Think about it
if u unironically believe sub8 u are legitimately delusional
if u unironically believe sub8 u are legitimately delusional
mmm
The reason sub-8 is wrong is because i still see NT, well-socialized high-tier normies with decent looking girlfriends. Therefore when incels on this forum keep spamming "muhhh sub-8" normies assume that we all live in basements and never go out, because sub-8 isn't a realistic claim.
sub-6 is closer to reality. You need to be at least a high-tier normie, fashion-maxxed, gym-maxxed and social-circle maxxed to get an average looking foid.
sub-6 is closer to reality. You need to be at least a high-tier normie, fashion-maxxed, gym-maxxed and social-circle maxxed to get an average looking foid.
true, you need to be 8+ to attract a woman with your natural looks alone.
if you're 6 to 7, you need to unironically have a good personality and be gym-maxxed/fashion-maxxed, well-groomed.
If you're 5 or below, you need to have money or (money and status).
D
It’s not about “getting” women, it’s about being sexually attractive to women.
You might have a girlfriend, doesn’t mean she finds you inherently(biologically) attractive.
true but sub 8 isn't the minimum for having sex, it's the minimum to escape from women's bullshit.
who cares if she finds you attractive or not WHEN YOU'RE FUCKING HER.
Fucking her is all that matters, her opinion of you only matters to an egoist.
By 8 we mean people who look like this:
Sub8 means you are just 1 point less than this guy.
If you are a sub8 coper, I think it's a good time to reevaluate your cope.
Sub8 means you are just 1 point less than this guy.
If you are a sub8 coper, I think it's a good time to reevaluate your cope.
To me Sub8 means that you will eventually get cucked and you need to do alot more to enjoy stacy tier pussy if you aren't chad.
When you have retards like @mylifeistrash claiming that those guys only get landwhales and tinder dictates everything, that's when we're talking about Basement Dweller IQ logic, and overall makes us look bad in the big picture.
R
7 is workable anything below is just wagiecucking a whore.
fair enough, 6s and 7s can also get women though, it just requires more effort/work because they are lacking in looks. I don't look at these "sub-X" laws in terms of who can get women without effort, i look at it more in terms of "who can get women without having to pay via money or money and status".
D
Low IQ Escortcel simp cuck logic.
Chad doesnt have relationship issues or get cheated on? Jfl if you think thats limited to sub 8 men
This is what I have been trying to tell sub 8 law theorists for a long time, however as stated above, being an 8 or above is ideal.
so anybody who isnt an egoist is low IQ? ego has nothing to with intelligence, it's all to do with mindset.
Someone of your mindset will always be disappointed in life, because no amount of money or status will cause a woman to be genuinely attracted to you. You will always be chasing something which can never be satisfied, so you will remain unhappy based on the self-imposed limitation you have placed upon your happiness.
Meanwhile, I understand that i will never be truly loved for who I am and that nothing i do will ever change that fact, so i have accepted my reality (which is out of my control), enabling me to come to peace with my existence. I no longer crave something which can never be satisfied, that way i can never be disappointed.
Last edited:
Here's the reason why Sub8 is too strict: phenotypes. Yes, almost all of beauty is objective, but where it ISN'T is across phenotype/racial preferences. There's even preferences in different archetypes of masculinity among girls although they all converge to DOMs over time (partially because this is the only group that maintains its good looks in the long-term).
This is absolutely enough to boost 0.5-1 point on a person's rating scale. I have definitely witnessed girls go absolutely crazy over "their type." You can bet money that if there's a 7/10 prettyboy chadlite with black hair and green eyes and a girl is crazy over that phenotype and young enough to be primarily prefer prettyboys they will absolutely be perceived as an 8/10+ i.e. attractive male.
Also people on this forum generally rate people with a variance that's up to 1 point.
Last edited:
Sub8 is true if you lack financial resources.
A poor or unemployed sub8 is as good as a dead rat to most foids.
D
That dude is a 9 bro. This is an 8: (dogpill included lol)By 8 we mean people who look like this:
Sub8 means you are just 1 point less than this guy.
If you are a sub8 coper, I think it's a good time to reevaluate your cope.
Sub-8 is hyperbole. I think some people do take it too far, like looksmatches never happen, but all the same there's a sliver of truth in the meme.
It's just that most guys aren't thinking on this deep of a level, so they gladly betabuxx, and jestermaxx without thinking about it, just like zoo animals for that crumb of used up pussy. 8+ is the only you'll get the full experience in life without busting your ass jestermaxxing for your short attention span roastie.
It's just that most guys aren't thinking on this deep of a level, so they gladly betabuxx, and jestermaxx without thinking about it, just like zoo animals for that crumb of used up pussy. 8+ is the only you'll get the full experience in life without busting your ass jestermaxxing for your short attention span roastie.
D
high iq tbh
I
Was going to say this
D
didn’t read.
I don’t care that much about being attractive to women, but you’re deviating the conversation, the point is; Only a very small percentage of men are sexually attractive. That’s a fact regardless of how you feel about it.
That is true, but i didnt deny this in the first place. Im just saying small percentage of men being sexually attractive to women doesnt change the fact that a larger percentage of men can gain access to women, even if the women aren't attracted to them as much.
So in that case whether women are attracted to you or not should be irrelevant, as you can still acquire her even if she's not attracted to you. The acquisition of the woman is what is ultimately important (unless your happiness is more dependant on being considered attractive than actually being able to have sex/reproduce with women).
sub8 doesnt mean you cant get a girlfriend , it just means that you wont get true desire , she wont get the tingles like she gets with Chad .
Its more about the way she treats you .
sub 5 means no chance at all , only nagging .
sub 8 means a short phase of instinctual desire til she notices a real chad in her vicinity and gets less interested in her sub 8 boyfriend .
Only Chad truly wins .
Only chad gets true desire and submissive behaviour .
When foids go for sub 8 they are making a compromise and they know it .
Only Chad experiences Life , " Love " and desire like it was meant to be .
Everyone else gets the scraps .
The only chance to keep a foid interested as a sub 8 is if you are redpillmaxxed with a dominant personality .
High T , violent tendencies , dark triad etc .
This
Obviously sub8 men get in relationships, but when you factor in the amount of those relationships that are a cucked one (betabuxx, poly, etc) and then also include into which the female actually is attracted to said male, then only people who are above 8/10 can have a good relationship that he knows he will not be chated on in (And even then, some 8/10 men still get fucked over by females)
idk I’m not sure I believe sub 8 since I know a ton of normies in happy relationships I don’t think its over if you aren’t giga chad. In online dating I believe it since it’s just the truth there but in person normies can score for sure
Yes I don't get how people can believe it
Your avi:
Arkantos' me. XD
I see
I might have been a bit harsh tbh but the idea that no one but chad can have happy relationships is stupid
You’re acting as if ‘effort’ expended in a social context is a finite resource that amounts to more value saved the less is spent, that is such an autistic way of viewing reality. What you call ‘jestermaxxing’ is not an imperative reserved purely for cucks and simps. Chads, egotistical as they are, want to be seen as funny by the women they are courting, they will make an effort to be so despite the fact women will likely laugh at whatever they say regardless of whether it was funny or not. You may consider it pathetic because it requires action, but being funny is a genuinely valuable social resource even to ugly men and it will raise your social standing regardless of the fact you are having to earn it or not. This is true despite the fact Chads have this privilege bestowed at their feet without barely having to utter a word.
People get a genuine kick and and ego boost out of making other people laugh, that is not ‘working’ ffs.
You are coping hard by believing that relationships in the 5-7 range that are based on this resource aren’t worthwhile because you would get tired of having to think of things to say where Chad could just grunt and point at his crotch to have the same effect.
This kind of thinking is what reinforces the caricature cucktears paints of incels and the notion that everyone here cares only about sex rather than affection and the effort required to achieve it in comparison to Chad.
N
misdirection tbh
There is nothing women find less attractive (other than an ugly man of any description) than a man who is overtly desperate to please / impress them. Sure, I’ve seen guys who love to perform and be the centre of attention, but they are genuinely getting a kick out of making people laugh, they do not consider it ‘work’ or an unworthy expenditure of their time, they enjoy the attention and the laughs and know no other way to be.
These jesters you’re describing sound like the butt-of-the-joke incel comic relief of a social circle, they aren’t getting into relationships with women. Are you going to tell me that it’s impossible for a normie to be ‘casually funny?’ Or that when a Chad exhibits the exact same humorous behaviour as a normie It by definition becomes ‘causal funniness’ as apposed to jestermaxxing?and that at some point between the SMV of 7.5 and 8.1 this transformative alchemy of what constitutes one over the other mysteriously takes place? I am genuinely curious because it seems to me that in order for any of this to be true there need to be so many ‘hard rules’ in place and human psychology is subject to so much more variation than you guys are making out.
Also, I think that genuine 8s are so much rarer than you lot are implying. Can you please give me an example of the lowest case of an 8/10 you can think of? Because I find it genuinely perplexing how a guy who comes across as level headed as you so often do could believe that all, or even the majority of >8 relationships are based on this dynamic of jestermaxxing when I have never in my life seen a successful, long-lasting relationship between two normies that involved a guy desperately performing for his girlfriend like a monkey whilst she sent him on quests to do battle with other men for her entertainment. It just sounds like such nonsense to me, most women I’ve seen become embarrassed when their boyfriend gets into a fight (regardless of whether they win or lose, because let’s be honest, most fights are broken up before a clear winner can be established.)
As I said before, the attention-seeking, high energy guys who genuinely pull off being funny are generally not low-status members of the social circle, because if they were they would be constantly shot down. I know for certain they are getting an ego boost out of this kind of behaviour and love the ‘funny man’ status that goes along with it. So again, despite the fact you may find it pathetic because of how hard they are trying / the effort they are exerting (and I agree anyone who devotes so much energy into provoking a physical response from others is in a way pathetic) I have known very good looking guys who act in this way also because they enjoy the attention and the ‘crazy dude’ stigma that accompanies it.
If they are getting a genuine kick out of it, an ego boost, raised social status in the group (I have never seen someone who genuinely achieved making others laugh not have their social standing improved as a result, regardless of how much effort put in to achieve it - remember I’m not talking about people who put massive effort in and fall flat on their face - of which there are many) and they are getting into relationships with women as a result, then it really looks like cope to say that they are ‘jestermaxxing’ or that their partners have 0 respect for them.
Good eyes
This. My brother, you never disappoint.By 8 we mean people who look like this:
Sub8 means you are just 1 point less than this guy.
If you are a sub8 coper, I think it's a good time to reevaluate your cope.
I think he's just an 8-8.5 in god-tier lighting tbh.
D
true but he is a 9 in that pic
But you can’t seriously be telling me that you believe this jestermaxxing dynamic to be the basis of most normie relationships?
I honestly find that hypergamy is actually exaggerated a decent amount on the forum. Yes it exists, but I see this mainly as a result of makeup frauding allowing women into an SMV bracket they would otherwise not be able to reach. Men have no means to produce this kind of upwards mobility so the traffic is one way, leaving incels at the bottom with no women left in their bracket. Unironically most couples I see appear ostensibly looksmatched - though I always remember, you rarely see the female partner without makeup so there is still a discrepancy there.
I don’t quite get your point, now you’re saying that jestermaxxing is primarily a phenomena for only sub 8 men who are dating attractive women? That would actually make some sense to me, but I think that only makes up a small % of sub 8 relationships. I actually do know a guy who fits that description, isn’t very good looking at all but somehow keeps pulling women well above his looksmatch before they break it off with him soon after, ngl I’m a little jealous despite all the effort he puts in to acting like a gregarious nutcase (I don’t have that in me, + am too ugly for it to work anyway), Unlike you, I don’t consider that to be a particularly unenviable situation though since he is usually punching above his weight as is. Yes, he is very funny but constantly vying to be the centre of attention and it is a little exhausting but if he is banging more attractive women than he should be I can’t exactly consider it ‘pathetic’ in the general sense.
As I said, these types are pretty rare cases, I honestly don’t know many guys who are confident enough to keep the joker act up all the time (or they dont care to because it isn’t who they are.)
I’m still not with you on the concept ‘jestermaxxing’ as a plausible explanation for sub8 theory.
I see plenty of sub 8 relationships that appear very normal and since I only know a handful of 8+ guys from my whole life I still think It is nonsense to say they are the only ones who have decent relationships.
You have to be emotionally thrilling/entertaining throughout a relationship no doubt just to even get into one. Being boring is an option for almost no men. Not trying to get posted on IT but a relationship predicated on abuse, manipulation, etc is more likely to last (even across less-attractive men) than a boring one for this exact reason. Attention as a "currency" in a relationship is huge as well. That's the reason why almost every military guy gets cheated on very, very quickly.
"Jester", however, is a loaded term that's filled with ego and implies that this necessarily always manifests as being some sort of clownish figure with zero respect who self-deprecates himself. People in /r/Tinder who make those stupid pickup lines are jesters (quite ineffective ones), but this doesn't always manifest in the same way.
For example some guy could be a "bad boy" sort of figure doing drugs, reckless behavior, etc and bring a sense of danger/thrill to a woman's life. That would be their form of "jestermaxxing."
It just has to be some form of emotion happiness, joy, sadness, anger, thrill, adventure, and so on, but the minute it minute she stops feeling anything and becomes bored then you're truly dead in the water.
D
Going out in public disproves lookism. NT is everything.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
