In males there are two competing sexual appetites for the “hot” and for the “cute”. The difference is well illustrated by these two pictures from Rollo’s:
This is the same girl before and after her pornography make-up. You can tell which picture is hot and which is cute without me telling you.
These two appetites both elicit different types of attraction. The attraction to hot is entirely sexual, the attraction to cute is both sexual and emotional.
My triggered sexual response to the hot picture is primarily consumptive. There is no emotional elicited by the picture, just primal lust. I desire to fuck her; to use her like a piece of meat for my pleasure. The desired sex would be rough, bestial, and uncaring. When finished with her she would be kicked out. The desire is one of violation.
That is what hot elicits, the desire to consume sexual pleasure without regard for sexual object being consumed.
My triggered sexual response to the cute picture is different; there is an emotional component to the attraction. The desire is not just for sex, but for companionship as well. The desire is not just make love to her, but hold her close and caress her. The desired sex would be gentle and loving, finishing with drifting asleep, arms around her. The desire is one of protectiveness.
This is what cute elicits, the desire hold, to protect, and to love.
The hot woman becomes a sexual object to the man, the cute woman exists to him as a subject.
Having said this, hot provides a more powerful and urgent sexual attraction. The visceral desire to consume is stronger and more immediate, but it lacks depth. Finishing masturbation would immediately end any use for the hot picture, but one’s gaze may linger for a while on the cute picture even after completion.
The sexual attraction of hot is also a lot easier to trigger, all it requires is a decent body, make-up, and decent posing. All four of the Rollo’s post-make-up pictures triggered some consumptive response, as did most of the pictures at from the site he got it from. But only the cute one above triggered the cute response, and only a few of the dozens of pictures from the site he got these pictures from did.
Cute, pretty, and beautiful are a lot harder to pull off than hot is.
Yes, there is a difference between the four. Hot elicits a purely consumptive sexual desire. Cute is the type of attractiveness that elicits the protective desire in a man (it may be sexual or asexual, depending on the context). Pretty refers to common attractiveness, while beauty refers to a transcendental attractiveness.
Of these, hot is easy to create; a woman simply needs paint herself up and lose a few pounds. Cute is hard to create and fades harder with age (at least until a woman becomes grandmotherly where cute can return in an asexual form), but can be helped along by adopting a pleasant demeanor. Pretty is not overly difficult as long a women didn’t lose the genetic lottery or ruin herself by getting fat, going butch, etc. Beauty is the rarest and near impossible to create; a woman is born with it or she isn’t, but she can destroy it even if born with it.
It hardly needs to be said that different men have different preferences for the level of hot and cute they prefer, likely linked to their desire for sex versus their desire for companionship.
****
This distinction is why women in pornography are usually hot, but are often not cute (or beautiful for that matter). Most pornography feeds on the consumptive desire, cute is not necessary, and can even be harmful to the “experience”. If the protective desire awakens the man may wonder how he can watch the “star” treated like a piece of meat, he may feel guilt or uneasiness; this is a boner-killer.
****
This distinction is not something I made up, feminists have been abusing the madonna-whore dichotomy for their own ideological purposes for decades. The madonna would be cute, the whore would be hot.
Of course, they are correct that men desire the mutually exclusive dichotomy of the madonna or the whore, but they mistakenly think it’s some sort of socially enforced control. It is not, rather it is rooted in biology and darwinian strategy. It is similar to the cads and dads dichotomy. There are two different biological strategies for women, just as there are for men. A madonna (and a dad) pursues a reproductive strategy of high investment in a limited number of biologically non-diverse young (quality), while a whore (and a cad) pursues a reproductive strategy of low investment in a larger number of biologically diverse off-spring (quantity).
A man looking for sex wants a whore, someone hot, who will put out and be fertile. A dad looking for companionship wants a madonna, someone cute, who will reserve herself only for him so he can invest in her and their children.
Feminists rage against this, because they want to be hot, act like a whore, and pursue the quantity strategy while young, but be treated like madonnas pursuing the quality strategy when it becomes convenient to them.
****
For men, this is mostly a theoretical post. You already know that the hot babe at the bar and the cute girl next door elicit different sexual responses in you, this just explains it. There’s not much practical to be drawn.
For the women who may happen to read this though, there is a lesson.
When you go out socially, how are you acting, dressing, etc. to achieve the type of relationship you desire?
If you are looking for companionship, slathering on lots of make-up and trying to look hot is counter-productive. You will get a response, but it won’t be the protective response, it will be the consumptive response. Men will desire you but only to use you sexually. Even the type of man looking for companionship will put you in the meat category, rather than the companion category.
It may be easier to be hot than to make yourself cute, pretty, or beautiful, and you will get stronger immediate responses for being hot, but you will not be getting anything deep from it. Put in the extra work and be cute and beautiful (or at least pretty if you weren’t naturally blessed) if you are looking for more than sex.
If on the other hand, you are looking for naught but sex, cake on that make-up and send this guy an e-mail.
Thought-provoking. I was actually thinking about this subject only yesterday. I wondered if dressing hot will have an effect I don’t want to have. Yes, obviously it ads SMV points (because that is the SEXUAL market value and not anything else), but it does nothing to feelings of deference.
Profound, the best description of the Madonna whore complex I have read to date.
Heh, I was just reading Sex and Character again last weekend, and your post reminded me of it: Motherhood and Prostitution – by Otto Weininger
There’s nothing really that we are “discovering” today, except that which has already been discovered and then covered up again by the totalitarian nature of the female.
I think it has been this way since the beginning, and thus, why so many men have tried to relate the nature of females through the use of myth and religion.
Food for thought for a lot of women. I agree with your points, although I do think there’s a middle road make-up wise between those pictures. The trick is learning how to bring out your features, and not piling on lots and lots of paint, ending up with the prostituted racoon look.
I’m a true believer that women who piles and piles paint on, does it for other women, not men. We know that men prefer women who look freshfaced after applying make-up, and the racooney/duck faced look is more a bitchshield towards other women, than men. ‘I’m hotter than you, and you know it.’
Dont me wrong, If I sound like I dont wear (quite a lot) of make-up. The trick though, is making it look like you’re just wearing mascara. ;)
Don’t get me wrong, if I sound like I don’t wear make-up. I do, quite a lot.*
Didnt make much sense, that last paragraph. Ahem.
True enough for the porn star look, but I also think that there are gradations here. The pictures are showing the contrast between hooker makeup and no makeup at all. Any man who has been married can tell you that a woman, cute or not, looks really different when she has makeup on from when she does not — even if that makeup is not hookerish, but simply makes her face look fresher, brighter, without looking like a cartoon. It’s common knowledge that guys who have not lived with a woman tend to think that this involves less makeup than it does, simply because it doesn’t look like porn makeup with the exaggerated eye liner, mascara, eye shadow, lipstick and so on. It’s more subtle in tones and degree, but there’s still generally quite a lot of makeup used by even “cute” girls.
I think most women understand pretty well the different impact of different kinds of looks/outifts and so on. The protestations to the contrary are just that — protestations. They know when they are dressed like hookers and porn stars and made-up to match. No woman does that “accidentally” — they are going for the sex/hot look. I agree that this can be counterproductive if they are looking for something other than sex, but for many women sex seems to be used as the gateway (perhaps only hoped) to a relationship or, even if that isn’t the goal, as a way to garner a lot of ego-feeding attention (more than they would get by wearing “cute” makeup and clothes).
I really prefer all-natural and no-makeup women. I want a woman as she is, not as who she *thinks* she is. I don’t want a trophy. I want a companion. A wife. A friend. A mother.
Hooker makeup makes any woman look uglier. It is profoundly and obviously unnatural.
If I have a type, Mila Kunis is it. Especially after seeing this pic: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/574626/thumbs/o-MILA-KUNIS-WITHOUT-MAKEUP-570.jpg?3
I love this post…it explains it very clearly for us women. I always liked it when people called me “cute” over “hot” and I think this is why.
Part of me wonders if the cute v. hot dichotomy is related to a man’s SMV value. While “hot” is objective, in the sense of meaning a high SMV value woman, perhaps cute is subjective. By that I mean that when a man finds a woman “cute,” he is revealing his subjective belief that the woman is near to his SMV value, and thus potentially attainable by himself. Would a top tier man refer to a female as cute? Or is that a perception only lower tier men enjoy? Food for thought.
@fedzr: Nope, everything the red pill group is “discovering” would have just been “common sense” a few decades or centuries ago.
@inside and nova: Yup, tasteful make-up is can always be a good thing. Guys also do tend to underestimate the amount of make-up that goes into a “natural” look.
@ hyperborean: I think you underestimate exactly what no make-up is. Here’s Haley on the subject:
http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/what-women-mean-by-makeup-vs-what-men-mean-by-makeup/
@donalgraeme: The difference is between the SMV and the MMV. The “hot” girl obviously has the higher SMV, I doubt anyone would argue that, but the “cute” girl has a greater MMV. As I wrote, hot creates a more intense and immediate reaction, but cute creates a more nurturing and protective reaction.
@ Free Northerner
Interesting take. Are you suggesting that “cute” implies there is something about the girl’s appearance which suggests factors relevant to MMV which do not come through with “hot?” Hints at potential sexual fidelity, perhaps? Or other personality traits relevant to MMV?
Part of the reason I brought this up is because I don’t really find the “girl” in the top picture to be that much more cute than the girl in the bottom, and so wondered if this was a subjective thing.
I’m suggesting that hot suggests the woman is pursuing a low LG strategy, while cute suggests they are pursuing a more nurturant, high LG strategy.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-practice/200805/madonna-whore-not-complex
Really? If I was to describe the top picture it would be cute, if I were to describe the second it would be hot or sexy. Is it not the same for you?
Thanks for the link. There are similar studies with humans and Testosterone levels in females, IIRC. A low T, high estrogen female is more feminine (lower waist-to-hip ratio, smaller jaw, etc.) than a woman with the opposite levels. Since some ethnic groups tend towards one more than the other, the theory is that some ethnic backgrounds emphasize the high LG strategy, while others focus on a low LG strategy. Definitely thought-provoking.
And yes, I really am not seeing the girl without make-up as cuter. Part of why I wondered about subjectivity. Of course, it could be all me. The Red Pill has messed up a lot of my thinking and perception of women, so perhaps I’m readjusting what is and isn’t cute in my mind.
I think women might have the same. I know I do. And a few of my friends talked about it to. Sometimes we drive through the “hot guy ‘hood” when they’re out in the basketball court shootin’ hoops in those sleeveless white t-shirts that contrast their smooth skin and muscles so well.
Its a primal gut attraction that lasts only as long as we drive by. We don’t stop and holler or anything because its unlikely we have much in common with them culturally, but lordy lord, are they visions to look at and get us feelin’ some type of way.
The men we’ve chosen as partners however are different. Yes, they are also good looking, though their physiques are not quite as defined. And they elicit primal feelings in us as well. But like you said, there are emotions involved. A comfort level. Cultural commonalities. Domestication. An oxytocin rush.
Lust vs Lust + Love.
“Cute is hard to create and fades harder with age ”
Interesting you think that. The wisdom in the street is that hot ages like a transvestite whereas cute is forever.
Mila Kunis is too hard, too dark, and too underboobed. Better someone like Amanda Pike or even April Eve/Christina Applegate (last two when younger).
romancealberta
April 6th, 2013 at 23:49
If I have a type, Mila Kunis is it. Especially after seeing this pic: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/574626/thumbs/o-MILA-KUNIS-WITHOUT-MAKEUP-570.jpg?3
That is not “without make-up”. I do tire of these supposed bare-faced pictures that are so obviously still wearing a fair bit of make-up. Just goes to show that men really can’t tell what is and isn’t make-up when it’s anything less than the ‘space hooker’ drag queen type.
Interesting. Men usually describe me as cute while my sister, who looks very similar but presents herself differently b/c of her choice in clothing and makeup, has always been described as hot.
She definitely received more male attention when we were single and still does now that we are married and middle-aged. Men flock to her like bees to honey wherever she goes.
FreeNortherner, would your opinion of the hot chick in the above photo change if she were your wife and presented herself as sexy for your sake alone? In other words, do you see a problem with married women wanting to look hot for their husbands?
I think this is another layer in the madonna/whore complex. Some men might marry a woman b/c she’s chaste and would make an honorable wife and mother only to later struggle to accept that she also has a wild, sexy side.
Interesting. But I disagree. Quite strongly.
This is a false dichotomy. I see the distinction between cute and hot. (Although I don’t think I would call the latter porn make-up). But not about the lovemaking. I can certainly like a woman, think she is cute rather than hot, but want to have sex with her forcefully.
I would suggest that even the merely cute girl most men will marry will want the full masculine approach, not what my wife calls “wimpy sex”.
I think Lisa is hinting the same thing.
Julian and Lisa, it is a false dichotomy. There is, of course, a certain level of overlap and ambiguity between the two categories and this analysis is oversimplified as all analysis’ must necessarily be.
A man can and should have the more forceful sex with his wife; a woman should look hot for her husband when the time calls. I plan to be forceful at times when/if I get married and hope my cute wife will sometimes dress up for hot.
The distinction is not a be all, end all one; it is not the entirety of desire, it merely describes the forms the immediate initial arousal can take.
“My triggered sexual response to the hot picture is primarily consumptive. There is no emotional elicited by the picture, just primal lust. I desire to fuck her; to use her like a piece of meat for my pleasure. The desired sex would be rough, bestial, and uncaring. When finished with her she would be kicked out. The desire is one of violation.”
The desire to violate another human is not neurologically normal. It is also not psychologically/emotionally healthy. To say that your desire to do so is a general male “appetite” is wrong.
You might want to get that checked out.
I don’t know what religion you belong to if any but there are certain PRACTICES for cultivating compassion and benevolence. If your religion does not teach them – reject it for one that does.
@FN
I’m in the Julian camp on this one. My guess is that your logic went astray with this sentence:
Those are not two disparate things. Desires are emotions. The rest of the premise of “two types” falls apart if we recognize that.
@tia
This depends on what we mean by “normal”. It’s certainly common, and not just among men. In fact my experience is that while men are more likely to admit those desires, women are more likely to act on them.
The collective sin (pollution) of western men is that they are not intrusive enough. Comments like yours are meant to continue this sloth. It’s a sociological racket to keep men down; run by greedy top-tier men and envious mid-tier women…probably like yourself. For example: It’s considered rude (i.e. not “normal”) to just blurt out “you’re wrong”, but there you went anyway. This is because the racket allows for women to say whatever ridiculous nonsense pops into their silly heads; especially when that nonsense has the effect of stifling men.
Want to feel “needed”? There is no more complete way than to have children. Adults don’t really “need” other adults but children do – literally, for survival.
Want to feel “in control” or “dominant”? There is no more complete way than to have children. Adults can’t really control other adults, but they can children.
Want to “violate” someone? There’s nobody more vulnerable than children.
In other words – Freenortherner, HAVE KIDS!
You’ll even get to spank them (its still not illegal in Canada yet, is it?)
I always tell my control freak acquaintances (they never get to be my “friends”) – “Dude/dudette, have a kid already to assauge that control fetish!”
@Cane: You are correct: I did make a stronger disconnection between the two than exists in reality for analytical purposes.
The second makeup pic is not overly done or an example of slutty makeup but rather pretty much the average amount of makeup you see American women wearing in the day to day and at work.
I hate makeup.