Any books on the primacy of looks over personality regarding romantic relationships?

Any books on the primacy of looks over personality regarding romantic relationships?

Modern men are so pathetic that they specifically seek out books to justify their own self hating delusions

You're not unsuccessful with women because you're ugly, you're unsuccessful because you, as a man, suck. You are worthless in your soul and spirit. kys

any books on being worthless in soul and spirit?

do you feel better now?

Modern Man in Search of a Soul by Carl Jung

The parts of Nietszche when he talks about the pathetic lower classes and the "last man"

Revolt Against the Modern World (just replace "world" with yourself)

After reading those you should either kill yourself or kill the pathetic part of yourself.

But user, he's right.

You just won't accept that the qt3.14 won't select for your sexual dimorphism, yet can't bear to go for someone who is in your arena.

I feel there's a little bit of projection in this post.

You are a NORMIE KEK and you need to go back

so you accept the primacy of looks over personality regarding romantic relationships?
because that's been my only contention itt so far

[beef flapping intensifies]

I wonder about the type of people who are obsessed with this notion.
Every day I see "mismatched" couples, both genders punching above or below their weight class according to my evaluation of their appearances. I figure it most be average to above average looking males who've developed some sort of complex. I'm not trying to shit on you OP and I'm not saying appearance doesn't matter, but for a male to be preoccupied with it to this degree is foreign to me.

I guess The Picture of Dorian Gray is a place to start if you haven't read it yet.
Roastie detected.

>triggered all the r9k virgins

feels good

Women don't write like that, you'd know if you ever talked to them

women are childish, its why they are better babysitters and teachers. they can best relate to the children of the world. men are creators, builders of the new world. no social movement is going to change that.

*reads "On Women" once*

Schopenhauer was a virgin incel loser
Had he been born in the 1990s and not in a problematic, chauvinistic era like the 19th century, he would be rightfully shunned and shitposting on r/Incels instead of shitting up the academy

Did you include Carl Jung as an example of worthlessness or because you're enough of a pleb to be duped by him?

What you describe is true where women's looks are concerned and (generally) false in the obverse case where men's looks are concerned, if by "personality" we understand the right desirable matrix of traits such as social dominance, power, confidence and so on. These three, by the way, are vastly more important to male sexual market value than the perfect squarejaw, the six-pack, the aesthetic chin-curve, etc. Exactly because looks are not as important to female attraction as vice verse. They play a role, but not the over-riding one.

To point out a Quasimodo as a counter-example is to miss the point, which is that male sexual market value is spread over a variety of weighted metrics, while a woman's sexual market value is overwhelmingly concentrated in her looks, with residual bits in other feminine characteristics.

Looks aren't even the single most important /physical/ trais for men to have. The one single most important /physical/ sexual market value trait for a man to have (which still takes a backseat to the above categories of power, confidence, social proofing etc) is?

Height.

More than aesthetics, far more than pecs, even more than dick size (and yes, even in the case where a tall man's height accentuates the absurdity of his endowment). The tall man innately and physically manifests the role of the protector in a way that no other male physically can. The ugly tall man who isn't otherwise freakishly deformed can pull just fine.

hi i'm a woman, i'll admit i'm not that attractive nor do i have a banging body. but i think that most men grow tired of women who want to use them and want to settle for someone who loves them for who they are

i'm basically a beta who gets sloppy seconds

Wrong.
Face > Status > Height > Frame > Money

Also, moneygame inevitably leads to cucking. The only way you could have a figment of hope in the future of a relationship is by finding a partner that's physically attracted to you

>all these cliches and spooks packed into one post
Why even bother with this board anymore? This nu machismo alpha/beta bullshit is the apex of bro-science.

I reccomend Houellebecq for both of these

but they do.

Your fundamental misunderstanding likely consists, somehow, in the equation of male and female desire, together with what you think that you see in images, and the trend that you think that that connotes. /r9k/ falls victim to the same falsity.

I've correctly said the same things there as well.

>create tinder account
>swipe right on a shit ton of girls over the course of a few weeks
>only matched with bots and literal cripples

>create another profile with pic related and the exact same bio as before
>literally hundreds of matches in less than a day
>over 20 girls messaged me first

You sound kind of young. I thought the same way as you until I had a career and made a bit of money. I think you're right that it leads to "cucking" if you're with a gold digger who knows what she's doing. But the average person (and by extension, woman) does respond to status, wealth and experience in a much deeper way than you're suggesting.

Two prolix rants later, you still haven't substantiated the notion that women are somehow less attracted to looks than women.

Please have in mind we (at least the West) live in a post-female liberation society; your hopes of playing patriarch and snatching a girl way qter than you get slimmer with each passing day. Women don't need providers anymore and they grow more independent with each passing year, which enables them to pick their partners based on characteristics aside their potential to provide

No one itt has suggested that looks don't play an outsized role in online dating.

>Schopenhauer was a virgin incel loser
He was a womaniser desu, even had a baby mama.

read more

They're not. They're dependent on the government giving them protection and money on a level unimaginable to men.

>an outsized role in online dating.
how's it outsized? why couldn't it be the purified expression of the fundamentals behind dating?

swedes btfo?

See the above adult who is not me: . You do get points for correctly using prolix to try to look like the smart one though the content of your ideas betrays your youth and inexperience (again, the above adult).

Your next error is in supposing that evolution responds just as rapidly as environmental pressures as the latter proceed.. Also the projection stuff.

it's so painful to see you passive aggressively try to assert your dominance over this guy

That's an interesting idea.
I don't think it's "purified" because, even on the basis of appearance alone, attraction functions differently IRL vs online. I find that my attraction to people in person vs. seeing pictures of them doesn't align much of the time. This extends to a primal level and has nothing to do with personality. The way someone walks, speaks, smells, their micro-expressions, etc. all come into play for me.
I don't think you could call this "purification" because on Tinder you're only getting a fraction of the person and can't tell your physical compatibility (at least in my experience).

you're a female aren't you? you're like a deer giving advice on how to hunt.

I'm a guy, but I do think we approach this from different enough vantage points to render any advice (not trying to talk down to anyone itt) I give to be written off. I'm undoubtedly older than you and I think I see dating more rooted in the "real world" as opposed to how it plays out online.

What you think is the point is not the point. It's not me winning, having a bigger dick and so on. What is actually the point is that the other guy does not understand which sexual market value traits are more important in men. Obviously winning internet arguments isn't one of them, but this immaterial to the present discussion.

As a happy secondary consideration, this does lead to me winning an internet pissing match. Cringe all you want but I'm right. It's more important to have the nuclear codes, say, and to be known to have same, than to look like your pick of Justin Bieberlake or a more masc baseball player etc etc.

well you are one feminine guy.

I'm not even who you were arguing with.

>I'm undoubtedly older than you

You're fucking insufferable. You are trying to talk down to people and you know it.

I'm objectively ugly though. I don't pity myself, but I know for a fact that I will always be a virgin.

Attractiveness and dominance go hand in hand. Ugly men have more estrogen.

>well you are one feminine guy.
I've not heard that IRL but can see why you'd say that based on what I wrote.
>You're fucking insufferable. You are trying to talk down to people and you know it.
I referenced my age to emphasize that he and I are approaching this differently. I don't deny that I have a grating writing style.

>Wrong.
>Face > Status > Height > Frame > Money

Wrong.
Height, Face, Frame