>>81473286
>Those are all decent looking men, not a good example.
Yeah, bro. Picrel manlet is so fucking hot. Don't look up what Til Lindemann looks like these days, you'll get a heart attack.
>Nope, why are you so hellbent on denying this? Just because some 1/10 billionaire is able to get a 10/10 girlfriend doesn't mean that your genetics have no meaning.
I'm not saying they don't, I'm saying that the backpill claiming that looks is all that matters is false. Obviously looks matter.
>"socioeconomic status" can matter as well as genetic things like height and looks.
There we go. We agree. But that's not the blackpill. That's the redpill.
>We don't but I'll buy
Can be a *relatively* meritocratic one.
>I was the smartest kid in my high school class yet a girl never liked me.
Looks like there were no women in your immediate surrounding who cared about that particular thing, so it didn't influence your status. But in the wider world there are women who care about any bullshit, so if you happen to run into any of them, you should be set as the best person at that thing.
>Nope, it's more like they're the most important, which they are.
Socioeconomic status actually has the most impact on your overall attractiveness. Looks of course also matter tremendously, especially in casual sex, but at least when you look at studies that control for both, that's what you get. But you don't need to believe it. Even if you take what you expressed here as the truth, it's enveloped in the redpill and runs contrary to the blackpill.