disillusioned
Kraken
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2019
- Posts
- 9,709
- Reputation
- 28,271
All the JBW threads are making me wonder this. We see countless examples of guys that would be considered mediocre looking in a majority white country get pussy in south east asia and africa, and this appears to hold true even if the woman knows the guy doesn't have any social status or money. So this makes me wonder.....are we thinking about the looks scale (the idea that looks can be rated from 1-10) in the completely wrong way?
The thing that has to be understood is that how good something is considered to be is often relative to what alternatives exist. For example, if you were use to eating fancy steaks all the time then a McDonald's hamburger would be considered mediocre compared to that, and yet if you were somebody poor that is use to eating nothing but noodles and oats all the time then a trip to McDonald's would be considered a luxury.
So here is my theory: Whites of western and northern European origin with the exception of only the most bottom tier trash, are just universally good looking people by global standards, and the only reason the lower and mid tier whites can't get laid in majority white nations is merely because there exist plenty of other better looking whites in that same society anyway (see my above argument about McDonald's vs steaks). However, when those very same "bad looking" whites go to minority white societies where there exist virtually no top tier whites their own sexual market value suddenly skyrockets because while they may not be able to compete against top tier white chads they are still objectively better looking than most of the natives. Meaning, that whites living in the west that think they are a 5/10 because of their own personal experiences are in fact, closer to a 7 (or in the case of high tier normies, even an 8) on a global scale, but merely don't realize this because most of their competition is itself white in the first place.
Basically what I am saying: Living in a majority white society as a white person, gives you a distorted idea of how sexually attractive you actually are on a universal level.
Do you agree or disagree with my theory?
The thing that has to be understood is that how good something is considered to be is often relative to what alternatives exist. For example, if you were use to eating fancy steaks all the time then a McDonald's hamburger would be considered mediocre compared to that, and yet if you were somebody poor that is use to eating nothing but noodles and oats all the time then a trip to McDonald's would be considered a luxury.
So here is my theory: Whites of western and northern European origin with the exception of only the most bottom tier trash, are just universally good looking people by global standards, and the only reason the lower and mid tier whites can't get laid in majority white nations is merely because there exist plenty of other better looking whites in that same society anyway (see my above argument about McDonald's vs steaks). However, when those very same "bad looking" whites go to minority white societies where there exist virtually no top tier whites their own sexual market value suddenly skyrockets because while they may not be able to compete against top tier white chads they are still objectively better looking than most of the natives. Meaning, that whites living in the west that think they are a 5/10 because of their own personal experiences are in fact, closer to a 7 (or in the case of high tier normies, even an 8) on a global scale, but merely don't realize this because most of their competition is itself white in the first place.
Basically what I am saying: Living in a majority white society as a white person, gives you a distorted idea of how sexually attractive you actually are on a universal level.
Do you agree or disagree with my theory?
