’ve never been fat, but I’m barely a B cup and I’ve been married twice and had lots of guys ask me out. The best thing any woman can do for her looks is smile, imo.
"It’s better to be a beautiful woman who needs GLP-1s, hair extensions and 37 beauty products than it is to be a mid low maintenance girlfriend."
Speaking as a man (with afaict fairly standard beauty preferences), I'd prefer a thin high-maintenance gf to an overweight one[1], but on pretty much every other standard of beauty I'd rather date someone who's easygoing on appearance and interested in other things than someone who's obsessed with personal beauty.
This is especially the case if I'm thinking of someone in terms of "long-term partner" than a casual thing.
This is partially for egalitarian intuitions: I don't spend that much time on appearance as opposed to thinking about ideas, trying to do good, having fun, etc, so it'd be weird to insist my gf/wife does the same. I might also be worried that she'd resent me if she spends a lot of time in front of a mirror every day.
It's hard to say how my preferences compare to other men, but my guess is that while I care *more* about ideas and character than other men, I don't necessarily care less about physical beauty in a partner than other men do. I also worry that while you're right that while generalizing from a small handful of studies isn't very good, trying to get beauty cues from porn + a few anecdotes from your rich friends will also paint a misleading picture.
That said, if your target audience mostly wants husbands who are very prim/proper/highly conscientious, then it makes sense in terms of assortative mating to signal their own high conscientiousness/ability to stick to routine.
[1] I'm not very happy about this, just empirically how I'm wired.
I would guess that the best strategy for landing you would be to be high maintenance when you’re courting and then, once you’re together, drop some of the tasks/chores after talking about which you value the least.
Speaking for myself “only eats once a day” would have been a much more important dealbreaker for me than weight. I ended up not pursuing several women because they weren’t able to eat a normal meal on a date.
In contrast I’d be totally fine with that, assuming she seems otherwise healthy. When I was younger sometimes I’d eat only once a day out of forgetfulness.
It is my concern if I’m going to enjoy spending time with someone. Far more important than appearance. Eating together is an important social activity for humans and eating, preparing and understanding food is interesting to me personally.
Also, human metabolism doesn’t scale calorie intake the way you think it does. A slim 5’3’’ woman still needs at least 1600 calories, whereas a very active 200lb man might at the very outside need about 3200 and there’s both a great deal of tolerance and considerable personal variation. Most small, slim women could eat 2000 calories a day and not gain much weight and similarly most 200lb men could eat 2000 calories a day and not lose any. If you’re eating “1/3 of the calories of an active 200lb man” you’re severely undernourished and that’s dangerous. Don’t do that.
I just have very low maintenance calories. I'm a slim 5ft3 woman and I think they're about 1500ish. Eating one meal a day is much more psychologically easy than portion controlling extensively for three.
In case the guy you're replying to wants some additional context, there's a calorie calculator on calculator dot net. It reports that a 5'3", 105lb woman (right at the low end of the healthy BMI range) with "little to no exercise" needs to consume 1,428 calories/day to maintain their weight (1,637 calories/day for "exercise 1-3 days/week"). Meanwhile, a 6'0", 200 lb man who exercises daily (or does intense exercise 3-4 days/wk) requires 2,992 calories/day.
Look I appreciate the advice given here. It is sad but women working on making themselves more beautiful does make a difference in the quality of man (within reason).
However, it is not true that all men need a busty skinny woman. If anything many will marry a skinny women with barely any curves for reasons of status. Not all, but enough where recommending a boob job would not help.
Also, no amount of plastic surgery will take us back to looking like we’re 25 again. Plus it can be dangerous, not every woman reacts well to fillers and Botox.
We should acknowledge that for many men, they will be bored of their wives no matter what they do. I think a better assessment would be to find men who appreciate the beauty of his wife as she ages but still looks after herself ok and is happy to be with one woman for the rest of his life.
Obviously there is a diversity of preferences and most people will end up marrying the person who represents the best arbitrage for them. A big part of the reason so many men will marry skinny women is because there are way more skinny women than curvy women. And skinny is totally nice and acceptable and will land you a great husband.
But I think skinny with big tits is probably better.
I think many men will be committed husbands who accept their wives aging even if they would prefer a younger looking woman. And, at the point of courtship, you want to be maximally appealing.
You’re mostly right except for the end, there is no way to assess beforehand whether or not a man will appreciate his wife’s aging before she actually ages.
I am a straight guy and so of course it would be in my interest if more women followed your or Sanilac's advices. But I am not sure how useful they are to 'land' a good husband.
Getting sexier simply increases the amount of male attention you get. But most women already get plenty of that. In fact sexiness probably yields steep diminishing returns in your dating life, as too much attention leads to decision exhaustion and makes relationships less sticky.
The main challenege most women face it seems to me is how to convert that initial interest in commitment. It is at best an open question whether being hot yields you a higher conversation rate (on this matter the advices that Sanilac gives on motion and style seem to be much more useful than his opinion on cosmetic surgery).
Lots of women don’t want the average man. They want a man with lots of options and many of them want a girlfriend who is much better looking than average.
If you don’t filter well then more attention could be bad. But hopefully my advice isn’t taken in isolation.
"an open question whether being hot yields you a higher conversation rate"
Why wouldn't it? Seems obvious I would be more inclined to stick with someone if I know she's more physically attractive than the women I usually date. On the other hand, if I'm at an event with her and I look around and see a lot of women who I find more attractive, it would feel dishonorable to commit to her for the longer term.
I do think the perception that a hottie will have a lot of options and might dump me fast is anti-romantic. My ideal wife is a woman who I find super hot, yet inexplicably has a crush on me anyways. I assume most women have a similar ideal husband--that's basically a typical male love interest in a romance novel correct?
Apparently I'm quite the outlier, because I find the bodybuilder anything but grotesque.
I really think muscle on a woman is a good filter for them to use: almost all men who are repulsed by it are insecure and think their gender entitles them to be in charge.
Exactly, and that’s why if a woman wants to get really muscular, she can do so and not worry about having difficulty finding a man. Now, if something like 50% of women started getting very muscular, I think they would start running into an issue of finding men who appreciate their physique, because I don’t think 50% of men necessarily love the look. But I don’t think we’re near the cap at all.
It's also fairly difficult for women to get bodybuilder-level muscular. If you put in a standard effort without taking any hormones, the most likely outcome is just looking like an instagram model, which seems obviously good. Great for your health too.
It is a viable arbitrage strategy for women, too, but it's much harder to maintain and achieve than what is described in the article for most women. Ofc there are some exceptions
Why is it better for the human race? Is it because of the ascetic values of various religions that we shouldn't care about the body? Or because we should follow highly variable fashion trends which are much more difficult? I think both of those are worse.
I think the advice on weight, skincare, long hair, and tasteful makeup is completely correct, and by far the most important place to focus. I think the focus on boobs and an overly dewy face is a bit too porn brained.
Porn shows men overexaggerated sexual features, which might be exciting when he is in the throes of lust with a girl he does not know at all, but for a girlfriend, I would not want that. I think bigger boobs are marginally better, but men find a variety of sizes attractive. I can’t say for sure, but I don’t think I would ever find a boob job attractive. If you have small boobs, try to date a competitive runner. He will be in great shape, and many of the attractive women he knows will have smaller boobs than you.
And finally, I think most men filter on attractiveness more than they should. If you can meet men in settings where they don’t primary assess you on your beauty, a much larger number who get to know you will find you attractive enough to date. This seems more valuable than going for the last mile on looksmaxing.
I think the best defense against my critiques is that you are directionally correct, and your readers will not overshoot.
"Losing weight is easy now. You can either starve yourself with willpower or you can starve yourself with chemical assistance. […] Currently I control my weight by eating about once a day."
Any woman or man can lose weight without starving themselves, without chemical assistance, and without going to the gym. Just eat a lot of protein, healthy fats, and limit as much as possible the amount of carbs and sugars. Guaranteed you'll lose a lot of weight while improving your health.
girl is this extreme unhealthy diet really necessary? I get that being attractive gets you more options in the dating pool, but I don't think you need to be a model to get a nice husband if that's what you want, and I think you might actually be more likely to get one who doesn't encourage unhealthy eating habits & therefore is more likely to be a better guy.
Yes, high-fiber foods promote satiety, but it's a suboptimal option: they're less nutrient dense and increase your blood sugar levels more than if you don't eat carbs and sugars altogether (and also make you gain weight).
There are other options that also satiate a lot and are healthier (more nutritious and no blood sugar spike): animal protein (fish/meat/eggs/dairy/offal) with healthy fats (such as olive oil, avocado, or animal fats).
I mean, if you eat proteins and fats and you still feel hungry, you can just eat more until you don't feel hungry anymore, right? (Unless, of course, you prefer to top off with carbs because it's cheaper or simply because you enjoy eating carbs).
Spot on as usual, Aria. I don't say this to flatter you: you just seem the have what to my mind appear as the most non-nonsense, pragmatic, truth approximating views on these issues. Perhaps it is just that I belong to the group of weirdos that share a specific mindset, though.
This post is generating a bigger ruckus on X than the previous ones, but I haven't found any of the complaints engaging. The ones I've seen are mostly either of the form "By I / somebody I know has some fetishes x, y, z about female attractive traits" (which, fine, but Statistics works in aggregation and on what appeals to a bigger chunk of the intended audience) or "Yeah, but what about a,b,c...?" (i.e., things you didn't talk about in the article, like what's the optimal overall trade-off, or how much one can scale up in the dating market with this), which misses the point.
Wait this is so gross I kept waiting for the satire and it never came 😭 dk why I kept skimming …
I am 75 years old, I have daughters and grandaughters and thank god none of them have ever been so desperately insecure that they would do anything but laugh at this misogynist nonsense.
You heard me: misogynist.
If you don't mind my asking, which bit of Aria's advice in particular offended you? The part about losing weight, or washing your face periodically so you have clear skin?
The whole part about changing my entire life in order to be more sexy in the eyes of a man to hopefully find a husband.
Having clear skin and not being overweight is "changing your entire life?" Oof, brutal redpill
Yeah, that's the entirety of what the article said... I am not overweight but would rather be than follow a lost of rules (including eating once a day) in order to "find a husband". I guess if that's red pill?
If someone gave men advice that they should get in shape and dress better to improve their dating prospects would you find that deeply offensive?
If you don't see a difference between telling someone they should wear clean clothes and telling someone they should only eat once a day to find a partner I don't know what to tell you. Have a nice day.
This is an uncharitable response. It's clear Aria takes more extreme positions like "never get a breast reduction regardless how much back pain you suffer" (although elsewhere the author is more nuanced, eg on implants and breastfeeding) alongside unsurprising comments like "men prefer long hair".
My response was much more charitable than the person I responded to, actually
Neither of you were charitable at all, but sorry we expect more epistemic virtue from the LessWrongy side of an argument that escaped containment ok
Honestly LessWrong needs an attitude adjustment. The reason so many people don't respect rationalists is because most of us (but not me) are too concerned with principles to clap back at the haters. Maybe if they studied Game Theory a bit more they wouldn't be like that
The whole thing is stupid because looksmaxxing just gives into adulthood insecurity and vanity. I'm just an average woman who happens to be thin, curves, big boobs, long hair, clear skin, etc and this is all just stupid. We should be taking care of ourselves because that's the right thing to do. It shouldn't be about vanity and extreme male attention. Should women create a version of themselves that's a temporary dopamine hit to a man? That's insanity. Women should be taking care of themselves so they're a wife that's loved.
My problem with her advice is that she seems completely offbase about what many men want. For instance, I could care less about hair length or tattoos, don't care about big boobs or butt, and like women who are skinny/slender. So while, yes, maybe some (many?) men are in to buxom long haired babes with an hourglass figure and no tattoos, there are plenty of us who like the way Taylor Swift looks (even a Taylor Swift with a pixie cut and all tatted up!) Personally, I feel women should aim to look like female figure skaters, who are all slender yet athletic and know how to put on makeup, and I feel like there are plenty of guys with my tastes.
I agree that slender women are hotter, though I strongly question your taste if you'd actually date narcissistic man-hater Taylor Swift.
Anyway, my point wasn't that she's right about everything, just that her advice "Lose weight, grow your hair out, and wash your face" is pretty solid for most women and it's crazy that so many women commenting here are such obese disgusting hogs that they'd rather criticize Aria than meet this bare minimum. Like I said, it's a real redpill.
just curious, im a fat hog as you might say and my partner is a multi millionaire who also cooks, cleans, and loves me, how does that work in your world ideology
On the internet, nobody knows that you're a d̶o̶g̶ hog
why cant you answer the question lol
LOL, I'm talking about Swift's looks. I don't care enough about her to bother finding out anything about her personality, though considering that she's dating a guy, I doubt she is a "man-hater" (and I respect less someone like you who just throws that term around and also can't seem to read/comprehend that just because I find someone physically attractive doesn't mean I'd date that person (LOL)). And really, the only thing we agree on is that women should be thin or athletic or have an hourglass figure and try to make their face as attractive as possible, but the problem I have with the OP is that she is as ridiculous as the incels losers who think only men who are over 6 feet tall and top 10% income/wealth and top 10% in looks can get women when those incel losers are so lacking in so many other areas (like confidence, ambition, risk-taking, humor/singing/dancing/athleticism) that many women find attractive. Just in the opposite direction. It really doesn't take a lot for a woman to be attractive to some men and vice versa.
Oh yeah, in that case I disagree with you entirely. Have you seen Taylor Swift without her makeup? She looks more like Tyler Swift, LOL. And the OP is absolutely correct: men in the top 10% usually have women fighting over them, and while those women often end up "settling" for lower tier men, it feels pretty shitty to know that a woman who is your absolute looksmatch (if not less attractive even) banged a ton of hotter guys before you and only settled for you because all those other dudes whom she thought she was in the same league as just hit it and quit it. The reason women get so upset about being called out on their shallow behavior is because it's 100% true, and they call any men who disagree with them "incels" because they think it'll invalidate their (accurate) observations.
Are you female, by the way? Grok tells me that your writing style is very femcoded and I noticed you were super quick to throw out the "incel" accusation. No hate if you are, I know Taylor has a lot of lesbian fans.
Ah, I see. It seems like you're an incel who's never actually seen a gal without makeup on before. See, unlike you, I'm a guy who's actually seen/felt/fucked women naked during/after they shower and when I wake with them sleeping next to me, so I know what women look like (LOL). And having to rely on AI to read? LOL, how pathetic can you be?!?
Whatever, I should tell myself not to interact with bitter losers like you. It's not like losers like you ever actually learn how the real world works.
casting pearls before swine
I thought the exact same thing!
thank God there is so much more to life than this
But apparently not much more to attracting men, on average.
who cares
This article isn’t exactly about the average man, it’s about how to attract an accomplished husband. It’s not wrong really, just superficial.
Theres plenty of accomplished men that aren’t this shallow
Reading this I realize one thing: Those of us who have found husbands who prefer us the way we actually look are really, really lucky.
My wife has extra pounds, but her weight was in line with her family and she worked out and didn’t eat like a slob, so I accepted it without resentment. We were equal on the attractiveness front and the problems for both of us were genetic (I had a bone defect and type 1 diabetes from birth).
Then GLP1s came out. I was the first to use them because they help a lot with my type 1 diabetes. I also work in the pharmaceutical industry and I was convinced by the data I was seeing in addition to my own experience.
My wife resists. She hates “unnatural” things. But we are now three kids in and she’s getting older and not having the time/willpower to work out and eat better.
I’ve put my foot down. I accepted her completely when it was something largely outside her control that she was doing a decent job addressing. But now that a literal magic potion exists that will make her thinner and healthier and make our lives better, I’m sorry but not doing it is a sin. She got sometime to hit a weight target in her own but when she didn’t make it I insisted on trying GLPs.
It’s a new age, and being overweight is now a choice that you can be held responsible for.
You say that like spending hundreds of pounds (/dollars) a month on a cosmetic luxury is something that most people can afford. It’s not.
Recently there has been some debate around that phenomenon in Sweden after semi-autobiographical novel (Judas by Amanda Romare) told about the author pressuring her overweight gamer boyfriend to take Ozempic. I can't say I don't understand her. Although I can't say anything about the biochemical solution due to lack of experience, being normal weight is a privilege I wish for everyone.
I guess that finding a husband who genuinely prefers us the way we are is easier for those of us who are normal weight. But with that box ticked, I believe such men exist for real. I even find reasons to believe that they are rather common.
Did she have a good experience with the GLP1s? Was this something you were gonna keep insisting on if she didn’t (if it gave her unpleasant side effects for ex)?
Beyond simply maintaining health and being tasteful (no crust punk haircut or face tats) women faking an aesthetic they don’t enjoy maintaining, in order to get a husband, contributes to the narrative that women “let themselves go” after marriage or kids.
Some women do stop maintaining their health, become overweight, etc. or get bad haircuts out of supposed convenience, which isn’t what I mean.
If a woman doesn’t enjoy styling hair or wearing makeup, or getting fillers and botox, and she feels pressured to do those things, those aren’t going to be sustainable habits for more than a few years. She will likely fall back to what is sustainable, which may even be above average attractiveness, but it won’t meet the standards she catered to before/beginning the marriage.
I think we should be honest and get the person who fits what we’re actually about, not a facade.
I wrote this exact comment - should have read the thread first!
Completely agree. I certainly wore more make up when I first went out with my husband, but in the first year of us dating he saw me in my preferred state enough to know that that was what he signing on for. Anything else would have been terrible for my postpartum insecurities.
Duplicate comments are good because it shows the thought is popular.
Exactly! I'm a simple woman. I can't force myself to wear makeup all the time. I take care of myself though. I have long hair, clear skin, and thin with curves. That's just me naturally. I would NEVER do any of the extra things because that's now who I am. And guess what? I'm married to a chiseled tall handsome athletic intelligent man. A good honorable man looks for a wife, not a porn star.
The level of moral disgust your writing and worldview instills in me is absolutely astonishing. You do not have a human heart.
I'm honestly pretty confused by this comment. Google tells me that women worldwide are spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year on beauty products. What's wrong with a blogpost or two that helps you determine if you're getting your money's worth?
As a straight man I would happily read the corresponding "get sexier" post for men, and probably take notes on it.
My current hypothesis is that lots of women are very insecure about how they look, and they aren't able to express this honestly by saying "I'm insecure about how I look", they just lash out at writing which touches on the insecurity.
I would suggest that simply by being born a straight woman, you have already won the game and you don't need to take your appearance so personally? Step 0 is to love yourself for who you are, and have fun with it, and realize that you are stacking bonus points on top of an awesome foundation (being a straight woman).
Another possibility is that the ladies who enjoy frank discussions of appearance optimization are using Instagram, and the ones on Substack are looking for something different?
I am a man. I simply find this disgusting instinctually.
Sure, I do think there is a gender divide here however. If you look through the likes on the post, a strong majority are male. She seems to be giving good advice, women just don't want to hear it. I would totally understand if the response was "too much work" or "not my style". I don't get the disgust.
My audience is pretty male afaik so I wouldn't take that signal very seriously. I'm trying to get out of my existing bubble but started out in a very masculine corner of the internet.
Hmmm, I’m selling slop and so far my only customers seem to be hogs 🤔
This post is ridiculous, damaging, and focused on the wrong things. What happened to building a career, financial stability, independence, hobbies???? Why is everything about looksmaxxing these days
Because none of those have any bearing on what makes a good girlfriend. Be pretty, be pleasant to be around and be sexually available. Everything else is just window dressing.
Men literally do not care about your career, your financial stability, or your independence.
They also don't care about any of your retarded hobbies unless they are common male hobbies that they share and this has always been true. Keep doing what you're doing if you want a balding 5'8 soyfacing millenial type.
Men do care about a woman’s career as well. Most couples are looks, intelligence, and success matched
You sound so sexy and fun! Let’s date! You MUST be taken though, right?
why would i ever want to date you
Don’t worry, I know you have no interest in a human person
you're right, i really don't, no idea why you assumed i had any interest in any kind of relationship
Aw :(
Because her article is about how to find a husband, not how to find a wife. 1970s Feminism has resulted in near civilizational destruction. Lol.
Hmm I think “be thin, have long hair and clear skin” is about as far as one needs to go, and further “optimizing” is not rly necessary and could be demoralizing and unsustainable if it leads to maintaining an aesthetic you don’t personally enjoy. IME men are really quite flexible about both face and body type, assuming you’re thin and have clear skin.
Also I think you may be over indexing on what has mass appeal (re: getting you OnlyFans subscribers and internet thirst) vs what appeals to high SES men. Taylor is a perfect example bc men on the internet fall over themselves to say she’s not sexy but IRL she’s dated a large number of highly attractive men.
I know some men who wouldn’t date the average women if all she did was be thin, have long hair and clear skin. More eligible men know they can afford to be pickier.
Hmm but were their rejections things those women could with sustainable effort looksmaxx their way out of? Doesn’t feel worthwhile to put a large amount of effort into barely squeaking by someone’s looks filters and then have to keep that up forever… like I don’t think any woman can get any man by just being thin with nice skin but not sure the juice is worth the squeeze after that. Feels like the drop off in marginal gain per effort is steep
Taylor Swift is engaged to a good looking, highly paid football player and someone online is saying “men don’t think she looks good”. Whatever! I’ve never been fat, but I’m barely a B cup and I’ve been married twice and had lots of guys ask me out. The best thing any woman can do for her looks is smile, imo.
"It’s better to be a beautiful woman who needs GLP-1s, hair extensions and 37 beauty products than it is to be a mid low maintenance girlfriend."
Speaking as a man (with afaict fairly standard beauty preferences), I'd prefer a thin high-maintenance gf to an overweight one[1], but on pretty much every other standard of beauty I'd rather date someone who's easygoing on appearance and interested in other things than someone who's obsessed with personal beauty.
This is especially the case if I'm thinking of someone in terms of "long-term partner" than a casual thing.
This is partially for egalitarian intuitions: I don't spend that much time on appearance as opposed to thinking about ideas, trying to do good, having fun, etc, so it'd be weird to insist my gf/wife does the same. I might also be worried that she'd resent me if she spends a lot of time in front of a mirror every day.
It's hard to say how my preferences compare to other men, but my guess is that while I care *more* about ideas and character than other men, I don't necessarily care less about physical beauty in a partner than other men do. I also worry that while you're right that while generalizing from a small handful of studies isn't very good, trying to get beauty cues from porn + a few anecdotes from your rich friends will also paint a misleading picture.
That said, if your target audience mostly wants husbands who are very prim/proper/highly conscientious, then it makes sense in terms of assortative mating to signal their own high conscientiousness/ability to stick to routine.
[1] I'm not very happy about this, just empirically how I'm wired.
I would guess that the best strategy for landing you would be to be high maintenance when you’re courting and then, once you’re together, drop some of the tasks/chores after talking about which you value the least.
Speaking for myself “only eats once a day” would have been a much more important dealbreaker for me than weight. I ended up not pursuing several women because they weren’t able to eat a normal meal on a date.
In contrast I’d be totally fine with that, assuming she seems otherwise healthy. When I was younger sometimes I’d eat only once a day out of forgetfulness.
Not really your concern. The average caloric requirements of a thin woman are about 1/3 to 1/4 of those of a 200lb athletic man.
It is my concern if I’m going to enjoy spending time with someone. Far more important than appearance. Eating together is an important social activity for humans and eating, preparing and understanding food is interesting to me personally.
Also, human metabolism doesn’t scale calorie intake the way you think it does. A slim 5’3’’ woman still needs at least 1600 calories, whereas a very active 200lb man might at the very outside need about 3200 and there’s both a great deal of tolerance and considerable personal variation. Most small, slim women could eat 2000 calories a day and not gain much weight and similarly most 200lb men could eat 2000 calories a day and not lose any. If you’re eating “1/3 of the calories of an active 200lb man” you’re severely undernourished and that’s dangerous. Don’t do that.
I just have very low maintenance calories. I'm a slim 5ft3 woman and I think they're about 1500ish. Eating one meal a day is much more psychologically easy than portion controlling extensively for three.
And you can get used to it because it smooths out the glycemic load, it might make it easier to not crash at random time of the day actually.
In case the guy you're replying to wants some additional context, there's a calorie calculator on calculator dot net. It reports that a 5'3", 105lb woman (right at the low end of the healthy BMI range) with "little to no exercise" needs to consume 1,428 calories/day to maintain their weight (1,637 calories/day for "exercise 1-3 days/week"). Meanwhile, a 6'0", 200 lb man who exercises daily (or does intense exercise 3-4 days/wk) requires 2,992 calories/day.
All calculations done assuming default age of 25.
Touche. Part of me wouldn't like it, but I guess I'd also find it charming if someone goes into a ton of effort to "land" me.
I love how frank you are, even if it’s autism. Are you an Indian Jew?
Ethnically Indian, married into Jewish I guess
I say count it
Look I appreciate the advice given here. It is sad but women working on making themselves more beautiful does make a difference in the quality of man (within reason).
However, it is not true that all men need a busty skinny woman. If anything many will marry a skinny women with barely any curves for reasons of status. Not all, but enough where recommending a boob job would not help.
Also, no amount of plastic surgery will take us back to looking like we’re 25 again. Plus it can be dangerous, not every woman reacts well to fillers and Botox.
We should acknowledge that for many men, they will be bored of their wives no matter what they do. I think a better assessment would be to find men who appreciate the beauty of his wife as she ages but still looks after herself ok and is happy to be with one woman for the rest of his life.
Obviously there is a diversity of preferences and most people will end up marrying the person who represents the best arbitrage for them. A big part of the reason so many men will marry skinny women is because there are way more skinny women than curvy women. And skinny is totally nice and acceptable and will land you a great husband.
But I think skinny with big tits is probably better.
I think many men will be committed husbands who accept their wives aging even if they would prefer a younger looking woman. And, at the point of courtship, you want to be maximally appealing.
How do you know a man is like that without yk waiting to find out
You’re mostly right except for the end, there is no way to assess beforehand whether or not a man will appreciate his wife’s aging before she actually ages.
I am a straight guy and so of course it would be in my interest if more women followed your or Sanilac's advices. But I am not sure how useful they are to 'land' a good husband.
Getting sexier simply increases the amount of male attention you get. But most women already get plenty of that. In fact sexiness probably yields steep diminishing returns in your dating life, as too much attention leads to decision exhaustion and makes relationships less sticky.
The main challenege most women face it seems to me is how to convert that initial interest in commitment. It is at best an open question whether being hot yields you a higher conversation rate (on this matter the advices that Sanilac gives on motion and style seem to be much more useful than his opinion on cosmetic surgery).
Lots of women don’t want the average man. They want a man with lots of options and many of them want a girlfriend who is much better looking than average.
If you don’t filter well then more attention could be bad. But hopefully my advice isn’t taken in isolation.
"an open question whether being hot yields you a higher conversation rate"
Why wouldn't it? Seems obvious I would be more inclined to stick with someone if I know she's more physically attractive than the women I usually date. On the other hand, if I'm at an event with her and I look around and see a lot of women who I find more attractive, it would feel dishonorable to commit to her for the longer term.
I do think the perception that a hottie will have a lot of options and might dump me fast is anti-romantic. My ideal wife is a woman who I find super hot, yet inexplicably has a crush on me anyways. I assume most women have a similar ideal husband--that's basically a typical male love interest in a romance novel correct?
Perhaps a better argument: If you're too hot it will intimidate the guys you consider to be husband material / he will think you're out of his league. Probably comes down to what you are looking for in a man. https://brittanyhugoboom.substack.com/p/you-need-to-start-approaching-beautiful
Apparently I'm quite the outlier, because I find the bodybuilder anything but grotesque.
I really think muscle on a woman is a good filter for them to use: almost all men who are repulsed by it are insecure and think their gender entitles them to be in charge.
That’s potentially a good opportunity for arbitrage
Not really; there seem to be more men who like muscular women than muscular women.
Exactly, and that’s why if a woman wants to get really muscular, she can do so and not worry about having difficulty finding a man. Now, if something like 50% of women started getting very muscular, I think they would start running into an issue of finding men who appreciate their physique, because I don’t think 50% of men necessarily love the look. But I don’t think we’re near the cap at all.
It's also fairly difficult for women to get bodybuilder-level muscular. If you put in a standard effort without taking any hormones, the most likely outcome is just looking like an instagram model, which seems obviously good. Great for your health too.
It is a viable arbitrage strategy for women, too, but it's much harder to maintain and achieve than what is described in the article for most women. Ofc there are some exceptions
It's a minority taste, but it still appeals to 1-5 % of men, so it's not "quite" rare.
Most men who do not like muscles do it out of sexual reasons, not because of personal beliefs.
Unclear if this is meant to be a joke - hoping yes for the human race?
I guess I would hope that for an intelligent species we would be able to transcend looks and base attraction on personality / compatibility
I wouldn’t hope that if I were you
Why is it better for the human race? Is it because of the ascetic values of various religions that we shouldn't care about the body? Or because we should follow highly variable fashion trends which are much more difficult? I think both of those are worse.
I think the advice on weight, skincare, long hair, and tasteful makeup is completely correct, and by far the most important place to focus. I think the focus on boobs and an overly dewy face is a bit too porn brained.
Porn shows men overexaggerated sexual features, which might be exciting when he is in the throes of lust with a girl he does not know at all, but for a girlfriend, I would not want that. I think bigger boobs are marginally better, but men find a variety of sizes attractive. I can’t say for sure, but I don’t think I would ever find a boob job attractive. If you have small boobs, try to date a competitive runner. He will be in great shape, and many of the attractive women he knows will have smaller boobs than you.
And finally, I think most men filter on attractiveness more than they should. If you can meet men in settings where they don’t primary assess you on your beauty, a much larger number who get to know you will find you attractive enough to date. This seems more valuable than going for the last mile on looksmaxing.
I think the best defense against my critiques is that you are directionally correct, and your readers will not overshoot.
Clearly there's a diversity of preferences and most of the men who marry, marry men who are flatter than their dream girl.
(The mode might be a C/D, but I think the mode for a slim woman is more like a B)
"Losing weight is easy now. You can either starve yourself with willpower or you can starve yourself with chemical assistance. […] Currently I control my weight by eating about once a day."
Any woman or man can lose weight without starving themselves, without chemical assistance, and without going to the gym. Just eat a lot of protein, healthy fats, and limit as much as possible the amount of carbs and sugars. Guaranteed you'll lose a lot of weight while improving your health.
I have the metabolism of a snake
girl is this extreme unhealthy diet really necessary? I get that being attractive gets you more options in the dating pool, but I don't think you need to be a model to get a nice husband if that's what you want, and I think you might actually be more likely to get one who doesn't encourage unhealthy eating habits & therefore is more likely to be a better guy.
It also makes me healthier. I have an incredibly sedentary job, it would be _bad_ for me to eat much more
From what she posts here, she already got the nice husband that she wanted.
Yes, high-fiber foods promote satiety, but it's a suboptimal option: they're less nutrient dense and increase your blood sugar levels more than if you don't eat carbs and sugars altogether (and also make you gain weight).
There are other options that also satiate a lot and are healthier (more nutritious and no blood sugar spike): animal protein (fish/meat/eggs/dairy/offal) with healthy fats (such as olive oil, avocado, or animal fats).
I mean, if you eat proteins and fats and you still feel hungry, you can just eat more until you don't feel hungry anymore, right? (Unless, of course, you prefer to top off with carbs because it's cheaper or simply because you enjoy eating carbs).
oh dear lord this is ridiculous
Spot on as usual, Aria. I don't say this to flatter you: you just seem the have what to my mind appear as the most non-nonsense, pragmatic, truth approximating views on these issues. Perhaps it is just that I belong to the group of weirdos that share a specific mindset, though.
This post is generating a bigger ruckus on X than the previous ones, but I haven't found any of the complaints engaging. The ones I've seen are mostly either of the form "By I / somebody I know has some fetishes x, y, z about female attractive traits" (which, fine, but Statistics works in aggregation and on what appeals to a bigger chunk of the intended audience) or "Yeah, but what about a,b,c...?" (i.e., things you didn't talk about in the article, like what's the optimal overall trade-off, or how much one can scale up in the dating market with this), which misses the point.