Power does not attract women.

[cocogi]

There is this huge, tremendous misconception that what ultimately drives women's attraction is "power" or "resources" in men.

It is actually almost the opposite - very, very few women (and very few hot women) are attracted by power itself, even in its highest form.

Politicians, especially, even the highest ranking and respected ones, are among the least attractive individuals - especially if compared to people of the same level of fame and exposure.

The men who regularly, statistically and effortlessy get hot girlfriends and easy hook-ups are athletes, football players, famous singers, actors, and so on -
not generals, presidents, intelligence chiefs, high level lobbyists and other guys who decide on the future of humanity.

Women, in particular, seem to be absolutely put off by responsibility.

The kind of men they flock to are those who enjoy a lot of admiration, fame and resources - but without corresponding power and responsibility. They very much prefer the harmless impact on life of a soccer player than that of a powerful èlite who controls the nuclear keycodes.

I still haven't understood completely the reasons.

For example - while looking at the soccer field, I discovered something interesting: the coach were much less attractive to women than the players.

You have this world-level coach who is 40, makes millions a year, has a perfect body and look for his age, commands over a team of very-high status young men, has crowds singing for him - and yet a lot of women find him unattractive, off-putting. Why is this? His power and career is even much more long-term than that of the players.
Of course he has got his slighty-above-average looking fiancè, but is nowhere near the level of attractiveness enjoyed by the men he manages.

It looks like the idea of someone having brain and responsibility, and more conscious power instead of just 'animalistic' instinct - appears to be very off-putting to a lot of women.


(On a more extreme, and evil, side - there are even some horrid report on how Ghaddafi, the dictator of Lybia who had basically absolute power over all of the nation, was often found disgusting by the women he was interested into, who refused to sleep with him - and he furiously ordered them kidnapped and forced into his harem)


In one sense, real life dynamics - as pointed out by many authors - remain extremely similar to high school ones. Even in their thirties and after their advanced degrees, most women (and men) remain receptive to "coolness", popularity without responsibility, gossip, and so on - very little changes, if you look deeply.

 

[Spyce D]

Could be true .

Atleast in the modern society.

It's generally the rascals , the barbarians men who are hypersexualised ...

And even if someone is in a position of power but is also a lover ( a rarety ) ....he has certain different personality traits than other folks in power ......OR IDK to be honest .

Interesting thread , tho

 

[Train]

Interesting thread, I don't know the full answer but first thing that comes to mind on difference between the athletes/actors/musicians and political famous figures is that the former are generally better known by women (excluding specific subculture appeals) in products they more readily consume (sports, movies, music, etc).

They can probably rattle off A-listers more easily than they can the cabinet of the president. So seems it's not only fame and status but the origin of the fame and status. Just my musings, curious on reading what others think if they chime in.

 

[DarkKnight]

I agree with Train that exposure is a big part of this but power not being attractive for women is BULLSHIT. I think with politicians it is rather that they usually need to keep a public face where they are known as a "safe reliable familyman" so they can not mess around as much as they would like to, they get scrutinized. In my opinion this is a form of lack of power, not power.

Sarkozy married a supermodel called Carla Bruni so don't give me none of that people with power cannot get hot women or are not attractive. And for all the women who were repulsed by Ghadaffi who knows how many women were actually attracted, but that is not being published now is it? The guy was top dog and even had an amazonian guard. I am reading on wiki right now that one of his amazonian guards even threw herself before his body to prevent him from being killed. You really think this does not create any preselection? Really?

What is actually the point of this post?

 

[cocogi]

I agree with Train that exposure is a big part of this but power not being attractive for women is BULLSHIT. I think with politicians it is rather that they usually need to keep a public face where they are known as a "safe reliable familyman" so they can not mess around as much as they would like to, they get scrutinized. In my opinion this is a form of lack of power, not power.

This is a good observation. I would add that probably the role of politician is more 'fragile' in a sense.
A politician doing something wrong or politically uncorrect (lovers, mistresses' pregnancies etc.) could see his career over, or at least be used over and over by his enemies - while artists and athletes have much more space for risks and mistakes (just look at the lifestyle of some rappers and star athletes).

Same with military and intelligence officers, probably: any mistake or sensitive information about them could become a weapon used by the enemies. Nobody cares if a football player is hiding a lover - but if an high level official does it, the enemy will use that.

Sarkozy married a supermodel called Carla Bruni so don't give me none of that people with power cannot get hot women or are not attractive. And for all the women who were repulsed by Ghadaffi who knows how many women were actually attracted, but that is not being published now is it? The guy was top dog and even had an amazonian guard. I am reading on wiki right now that one of his amazonian guards even threw herself before his body to prevent him from being killed. You really think this does not create any preselection? Really?

It's true about Sarkozy - but I see many anonymous men his age and looks who have similarly attractive wives, so I don't think it's something specific to his position. He seems to be rather an exception in the field. Look at Macron's wife.

What is actually the point of this post?

Posing a theme, having a discussion.

 

[DarkKnight]

It's true about Sarkozy - but I see many anonymous men his age and looks who have similarly attractive wives, so I don't think it's something specific to his position. He seems to be rather an exception in the field. Look at Macron's wife.

he is exception as being president. What Macron does or is not doing is irrelevant. Macron married BEFORE being president, Sarkozy married Carla Bruni in 2008, just after becoming president (which he became in 2007). Which strengthens my position.

Same with military and intelligence officers, probably: any mistake or sensitive information about them could become a weapon used by the enemies. Nobody cares if a football player is hiding a lover - but if an high level official does it, the enemy will use that.

I rather think it has to do with exposure, football players are very known and obviously in the spotlight, military and intelligence officers are not and probably also not in the best shape of their lives and also not with crowds cheering their name in some full venue.

Posing a theme, having a discussion

I am fine by posting a theme, but reason I am being harsh is because the OP came across as truthful and dogmatic and you have enough noobs who will immediately take over this opinion because they do not know better.

 

[cocogi]

he is exception as being president. What Macron does or is not doing is irrelevant. Macron married BEFORE being president, Sarkozy married Carla Bruni in 2008, just after becoming president (which he became in 2007). Which strengthens my position.


I rather think it has to do with exposure, football players are very known and obviously in the spotlight, military and intelligence officers are not and probably also not in the best shape of their lives and also not with crowds cheering their name in some full venue.

Ok, but what do you think about the difference between football players and coaches, for example?

I am fine by posting a theme, but reason I am being harsh is because the OP came across as truthfull and dogmatic and you have enough noobs who will immediately take over this opinion because they do not know better.

Honestly, I posted it as a strong opinion because, usually, it creates a more insightful discussion than mere questions. I am not so 'strong' on this position, I want a debate, although I put it as such - i admit it was a little trick to get better arguments in response

 

[DarkKnight]

Ok, but what do you think about the difference between football players and coaches, for example?

I think football players get more attention, being actually in the spotlight. Same with boxing players. they are the ones being promoted not the coaches, but in the immediate environment where the coach is bossing the guys around he probably gets more respect. but the wide public perception puts the football player as the star

 

[West_Indian_Archie]

It depends.

Harvey Weinstein was in the right position to attract all sorts of willing casting couch women.

But like Qaddafi, he forced himself on these chicks. If he had some game, they would offer themselves up and try to "convince" him that they were right for the role.

Compare him to Hugh Hefner - an old decrepit sex addicted man - who got lots of chicks more than willing to live in his San Fernando valley fantasy. He has the power to make her a "star". (Though the number of successful former playmates is probably less than 20)

More close to home, the typical successful preacher/pastor. Often times he does not have the looks, the body, or the youth. He might have some money, he might have some fame - but usually else he has is status, charisma, and yes, power.

He will attract women because of that, like Hugh Hefner. He's in charge of the church. If she is by his side, she can wield some power over the church, and often times a lot of power over the women of the church.

That can be very appealing to all sorts of women - and they will trade sex and great behavior for it.

It's not "genuine" desire, but does that matter to guys? I find that guys wanting "genuine" desire to be an ego trap.

The same can be said for women chasing famous guys, rich guys, taboo guys, guys of local status/importance.

All women? No.
Some women? Yes.

 

[ulrich]

Power, reputation, fame… all these things are contextual.

Is a coach more powerful than a football player? Yes, in the field. No, in a night club where nobody recognizes him.

Power is socially conditional and it doesn’t translate well among different groups of people.
You can’t simply say this person has more power than this other person… it depends of the circumstances.

Hence, the reason why politicians can be some of the most powerful people you meet and be chumps at the same time.
Their power comes from their relationships. Take them out of their circles and they might as well be nobodies.

 

[Will_V]

There is this huge, tremendous misconception that what ultimately drives women's attraction is "power" or "resources" in men.

It is actually almost the opposite - very, very few women (and very few hot women) are attracted by power itself, even in its highest form.

Politicians, especially, even the highest ranking and respected ones, are among the least attractive individuals - especially if compared to people of the same level of fame and exposure.

The men who regularly, statistically and effortlessy get hot girlfriends and easy hook-ups are athletes, football players, famous singers, actors, and so on -
not generals, presidents, intelligence chiefs, high level lobbyists and other guys who decide on the future of humanity.

Women, in particular, seem to be absolutely put off by responsibility.

The kind of men they flock to are those who enjoy a lot of admiration, fame and resources - but without corresponding power and responsibility. They very much prefer the harmless impact on life of a soccer player than that of a powerful èlite who controls the nuclear keycodes.

I still haven't understood completely the reasons.

For example - while looking at the soccer field, I discovered something interesting: the coach were much less attractive to women than the players.

You have this world-level coach who is 40, makes millions a year, has a perfect body and look for his age, commands over a team of very-high status young men, has crowds singing for him - and yet a lot of women find him unattractive, off-putting. Why is this? His power and career is even much more long-term than that of the players.
Of course he has got his slighty-above-average looking fiancè, but is nowhere near the level of attractiveness enjoyed by the men he manages.

It looks like the idea of someone having brain and responsibility, and more conscious power instead of just 'animalistic' instinct - appears to be very off-putting to a lot of women.


(On a more extreme, and evil, side - there are even some horrid report on how Ghaddafi, the dictator of Lybia who had basically absolute power over all of the nation, was often found disgusting by the women he was interested into, who refused to sleep with him - and he furiously ordered them kidnapped and forced into his harem)


In one sense, real life dynamics - as pointed out by many authors - remain extremely similar to high school ones. Even in their thirties and after their advanced degrees, most women (and men) remain receptive to "coolness", popularity without responsibility, gossip, and so on - very little changes, if you look deeply.

I agree with @Train about the player being perceived as having greater power/status than the coach because of being popular/famous. In both cases, their power is very specific to a domain, but the coach may never be recognized outside of the training grounds, whereas the player is in the eye of millions or billions of people. That makes a very big difference, because that means that she will be seen by them too.

Responsibility is not the same as power, by the way - the guy who has to decide whether to return nukes when he sees a flock of birds on the radar has a lot of responsibility but hardly any power. Because power is fundamentally the ability and freedom to choose and shape reality according to one's desires. Unless he's a psychopath, he's not really choosing and he has zero freedom - he's probably operating rigidly within a very narrow set of procedures developed by other people. And even if he was a psychopath, he has only one choice - to send nukes or not - which doesn't add anything to her life.

Politicians also don't have a lot of real power, but they are in the public eye. Which means that many, many guys respect him, and many, many women want to be seen with him. Which creates a lot of sexual competition and fomo.

Overall I think that what most women prefer is to find a guy who has adaptable power, that is, he would easily dominate different kinds of environments, especially social ones. A guy who has a lot of charisma and charm, can be physically dominant if necessary, and commands social respect easily. This is a power she could easily benefit from in many different ways, whereas a guy who is very good at some vocation that's in the public eye, but isn't good socially, has a very inflexible type of power, but she will be seen by a lot of people with him. Some women would do anything to be famous, but I think what most women want is to have a guy who moves around commanding his immediate environment, because that's what's most beneficial for her.

Women also add other criteria - some want a guy who is very stable and unlikely to leave her, others want an ambitious guy. Some want a guy who is physically powerful, others care mainly about his social ability. Some want a guy who gives her a lot of attention, others only care about his qualifications. Etc.

 

[Spyce D]

Ok, but what do you think about the difference between football players and coaches, for example?

There is actually a guy who used to be a football (A.K.A soccer) coach who also happens to be the author of Code of the natural .

Code of the Natural (COTN) is a system developed by Rob Brinded, a sports trainer. It consists of a multitude of vidoes and a book. These exercises are great for getting a more dominant and attractive posture, and will also improve your psychological state.

In his book ....he talked about that he was in a restaurant (I guess?) or bar in a different country and a foreign player walked into that bar (he was very not known in that country) ....both the country and player are european ...so no exotic effect ........

But , a lot of females checked him out due to to his body language

Maybe, power is also about how we carry ourselves ....our fundamentals

Shashi tharoor

This indian politician has been quite a ladies man in public eyes.

If he was not famous how would his fundamentals do ?

Sunder pichai

If he was not famous how would his fundamentals do ?


Another example , Both are very famous cricket players but who will chicks be more attracted to ?

I am using Indian examples because they are not that well known in the west which helps in honest assessment of their fundamentals .

 

[Conquistador]

Seems like a lover but also old enough that his vibe is fading.

Not serious competition. But might be experienced enough to be a minor threat

Another example , Both are very famous cricket players but who will chicks be more attracted to ?

I actually think it would depend on the girl and what she’s looking for. Both dudes have decent (not perfect) posture, muscles, and good looks. Dude #1 is very polarizing. Dude #2 is probably tougher than he looks in the pic with that smile.
I’d say dude #1 gets laid more frequently but dude #2 is getting better quality.

I think it would largely come down to what they’re like. Personality, verbals, vibe.

Edit: as far as can be seen from the photo, dude #2 actually has a more powerful presence and magnetism. Also his vibe is much “brighter” so as long as he can back it up with the necessary BDE it’s probably better. Dude #1 comes off as the tiniest bit tryhard with the grooming whereas #2 has effortlessness.

But hey, as a cis-het male (and a young inexperienced one at that) I have a different set of biases and filters than a girl would.

 

[Chase]

What women are attracted to is what they can see directly and witness, or otherwise strongly understand through some kind of direct experience.

The coach is objectively, in actuality, more powerful than the players. He may be richer. He can hire or fire them. But the woman doesn't SEE that.

During the game, the coach is some guy walking around on the sidelines, occasionally shown on camera, perhaps carrying a clipboard and speaking into a microphone. She almost never sees hierarchical displays between the coach and player. Maybe occasionally she might see the coach chewing the player out, or building him up. But most of the time the coach is mostly invisible.

The player on the other hand is very visibly out on the field. His exploits are visible. When the announcers and presenters talk about the game, they regale the public with tales of the player's exploits. The one being mentioned over and over and over again is the player. The one top of mind is the player. The one the glory gets heaped upon is the player.

But what if she can DIRECTLY SEE the power the powerful man wields over the more visible star?

Well, we actually have some excellent examples of that!

• Julia Roberts (famous for reportedly shagging everyone she was ever in a movie with), while in a movie with Brad Pitt, married her cinematographer (the guy in charge of the cameras, who is basically second in command after the director in the movie set power structure), a guy named Daniel Moder.
  
  
• Gwyneth Paltrow, who was engaged to Brad Pitt at one point, for her second marriage married Brad Falchuk the co-creator and executive producer of a TV show she guest starred on. Now she's retired from acting and says the only way she'll act is if her husband writes something for her and wants her to do it.
  
  
• Reese Witherspoon's second marriage was to the co-head of motion picture talent at the acting agency she's a client of. Basically, he's at the top of the hierarchy of the firm responsible for getting her work.
  
  
• Kristen Stewart dated her Twilight co-star, actor Robert Pattinson, for 3 years. Then the paparazzi caught her having an affair with her director Rupert Sanders from Snow White and the Huntsman. Pattinson was reportedly devastated.
  
  
• Kate Beckinsale dated the charismatic actor Michael Sheen for 8 years. Then, on the set of Underworld, she dumped Sheen and started dating the director, Len Wiseman, who was the boss of them both.
  
  
• Natalie Portman married her choreographer -- the one instructing her on how to dance -- from the set of Black Swan.

Here's a bunch more actresses who ended up dating their directors:

15 Actresses Who Fell In Love With Their Director

A Hollywood actress falling in love with her director – it’s a narrative as popular as boy meets girl. Despite the fact that working on a movie is an arduous task with ridiculously long hours, there is something intoxicating about on-set romances.A few of these hookups developed into scandalous...

www.ranker.com

Why are these women ignoring the much more famous, in-the-spotlight actors and instead going for directors, choreographers, cinematographers, etc.?

I guarantee you to a woman in the general public, Robert Pattinson would be more desirable than Rupert Sanders, Brad Pitt more desirable than Daniel Moder or Brad Falchuk, Michael Sheen more desirable than Len Wiseman. The difference is these actresses received direct experience of these men's power, relative to the actor's (which is not as great as the directors'/cinematographers'/producers'/choreographers'/etc.), whereas women in the general public only have direct experience with the actors.

This is why in the early seduction community "displays of higher value" were so prioritized -- if a woman does not SEE it with her own eyes, if she does not EXPERIENCE it directly, or at least HEAR enough about it to convince her it is real, it doesn't exist for her.

It's the old "seeing is believing" thing.

This is why you see so many guys who are on-paper extremely desirable, but with women they just suck, because they don't know how to communicate their value to women and women have no way to experience it otherwise.

These same guys who are on-paper desirable but suck at conveying it tend to have an easy time sleeping with and marrying any women who exist in their hierarchies and are directly exposed to their power -- clients, secretaries, female underlings, etc.

Power is extremely attractive -- but only if she sees it, enough of it, that it really sinks in for her that, "Whoa, this guy is really a lot more powerful than [XYZ other attractive man]."

Chase