I like the message overall, but let me address two of these points:
1. Beauty is Culturally Determined - I think men's sense of women's beauty is less culturally malleable than Aaron seems to be suggesting, though more culturally malleable than the 0.0% that the manosphere seems to suggest.
Women's fashion doesn't really optimize for looki…
I like the message overall, but let me address two of these points:
1. Beauty is Culturally Determined - I think men's sense of women's beauty is less culturally malleable than Aaron seems to be suggesting, though more culturally malleable than the 0.0% that the manosphere seems to suggest.
Women's fashion doesn't really optimize for looking good to men, and it's far more variable than men's tastes are, so I think it's a mistake to associate the variability in women's fashion with men's tastes. For example, "mom jeans" were, for some reason, in style recently. I've never in my life heard a man say that's a particularly attractive cut of jean.
The issue is that there is a specific sort of look that will maximize male attention, and we all know what it is. It doesn't change that much, but it's perennially low-status and associated with prostitutes and the sexually promiscuous. Fashion is a way to signal both beauty and status, and men might be less drawn to it sexually, but the goal is for high-status men to see the woman as more marriageable. Of course, a lot of this operates on the subconscious; some women think very explicitly about ornamenting themselves in a way that will attract a high-value mate, but many just want to look good "to themselves" in order to feel better about themselves.
2. Beauty is Individually Determined - Yes, strongly agree here. Some of this is contained in what's called "chemistry", and it's why dating is a numbers game. There's probably something like a normal distribution of how much women are attracted to you. If the average woman thinks you're a "4", some small percentage of women will think you're a 7. This is partly how I'm married to my significantly more attractive wife.
I like the message overall, but let me address two of these points:
1. Beauty is Culturally Determined - I think men's sense of women's beauty is less culturally malleable than Aaron seems to be suggesting, though more culturally malleable than the 0.0% that the manosphere seems to suggest.
Women's fashion doesn't really optimize for looking good to men, and it's far more variable than men's tastes are, so I think it's a mistake to associate the variability in women's fashion with men's tastes. For example, "mom jeans" were, for some reason, in style recently. I've never in my life heard a man say that's a particularly attractive cut of jean.
The issue is that there is a specific sort of look that will maximize male attention, and we all know what it is. It doesn't change that much, but it's perennially low-status and associated with prostitutes and the sexually promiscuous. Fashion is a way to signal both beauty and status, and men might be less drawn to it sexually, but the goal is for high-status men to see the woman as more marriageable. Of course, a lot of this operates on the subconscious; some women think very explicitly about ornamenting themselves in a way that will attract a high-value mate, but many just want to look good "to themselves" in order to feel better about themselves.
2. Beauty is Individually Determined - Yes, strongly agree here. Some of this is contained in what's called "chemistry", and it's why dating is a numbers game. There's probably something like a normal distribution of how much women are attracted to you. If the average woman thinks you're a "4", some small percentage of women will think you're a 7. This is partly how I'm married to my significantly more attractive wife.