>>9303446No, looks really aren't the only thing.
Looks is ez mode, for sure. But it's a combination of things, and there's some thresholds.
For example, some guys fall in to a weird zone, like maybe 6.5/10 range in looks. If they are charismatic, they can become 8+/10. If they are shitty faggots, they easily fall below 5/10.
If the guy is ugly, but he's popular, has some charisma, or you can benefit from his social standing by being with him, that immediately makes up for lack of looks.
Same thing with money.
If you are ugly and autistic, but rich and/or popular on a social level, you get a boost/multiplier on the minimal effort you make to improve your looks.
If you're ugly, not popular socially, have nothing going for you, and no competition from other women, then you're shit out of luck.
Guys care about looks primarily, and then nurturing type shit after the fact, because it's biologically ingrained to seek an optimal mate, and sex is a huge driving force between that.
Women, however, historically never had the opportunity to choose and in many cases had to find something to settle for. You couldn't determine if a conquering war lord was going to be physically attractive or a fat autistic fuck with bloodlust. Instead, other factors came in to play, enabling women to still be able to breed with them and be receptive, or seek them out.
Biology hasn't changed much since, only what constitutes "alpha" did.
