Youtuber does "the bald experiment!".. check it out

[xetudor]

Someone actually gave me a negative reputation for the post above. That's pathethic as ****. Yeah, let's all just cry how hot women don't get turn on just by looking at us. How dare they? We deserve it!

 

[resu]

It wasn't me in case you're wondering. I don't give negative reps. I mean if you're young it's true, ugly women have a hard time but if they don't let themselves go they can get any guy that's desperate enough.

 

[xetudor]

It was someone else, I know. I think you're right but those desperate guys are probably ugly so everyone can find someone. I don't think ugly girls are even a problem. The "perfect" women we see in the media have specialists that make them look like that. I very very rarely meet an "ugly girl".

 

[RoyD]

We don't deserve it. The world doesn't owe you sh*t. But let's stop with all the BS coming from women about how they're not as shallow as us when it comes to picking a mate.

They say men are pigs because we're attracted to looks but women are so much less shallow because they say it's confidence and personality that attract them. Please.

Research has shown that if anything, women are even shallower than men. People and women should just tell it like it is. Yes, looks are crucial to them. Just say it for god's sake.

They won't. That's like a huge pillar on which feminism stands coming crumbling down. How would women comfortably maintain their angelic, innocent and superior status then? Society would start to see women through the same lens as men.

 

[Saurabhaj]

I am from India..in a norwood 6/7 grade but hair all over the scalp but thin..people always feel sorry about my hair,i am 28 yo..people ask me to do something about hair..still i have got 2 girls in my life one after another who are now married because they wanted me to marry at age 28,not at all possible for me as i am studying medical.One girl said to me she will like to give her hair to me so that i would look awesome,i have excellent facial features..
she really wanted to marry me even i was bald just because she liked me..but she wasn't forgetting about the fact that i didn't have hair.
but such girls are very less in India..

 

[xetudor]

We don't deserve it. The world doesn't owe you sh*t. But let's stop with all the BS coming from women about how they're not as shallow as us when it comes to picking a mate.

They say men are pigs because we're attracted to looks but women are so much less shallow because they say it's confidence and personality that attract them. Please.

Research has shown that if anything, women are even shallower than men. People and women should just tell it like it is. Yes, looks are crucial to them. Just say it for god's sake.

Of course looks are extremely important. You can't fight billions of years of evolution. Facial symmetry, youth features are very attractive, I'm not denying anything.

 

[CaptainForehead]

Yet you still have a lot of people who say that confidence, talking or acting in a certain way is going to change a woman's biology.

I think there is some truth to this. A man's social standing affects his attractiveness. His income affects his attractiveness.
The caveat here is that social standing has actually to be observed, in person, by women -- the talk has to be backed. Talk by itself won't do much good for street pickups.

 

[Ori83]

wth are you talking about?
and why are some of you insisnt on being stupid?
i never said that you can get any girl without hair... or any girl at all with or without hair, you dont have to be rocket scientist to know that losing hair will hurt your chances.. no one is denaying this... what it means youll have to try harder....
but i tell you what, you guys are lazy as ****, you want girls to crawl on their knees begging you to **** them and for some reason you think hair will do just that...
pathetic... smh

 

[CaptainForehead]

Raw sexual attractiveness is determined by your genes.

Genes determine a baseline level. Other things are "makeup" on top.

 

[CaptainForehead]

But it won't change the biological sexual attraction they feel towards you. This will be unalterable.

I disagree. Sexual attraction is mental to a large extent.

In those situations, you can "try harder" if you want, but I know by experience that if a relationship starts off like this, it will be unhealthy and over pretty quickly.

I am not talking about "trying harder" in a relationship, I am talking about the case where girls are already attracted to you because of your social standing. Think rockstars, doctors.

 

[Wolf Pack]

Women can do both, and they do! The other day, a woman who already had her "attractive baby" from a hot NW1 was trying to pin me down as her provider.

Yeah I guess the non NW1 guy will stick around and just provide for her in exchange of sex once in a blue moon while she continues having sex with hot NW1 men.

Screw that.

That's actually one of the evolutionary theories regarding being bald. It signalled that the bald man is ready to settle down rather than spread your seed. Truly sucks. I actually found a page the other day when I was browsing on my phone by men and women discussing why aren't bald people extinct. One girl wrote unfortunately they pass it on before they go bald. As most people back in the day had children in their teens/early 20s and full on bald doesn't happen for most male pattern baldness sufferers until 40 plus.

It's interesting to note that no animal has male pattern baldness so we can't assess the role in nature. I mean you get a maneless lion but that's a separate species.

 

[Wolf Pack]

^ I have heard about monkeys with baldness but it's an isolated issue I thought like a different kind of rare alopecia? I don't think there is a model in animals with male pattern baldness and a horseshoe type of loss due to sensitivity to DHT. That picture tells me I am wrong so I might do more reading.

I do believe that baldness has an evolutionary link. I understand the wiser/mature/settle down argument and feel it has some basis.

 

[Wolf Pack]

Yes you're right, some Docs/Scientists do believe that. Some believe the opposite and evolutionary signal. Some compare it to medical disorders and you are giving an example like blue eyes. I would say it's distinct to both of these.

Animals lack self awareness and don't even recognise themselves in a mirror so we can't use their interpretation of mating in the context of male pattern baldness.

Humans were very social and intelligent even from the onset, they even used to look after a member who was unable to hunt through illness and try to lessen their pain. I am going back to early human ancestors so this is way before 200,000 years. So yes it's genetic of course but I feel it may have served a purpose during that time socially/relations. There is one insect that is mute, it's a genetic disorder and only a few have it but it survived. Reason is it doesn't attract predators with noise when mating or otherwise. As we know, baldness doesn't make you unhealthy physically so I feel such a profound face changing phenomena could perhaps have an evolutionary link.

Blue eyes don't stand out in the same way.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have a link about male pattern baldness in monkeys? I have seen various pictures but as far as I know, no such model exists in a population of monkeys. Alopecia yes, not male pattern baldness.

 

[Wolf Pack]

That theory is wrong because 65% of kids died before the age of four until 500 years ago. That's why men stay fertile for so long and age much better than women: We needed to have lots and lots and lots of kids to have a hope of passing our genes on. It wasn't that men had finished having their kids by that age.

I am not saying I believed her comment. Certainly they would keep having kids and baldness doesn't fully happen in most male pattern baldness sufferers till 40. So that's a lot of sex and children. It probably does contribute to baldness not being wiped out though. But there is more to it. male pattern baldness can skip generations, also multiple genes involved carried by men and women. So it would never be eradicated even if they tried.

 

[Wolf Pack]

True. You mentioned some physical disorders early on, I just saw. Baldness does not lead to physical problems directly and is a cosmetic change, that is all. The mane of a lion is vital in attracting mates, the longer, the better. In these lions, the males often fight to death in order to take over and establish their own pride/family. Male lions get into a lot of scraps.

Compare that to the maneless lion. It isn't known to have fights with male lions and doesn't need to find its own pride. They live with their own family united by blood and have that stability.

 

[Wolf Pack]

Agree with all that Fred. I think that feeling is 95% innate and 5% social. No one wants to lose hair for themselves either.

- - - Updated - - -

Baldness is not merely cosmetic, it is a symptom of underlying diseases.

1]There is a 56% higher chance of Prostate Cancer in bald men and an 83% higher chance of dying of prostate cancer. link
[2]Finasteride was originally developed to prevent prostate cancer link
[3]There is also a 45% higher chance of heart disease in men with crown balding but not with temple recession. link
[4]minoxidil was originally developed to treat high blood presure which leads to heart disease and effectively slows crown balding but not with temple recession .
link

finasteride was always known to help male pattern baldness since the 70s, even before it was released. Just marketed for BPH first to make more money.

That study says that bald men have more testosterone, I thought that was disproved? There could be confounding factors too which make the study inaccurate. Bald men may let themselves go more = health problems. Or bald men belong to ethnicities which also have heart problems. Baldness does not cause you have to heart disease directly as far as I know.

 

[Wolf Pack]

Taken from the Fox news link you showed me:

One theory is that high levels of male hormones (such as testosterone) play a role in both conditions. Men with male pattern baldness have been found to have higher levels of male hormones, and these hormones also fuel the growth of prostate cancer cells.

I thought that bald men didn't have higher T and it was a myth. I know what DHT stands for. I just thought our follicles were sensitive to DHT, not necessarily an overload of male hormones.

My point is you have simply bought into their headlines. If you try hard to find something, you can find scraps of stuff. It's all relative. The matter is more complex especially for heart disease which is caused by atherosclerosis. This has many risk factors which are FAR more important and being male is one. Not necessarily a balding male, just a male. Bodybuilders who take steroids x 3 over normal levels are at risk of heart disease too. But as far as I am aware balding men don't necessarily have more male hormones.

Baldness is not a syndrome of prostate cancer and heart disease or every bald man would get it. Lets have some common sense please. A syndrome means all must exist together in some form or shape like with metabolic syndrome you get the BP issue, lipid and sugar problem all in one go.

The baldness and prostate link could be plausible with further study needed. Again though, it all banks on the fact bald men have more T and DHT. I didn't think that was true.

 

[CaptainForehead]

The direction of neuronal circuitry is biased towards Paleocortex—>Neocortex. That is to say there are many more connections running from the paleocortex to the neocortex rather than the other way around.

Biased, but not the only connection direction. It does not at all invalidate my "makeup" theory.

FYI, the text you quoted is junk "science". It has logical holes. Phrases like "In broad schematic terms", "In a nutshell" are dead giveaways" for someone using tech jargon to mislead laymen. Read the text again, ignore these phrases, and see if claimed statements really follow from the previous segments.

 

[CaptainForehead]

I don't want to brag about my current job, but let's say that where I work in Belgium is the highest company you can work for.

Working for a top company does not equate to social dominance.
1. Women have to actually see (with their eyes) you being dominant in your environment for the "makeup" to have effect.
2. You need to be dominant in your circle, in your case, you would need to be dominant in your company, rather than just work there.

Just telling a woman that you work for a top company, and are highly ranked there is of limited use. As you have argued, it is difficult/impossible to "reason" your way into the hot zone. It has to be experienced by the woman, and I believe, before you have expressed any romantic interest in her.

In practice, this will only happen to women working in your company, who are way below you (preventing you from capitalization due to sexual harassment laws).

I also conjecture that the company you work for is irrelevant, you being dominant in any circle will have the same effect.

 

[CaptainForehead]

"Being dominant", that's also PUA nonsense. I'm not a dominant man, I don't look dominant, I've never acted dominant in any social situation.

If your beliefs were true, I should be a kissless virgin now. This is not the case.

Reasoning mistake. Your claim earlier was that ONLY A has effect. I claim A OR B has effect. Your counterargument that you are not B and yet have effect is not a counterexample to my claim.

Try to "act dominant" you're 5"3', bald and with narrow shoulders. Every woman you encounter would just roll her eyes.

You still aren't getting the "fineprint" of my posts. "Acting dominant" will effectuate squat. You actually have to be acknowledged and treated as dominant by your peers.