Why Do Women Care So Much What Other Women Think?

It’s an interesting question and to find the answer we have to delve into the recesses of the female mating mind and the incentives for survival and reproduction that lie beneath.

Most women strive for the best place in the herd they can get and they are keen to figure out who the alpha female is so they can curry her favor and avoid her wrath. Having a higher position in the herd or threatening a rival with banishment from the herd may discourage a competitor from competing for a desired man, providing a path for the ruthless woman to get her alpha or greater beta.

Much of what women do is to maintain, solidify and advance their position in the herd.  Of course, this makes sense.  Pre-modern women needed to stay in the tribe/herd to ensure survival for themselves and their offspring. Whether men cared much about how popular a woman was in the herd is debatable (though men are going to prefer the rare gorgeous woman who’s not as popular over a feisty-yet-portly alpha mare that all the women claim is wonderful).  However, for a woman, being able to discourage a rival female from presenting herself to a sought-after male by tearing her down and casting her out of the herd or into a lower position would have reproductive advantages.  If you can’t beat her on the merits, get her to withdraw from the race…only those who run can win.

Overview of the Social Hierarchy

Since political and corporate apex alpha males have piled on top of technological changes to give women more power, it’s especially incumbent upon the modern man to understand the nature of women and how they act collectively. The female herd is real. And the herd is led by alpha mares who in turn are often seeking the approval and company of or unwittingly led by the apex alpha males. The direction the female herd chooses to take has an enormous impact on society because the vast majority of men are actually not the privileged patriarchal leaders that feminism is obsessed with overthrowing but rather are followers of the female herd who don’t want to rock the boat for fear of being excommunicated to the sexless hinterlands of the damned.

As I’ve written here, the current alpha mares are feminists and raunch queens that tell women to put off relationships and children for career and to slut it up.  Notice how doing so plays into the various goals of many apex alpha, run-of-the-mill alpha, and greater-beta males to have plenty of women available for sex, votes, customers, cheaper labor and to keep beta males in line (note: not all apex alphas and alphas have the same goals–straight rock stars want money, fame and pussy; political apex alphas want power and often money and pussy; corporate apex alphas want money and power and often pussy).

Having reviewed the broad hierarchy of society–namely, the order is top men, then top women, then average women, then average men–let’s now focus on today’s subject, of why women care so much what other women think.

From the article, Why do girls check out other girls?, the answer is given thus,

“Females are partly programmed to do it,” explains Corinne Sweet, a relationship psychotherapist and author of Change Your Life with CBT.“Firstly it’s only natural to compare yourself as it gives you a point of reference which can be reassuring. However, the harsh reality is that it’s a cattle market out there and the commodity is male attention. [ed: that should read attractive-male attention since most males are invisible or repulsive to women] Women are checking out the competition and identifying who the alpha female in the pack is. Women subconsciously put themselves in a hierarchy,” she claims.

But what about the ladies toilets on Saturday night, I hear you cry. Explain the endless compliments toing and froing between the blurry eyed girls mustering enough balance to paint eyeliner on their cheeks. Why would they be so gushing to other women in the toilet if they’re secretly in competition with each other? Surely, women are not so contrived? [ed: women both need and hate the herd, similar to how Gollum loved and hated the ring]

“The alpha female may be the biggest threat yet she’s also the one with whom women want to align. Being close to her gives status and they do so through flattery,” says Sweet, in such a matter of fact tone I can’t help but think I’m talking to a natural history expert about mating in the wild.

The author of the article doesn’t want to admit that women are constantly comparing themselves with other women but finally does so with disappointed resignation:

Lemarc Thomas, managing director of elite international dating agency, Seventy Thirty, describes how “women who sign up are always curious about the other female customers at the agency, they want to suss out the competition so they can bring their ‘A’ game.”

The idea that we are all silently battling it out with one another over our looks sounds a little absurd. Yet after more than thrice feeling telepathically slain on just one commute, I started to realise this thesis is not entirely untrue. I guess I do compare myself to others. I ask Jessica, a teacher, whether she thinks we engage in secret contests with one another and she ashamedly confesses: “Today I was walking behind a girl and the entire time I was deliberating whether her legs were fatter than mine”

Another article examines why women check each other out so much.

We all do it. Whether we admit to it or not, women spend more time checking out other women than they do checking out men. According to research by a British swimwear company, half of the 2,000 women polled said that they “enjoy” comparing themselves to other women.

I’m not sure I “enjoy” the cut-throat competition that fuels female encounters. But it is undoubtedly a dog-eat-dog spirit that forces me to focus beady eyes on the woman passing me on the street, the cover girl on the glossy magazine, and even – dare I say it – my closest friends.

Then she asks the all-important question,

So why do we do it?

I used to think it was all part of the hunt for a suitable man….

But matrimony hasn’t switched off my woman-spotting radar, so I can only conclude that it’s not about men – it’s about us.

Women dress for each other

We dress to impress our female peers. Members of the opposite sex, let’s face it, couldn’t tell Dolce & Gabbana from Ben & Jerry’s. Getting dressed for them is as challenging as connect the dots: so long as it’s figure-hugging, these simple souls will be happy. It is pointless spending hundreds on a MaxMara shift when the only comment from the man in your life is: “A Carmelite habit would be more of a come-on.”

Thank heavens, then, for the girls. They may instantly spot last year’s Temperley dress and this year’s extra two kilos but when they give you a compliment, you know it’s for real. [ed: or intended to curry favor] Pleasing the female judge is a triumph. So it is no wonder that half of the survey’s respondents said they get a buzz from it.

One former colleague, good-looking and a stylish dresser, perfected the most intimidating scrutiny of fellow women. Slow, deliberate and calculating, her overt once-over shrank you to quaking insignificance. But thankfully such blatant judgment is rare: most of us try to conceal that we are sizing up the competition (for which sunglasses come in very handy).

So there you have it, much of what fashion women buy isn’t to impress men but to impress other women. Women want to stay part of the herd and curry favor with the alpha mare even when it requires doing things they don’t really want to because the lure of the herd is strong, it is in their DNA.

Men need to realize the importance that the herd plays in most women’s psyches (NAWALT–some women are not herd dependent). You can’t just be the hapless beta because the hapless beta has lower ranking in today’s society than the beta female (notice there’s no talk of a war on beta men in spite of more evidence supporting that than the ridiculous “war on women”) who will care more about the alpha mare’s opinion and perhaps hold out hopes of getting an alpha male.

This also relates to preselection (and its opposite of prerejection) and how most men feel approach anxiety because they’re instinctually aware of their odds of getting rejected and how the herd will band against them if they get blown out.

Men need to bring enough dominance and attractiveness to the table so that they engage the other instinct of women which can overpower their desire to be loved by the herd, namely, the instinct to love and follow her Man.

180 thoughts on “Why Do Women Care So Much What Other Women Think?

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Adonis says:

    And we won’t stop, cause we can’t stop.

  3. 3
    deti says:

    Women are natural followers. They stay with the herd because there is protection and safety in numbers. A woman will do whatever the dominant women/queen bees/alpha mares are doing. That’s a major reason in my opinion for women having casual sex — she is doing it because all her friends are doing it. (This is why if you want to know what kind of woman she is; look at her friends.)

    She will love a man who will offer her his protection, but he must offer her enough protection that she will not suffer if she “leaves the herd” to follow him and be part of his tribe.

  4. 4
    CaptDMO says:

    New academic/gub’mint/APA studies show…
    Crabs in a bucket.
    Because shut hyphen up.

  5. 5

    i work in a female dominated field (health care), and i’m surrounded by women all day. it’s very telling to see them polite and friendly when face t face, then begin to shit talk them when the other one leaves.

    but they NEVER get catty with the guys. considering it’s a military facility, there’s the rank issues, but my time in civilain hopitals was like i mentioned above x1000.

  6. 6
    Jeremy says:

    I don’t entirely agree with the theory that women *only* dress to impress other women. The day-to-day crab-basket may be this way; but the force of gravity in that crab basket, the ever-present counter-force to female jockeying for higher status is the “wall” and that particular harsh reality springs from the judgement of men.

    She’s absolutely right when she points out that most men don’t know shit about fashion. However, Electromagnetism knows nothing of mass, but it is indisputably influenced by it. Women’s fashion, women’s individual status, is by and large determined by who the alpha female is attached to. The alpha female in any group may exist, but her status as herd alpha is not solely her doing, but rather a result of her own efforts to attach herself to a high status male.

    This is not to say that men somehow exist in a vacuum and are immune to judgement based on what woman they have, or what women they can attract. Quite the opposite really, men are judged by their ability to attract women. Amongst men, the man who is able to get more female attention is considered more alpha.

  7. 7

    I think you’ll find a lot of those alpha mares, feminists, and raunch queens are from a specific Tribe.

  8. 8
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    I am so fucking happy Dad gave me a Y chromosome. It 100% makes up for the total lack of preparation for the SMP.

  9. 9
    jf12 says:

    (guess the tune)
    And we’ll never be alphas (aalphas)
    You just want our beta bucks
    No real IOIs in life for us
    We do inartistic types of pickups
    Let me be your orbiter (oorbiter)
    You will call me creepy
    But baby I’ll push-pull, push-pull, push-pull
    At least in my fantasy

  10. 10
    Liz says:

    One interesting thing about the herd…once a very desirable female takes notice of a man, the rest of the herd takes an immediate interest. Quicker than a jackrabbit on a date. Quicker than a bunch of global warming-formed ice floes surrounding a ship of climatologists in the Antarctic.

    A word of caution, however: The types of women who take an interest because they are following the rest tend to be from the Nutter family, Genus Drama, species wish-you-hadn’t.

  11. 11
    jf12 says:

    The two distinct groups of alpha males and beta males are defined by females’ actions, specifically whether females try to make the male’s life easier or more difficult. In contrast women are more in one (not two) big heap between alpha males and beta males. If we just confine it to meaning women that other women seek to emulate then there may be a little something to the supposition of this article that there are Alpha Females Of Society, but in my experience it’s primarily Alpha Female Of Clique that really counts. The members of her clique will only follow some other AFOS if AFOC does. An outstanding example is fashion fads: in early 2010 it didn’t matter to the members of ANY clique that Snooki (e.g.) wore Levi’s, and in fact every clique everywhere went “Eww, Levi’s!” until the AFOCs started wearing some (whether from ad pressure or whatever).

  12. 12
    jf12 says:

    Yes, women spend a LOT more time checking out other women than men. If men notice anyone, it’s a woman, and may seem to be staring at her, but hours later he may recall “Yeah, I remember her, she was a woman, 30ish maybe a 6 but with a ‘tude, and she was wearing maybe like a shirt or jacket or something that was darker than the pants or maybe skirt, right? Hair color, uh, um. And shoes. She probably had on shoes, in my experience.”

  13. 13
    Jack says:

    I’ve been victimized by this system before as a beta, relatively attractive, but socially awkward guy. Once a girl turns against you, you’re not getting laid by her or her friends, ever. And they’ll gleefully ruin your social life as much as they can. So my thinking now is…is there any way for guys to use this herd mentality in our favor? This stuff is pretty deep for my male brain to understand. You mention being “attractive” and “dominant” but is there anything more detailed, like how to figure who the alpha female is and how to act to her?

  14. 14
    YOHAMI says:

    “So my thinking now is…is there any way for guys to use this herd mentality in our favor?”

    Be the top guy – among the males.

  15. 15
    Badpainter says:

    Jack- “is there any way for guys to use this herd mentality in our favor?”

    Turn the herd’s beta orbiters against the herds leaders and thereby remove most of the herd’s protection?

  16. 16
    Lowbrass says:

    Hmm… so, the couple of experiences where I thought I was making headway with a woman in a social setting, only to have her female friends (less attractive ones) construct some ruse to take her away from me (cock-block) — the friends were cunt-blocking as well. It wasn’t good enough that their friend was potentially into me, perhaps because the inertia of the herd demands that the 80% get the 20% and that maybe I didn’t fit the profile of the 20%. Some other guy in that 20% might yield better left-overs for the less attractive girls.

  17. 17
    jf12 says:

    #14 “Be the top guy – among the males.” It simply doesn’t matter to women if a guy is the top beta male. Ascent of that ladder doesn’t translate into a male’s success with females.

    And I think, having zero personal experience but a lifetime of observation, that it doesn’t much matter to women if the guy is the lowest alpha. Even if some other alpha male is in the vicinity, he will have success with females plural. The tendency is for every woman in a clique to have the same one preferred male, the one the alpha female prefers; perhaps this is what truly unites a clique. But each member of the clique will be happy to have any old alpha, and his status will only rise if the alpha female decides to take him away, which makes his life worse not better I think.

  18. 18
    YOHAMI says:

    jjf12,

    “It simply doesn’t matter to women if a guy is the top beta”

    True. That dude is not the top male.

    Want to use the herd instincts and hypergamy in your favor? be the head.

  19. 19
    YOHAMI says:

    Badpainter,

    “Turn the herd’s beta orbiters against the herds leaders”

    Kind of omega / girl game. You disband the herd, then create a microherd where you rule. If done by a man though its disgusting, but for some it’s the only viable option.

    While you’re at it, bitching and plotting against the alphas, all the women are going to hate you to no end. Which is a good thing. Endure it and smile and keep doing your thing without whining and that makes you alpha, which will turn the heat into tingles.

  20. 20
    Emily says:

    Great post — very very true.Women often befriend women they hate or are threatened by. I once had a girlfriend who would try to undermine me or insult me when around men I dated. I ditched her and cut off all contact with her, then she went on a tirade to make me look bad to my friends. It didn’t work because my friends who know me well understood what she was doing, but it was one of my first experiences with such catty-type female hatership. Sad but true.

  21. 21
    YOHAMI says:

    jjf12,

    “Ascent of that ladder doesn’t translate into a male’s success with females.”

    Ascent on that ladder is the sole thing that determines success.

    Women simply follow the leader, whoever that is.

    To become a leader you need to win the competition against other men. Women are not in that race. You cannot become a leader among them, nor competing with them, but among men and in competition with men.

    You become the rule every other man wants to measure against.

    Then you’re the “real deal”, a man not a boy.

    All the female filtering mechanisms work in your favor from there on.

  22. 22
    Jack says:

    “Be the top guy – among the males.”

    Well goodness, why don’t I just win the lottery and become an NFL quarterback while I’m at it.

    I meant from an average guy’s perspective. Guys are always playing defense in these scenarios. I’d definitely like to be more offensive-minded.

  23. 23
    Badpainter says:

    YOHAMI- “While you’re at it, bitching and plotting against the alphas, all the women are going to hate you to no end. Which is a good thing. Endure it and smile and keep doing your thing without whining and that makes you alpha, which will turn the heat into tingles.”

    After I wrote that I realized that’s what the redpill does on a macro level, turns betas against the herd by showing them how to be more alpha, or at least stop being orbiters. Which plays into what you said, be the subversive, the rebel with a smile, and keep spreading the word.

  24. 24
    Candide says:

    Women check out alpha males and other women, in that order.

    Women dress for alpha males and other women, also in that order.

    Beta males are invisible and irrelevant.

  25. 25
    gaoxiaen says:

    Her: Do you know what this is?
    Me: A purse.
    Her: It’s a Coach bag.
    Me: ?

  26. 26
    YOHAMI says:

    Jack,

    “Well goodness, why don’t I just win the lottery and become an NFL quarterback while I’m at it.”

    The lottery (lucky unworthy money) is a herd. The NFL football thing is a different herd. Keep counting – there are billions of herds out there, each with a different head, different members, and then there are competing herds among the same category.

    Most people are in dozens of herds at the same time.

    The male at the top of each one is the one getting the action.

    Every venue is a herd. Every activity is a herd. Every talent and every angle of information and every area of interest is a herd. And then, again, sub herds competing to be the main herd. And again, the top male on each one is the one getting the action. How much action? depends on the size of the herd, which also depends on the power of this male head.

    Female herds btw are only good to go milk male superstars.

    “I meant from an average guy’s perspective.””

    His only fix is to stop being average. Looking for winnings while being average is like wanting six pack abs while eating fries. A no-go.

  27. 27
    Han Solo says:

    @Jeremy 6

    Yes, I agree that women dress to some extent to please men too. But a lot of it is for other women.

  28. 28
    Han Solo says:

    @Liz 10

    It is amazing the quickness with which the herd takes interest once an attractive female makes her interest known.

    It’s also amazing that such preselection even works as well as it does when a slightly less attractive (but still attractive) female takes interest as I discussed in this post:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/suboptimal-preselection-still-helps/

  29. 29
    Han Solo says:

    @jf12

    Yes, the alpha mare of the clique (or as I like to call it, the microherd) has a huge influence on its members.

    But I think you can look at alpha mares of society like the ones mentioned in my post on how feminists and raunch queens are the alpha mares of society and they have a huge impact. There was the one girl who felt like she would be betraying feminism and Hillary Clinton and the other AMOS if she didn’t lean into her career and postpone having a serious relationship or kids or what not.

  30. 30
    BuenaVista says:

    A woman friend of mine (single) took an executive job on the other side of the country for one of the top 5 tech companies. Her life has been a succession of conventional successes, accumulated within a typical feminist frame; she’s been totally a “Go Femmes Go” team player. She’s about twice as fit and good looking as her peers and she has a Harvard PhD. The spread in looks widens as she ages and her peers fatten etc.

    Her boss at the new job for the iconic tech company was a woman. Who wants to guess what happened after she uprooted herself and moved across the country, and two months after receiving her first review (which was a superior review)?

    Right. Fired. She was receiving too many calls from other execs and senior staff, who had decided to bypass her boss. So she moved 2500 miles, bought a house, and is now a free agent. Because she was in demand as an internal corporate exec, and her boss said, Nope; this is my boat.

    So this is the first time she’s been canned, which is rough for all of us, but it’s the first time she didn’t work for a man, too. Here is what she wrote to me in an email today (I’ve been calling or writing to her once a week or so). The reference to what she calls the “gender chasm” is our prior discussion of the Paglia WSJ piece:

    “I have grown a bit alarmed by the magnitude of my isolation. …and as an update to our continuing conversation about the gender chasm, what (if anything) do you make of it that my male friends call to check in on me more than do my female friends?”

    Well. Now she is seeing two edifices fall: a) that she would just get progressively better jobs, until (I don’t know, I didn’t date her long enough to know what she expected to happen, a miracle happens?); b) WTF, where’s the Sisterhood now that I’m in need?

    The gender chasm here is actually between a woman and her Sisters. Her guy friends are calling and taking her to dinner and offering help. Her girlfriends have dumped her. Her femme-boss has dumped her. I don’t think a girl should have to deal with two illusions being crushed at the same time. Apropos HS’s piece, the competitive organization of Femme-Space, so eager to share feelings and “amazing” yoga classes when times are good, have fled the scene now that times are iffy. I conclude that it’s a form of woman-on-woman action, only the action is a nasty form of anti-Sister hypergamy: “Ladies, she’s out, we’re moving on.”

  31. 31
    Han Solo says:

    @Jack 13

    It can be helpful to become friends with the alpha mare of the group too since her approval will make you seem more favorable in her friends’ eyes. There was one such alpha mare that I was friends with and we went out a few times but it never went anywhere romantically because she always had a bf and she was likely never very interested (if at all) in me but she’d always invite me to her parties which ended up in me going out with a few of her friends.

    I think another important point is for guys to start where they’re at and date at the level of women and then they can gain experience and improve their “game” and get better. I think guys do need to find where their maximum realistic level is and not keep holding out forever, though (assuming they do want an LTR). The simple truth is that most guys (for whatever reasons) won’t be able to transform themselves from 3’s into 9’s or even 7’s into 9’s but most guys with reasonable effort can bump themselves up a point and a few can do more.

    See this post and simply start with whatever preselection you can get. It surprised me that even being seen having fun with a girl that I would consider more of a 7.5-8 in looks helped open the door to be with the 8.5-9, and another time where I was out having fun with a 6.5 helped get me in a better, more outgoing mood to approach an 8 at salsa dancing and dance with her and generate some attraction and chemistry (unfortunately, she turned out to be married).

    http://www.justfourguys.com/suboptimal-preselection-still-helps/

  32. 32
    Han Solo says:

    @Jack 13

    Some further musings:

    I think that men benefit a lot by being perceived as attractive by a group of women or at least attractive enough for some of the members of the group. The alpha mare’s opinion will probably have the most weight in the group but other members’ opinion will still count.

    The flipside of that is when (for whatever reason) you get excommunicated from the herd and are deemed undateable or unfuckable, regardless of whether an outside group would deem the man more attractive than some of the rejecting group’s female members. I saw something like that once back in my church-going days where this one guy was very hot and was engaged to perhaps the most attractive woman at church. Then they ended it (not sure why) and he became somewhat radioactive and then I saw him out on a date with a girl that was a good 2.5 points less attractive than the former fiance. His name had become mud (for a while at least) amongst that herd of woman and really had to lower his standards to get a date. Ironically, few of the attractive women of that herd have married while a lot of the guys from church ended up marrying and had to marry someone that I’d say were a good 0.5 or 1 full point lower than them because the more attractive women were so picky and putting off marriage so much that no one was good enough for them.

    Another thought that comes to mind in walking the herd highwire (and it’s basically talking about social-circle game) is to choose wisely about whom you flirt with. Because blowing it basically brings in the whole anti-preselection (or rejection) dynamic from above. I think it’s better to keep your powder dry and be the fun, interesting guy that they start to pursue and seriously think would make such a good boyfriend for themselves or one of their group (and not in some fake, lame, you’d make such a great bf for “someone” way). I’ll admit I flirted too much and too early in social circles in the past and converted interest from hotties into “pre-rejection.”

    And this keeping your powder dry shouldn’t be interpreted as being a fawning beta orbiter. More like creating a bit of the mysterious vibe that you have some girl you’re seeing elsewhere and so you’re not even available for the particular microherd you’re friends with. Lack of you pursuing them keeps them from running, not being a needy beta orbiter in and of itself can create a bit of attraction and then combine that with your own self showing your attractive traits (without trying too hard) can create a bit of that alluring appeal of the (somewhat or fully) attractive guy that they want but can’t have.

    And women want the attractive-enough guy that they can’t have.

  33. 33
    Han Solo says:

    What do others of you think?

    How can we apply our knowledge of female herd dynamics to improve our chances with attracting women to begin with and maintain our relationships over time?

  34. 34
    jf12 says:

    #21 I’m talking about ladder theory, specifically the two ladders for men. I keep bringing up (early) Bill Gates as a prime example of “winning the competition with other men” and having zero success with women.

    Another example was Ed Hillary, you know, Everest and all. Although he sprouted to 6’5″ in his teens and was fiercely physically competitive with males, he was also a bookish STEM nerd, and nebbish around girls. So he became quite the mgtow from mid-teens on, doing rugged outdoors stuff and was able to go adventuring, in no small part because he had no woman to concern himself with. He lived a rather monkish domestic life, still markedly unpopular with the ladies in NZ, for yet another decade after WWII. But immediately after Everest and winning fame (knighthood etc) and fortune (book advance) and interest from strange women (I have retained the fact that exactly eight women wrote to him pledging to remedy his unfortunate singleness that the newspapers had really played up if he were to be so kind as to write back and ask them to marry immediately), he returned to NZ determined to ask out on a real date the only woman that had showed some kind of interest prior. The much younger and tomboyishly rugged Loiuse had actually smiled at him one time when they were in a group talking about climbing and rugged outdoorsy stuff. So he asked her mom to find out if she might go out with him sometime. He was, according to all accounts, an extremely Nice Guy.

    “Just become an alpha already, wouldja” is much less helpful advice to an unsuccesful man than “Just find an unclimbed Everest and climb it, wouldja”. King Of The Betas is doable, in a way that “become an alpha” is not.

  35. 35
    Han Solo says:

    Some ladders are sexier than others. Some ladders have more intrinsic appeal to a larger group of women than others.

    Winning the chess tournament might wet a few she-nerds’ panties but nothing like making the winning catch in the football game.

    I don’t think it’s simply about winning male competition. I think that is often a part of it but it has to be in an area that women find appealing to some extent or that can translate into areas that women value (like money or fame). Winning the local chess tournament probably won’t do much (though it’s better than nothing) but winning at a higher level where you get some fame and money out of it and since it’s at a higher level would start to broaden its appeal.

    It’s the old debate of women and men valuing certain different things. The classic example is the hipster singer who can wet the panties but men don’t admire vs the type of man that is successful but that lots of men admire (such as a star quarterback that’s not a total douche fratboy).

  36. 36
    jf12 says:

    #33 women instinctly receive beta male orbiters in the exact same manner that alpha females receive beta female followers. Alpha females are NOT more likely to accumulate beta male orbiters, but instead get beta females, so alpha females in a sense have a dearth of male orbiters. The lack of male groupies for female rock stars is but one of many examples. So one possible modus operandi is to infiltrate a clique with an obviously out-of-reach alpha female and, without falling in love, pretend to become a beta orbiter of her. That puts you in a girlish position of becoming a competitor with other members of the clique, but definitely will result in their interacting with you. Instead of getting to know any of them, immediately start putting the moves on one (any one, the now special one) of the alpha’s followers as soon as you meet her as if you can’t help yourself, deliberately in front of other members but without letting the alpha female know, making sure the other members know they should keep your secret. Sooner rather than later, openly give the special one something (a gift, a compliment) that you had let it be known you were supposed to be reserving for the alpha female.

    This conspiring stuff is easy if you think like a girl.

  37. 37
    Johnycomelately says:

    Unfortunately todays alpha mares write for rags like Cosmo and most of them are fictional characters like those in Sex and the City, they used to be the dutiful wives of men of solid character.

  38. 38
    Jack says:

    Buena Vista – you need to slap some sense into your friend. Smart, attractive, yet spending all her energy on her “career” instead of important things. She needs someone who she respects to tell her what she needs to hear.

  39. 39
    BuenaVista says:

    #38: Thanks for the advice, but I tend not to tell other people what to do, and generally confine my slapping to one particular activity. I thought the interesting thing there is her noticing how her female friends melted away. It doesn’t surprise me that they melted away, at all, for several reasons, but it’s contrary to feminist typecasting that all the help she’s getting is from men.

    This was probably too much too fast, but here is what I wrote to her in response to her confusion:

    “2. You will go EEEK! but women tend not to be compassionate as men are in this circumstance.

    “a. They’re more status conscious. Your status, your position in the hierarchy, has taken a hit. Women are ruthless with men who suffer a status hit; it’s the primary reason for divorce, and divorce is driven by women. In our society women are trained to value security, and status as its proxy. It has always been thus: cf. evolutionary psychology. Women just move on, as their hypergamy instructs them, when a man has a status hit and his utility declines. You’re probably experiencing some of this. Economically, and in the social matrix, you’re much more like a man today than you are a woman. They only woman who ever helped me in extremis was a lesbian. The rest just basically said, “Well, it’s your fault, or something. Bye.”

    “b. You’re a very attractive woman, and even your friends have been jealous of that fact. Trust me, they have been jealous. Women are very competitive in this way, far moreso than men (we could give a shit if a guy-friend is hot or fat) so you are getting some blowback for not being a typical physical example at your age.

    “c. Most men have been through this once or twice, hence they know how traumatic it is. Most women view men as support structures, and whether they are divorced or married, they always have a man providing financial and other support. Men have none of that. So men know how terrifying it is to be alone and have no one to rely upon when the severance and 401K are gone. Very few women do.

    “d. Men are problem solvers, women are feelings-sharers. You know, “Don’t tell me how to fix it, just listen to me and sympathize.” Well, many of your women friends have no idea how to offer direction or suggestions for fixing this situation. But they know you’re in a fix. So they’re locked up. They’re smart enough to not call you and offer to sympathize. Men want to help. (The flip side is men only allow other men to vent or rage once or twice, then they just want other men to get their shit together and get to work.)

    “Men and women are very different. There’s a reason why soldiers are men, engineers are men, farmers are men: they fix problems and carry on. They have no choice. I’m sure all of your male friends are genuinely empathetic and want to help you. I’m sure your women friends are sympathetic, but they have no idea what to do or how to help.”

  40. 40
    YOHAMI says:

    Bill Gates is actually a prime example.

    You can be sure – 100% sure – that within the boundaries of his herd he is the man inducing wet dreams on every woman

    Surf through the women (nerds, reporters, secretaries, writers, social workers) who say they have a crush on him

    https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=crush++on+bil+gates&oq=crush++on+bil+gates&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.4770j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

    * * *

    Omegas.

    Alpha is a social position on the ladder. It happens organically. And its a social thing. Somebody is going to be calling the shots, somebody will be more at ease at a particular environment, somebody will be more dominant.

    To be a truly grandiose alpha though, you must also be a freak. A freak is somebody who’s sacrificing social currency in favor of something only makes sense to him. A guy practicing tennis day and night in solitude, a guy locked in a basement programming on his computer, a guy inventing something, an artist creating a small world.

    Omegas fit that role more easier than alphas or betas, because omega’s social currency is worth nothing.

    An alpha retiring from the social scene makes him lose his status. A beta retiring from the social scene makes him disappear completely. What Im saying is that alpha and beta need a social system to operate – a system that existed already where they can do their raise to power, but they cannot create their own. An alpha can pick tennis or politics and do most of his run in a social arena, and be really obsessed and a freak about it without sacrificing social currency. But an alpha cannot

    Omegas though. Little to lose, and a lot to win.

    Sometimes the work of an Omega has enough value to the rest of the society a new herd is created around it – around the product and the man, which turns this omega persona into a social alpha.

    A lot of rock bands, Nirvana to name one.
    Apple.
    Bill Gates.
    Einstein.

    Sometimes the omega develops alpha traits from that exposure, sometimes they try to remain “themselves”

    * * *

    You can be sure that every woman in the Microsoft building wanted a piece of the big man. Even if they didnt at the beginning, they would once they had been in a room and saw who was calling the shots, who was inflexible, and who everyone else followed.

    Imagine that a woman there likes an alpha male supervisor? well in presence of Bill Gates that same supervisor is behaving like a beta follower – guess who is going to be the new recipient of admiration. Guess whose emails she’s going to be impatient to read.

    * * *

    So Bill Gates doesnt induce tingles among the population in masse, like One Direction can. But that’s not his herd. Bill Gates kept being omega. His herd, and his female herd, love him that way.

    Check those links.

  41. 41
    YOHAMI says:

    *But an alpha cannot create his own game without departing from the existing system, making himself an outcast, and losing his alpha

  42. 42
    YOHAMI says:

    a crush on Bill Gates:

    “My crush came to a head at the Microsoft Christmas party. There was a rumour He would appear so I was dressed to the nines, had my hair done and everything. I even bought a new pair of glasses for the occasion. I was filling up at the punch bowl when I first laid eyes on Him. He wore a wonderful snowflake patterned sweater, thick, olive-green cords and he had a new pair of glasses too! I froze in my tracks, I don’t know how many minutes passed as I was watching him glide around the room, shaking hands and chuckling. Suddenly He was two feet away from me and I was next in line for the hand shake. I was trembling, broke into a cold sweat, my knees were knocking, my mouth was pasty.”

    Later she meets him and her crush vaporizes. Poor Bill is still an Omega, you see, no social skills not enough conventional (key word) masculine traits to appeal to the herd. This girl’s body tells her this man is not a man, but it’s not a god either. Press exit.

    Funny how Bill could have had it all, even rockstar fame/pussy, if he had attuned himself to the herd that once despised him.

  43. 43
  44. 44
    jf12 says:

    #40 “Imagine that a woman there likes an alpha male supervisor? well in presence of Bill Gates that same supervisor is behaving like a beta follower – guess who is going to be the new recipient of admiration. Guess whose emails she’s going to be impatient to read.” Nope, and I don’t have to imagine. From before the time as a young teen that he hacked into the school database to try to impress the chicks, the chicks were not impressed. Nothing he accomplished made any woman want him in any way whatsoever. He couldn’t even buy a date. At the time of his first billion, according to a boardroom eyewitness, his management style was apoplectic and grown men, including many alphas, literally wet their pants in fear of his displeasure. But women laughed at him, making him angrier. Every (every) woman who interacted with him first hand became instantly insubordinate, and every (every) second-hand woman instead soothed and stroked and comforted her personal alpha and not Gates. Women had to be kept away from him so that he wouldn’t feel their jeers.

  45. 45
    YOHAMI says:

    jjf12,

    So he was apologetic even at his Microsoft empire? lol.

    Aint that sad.

  46. 46
    YOHAMI says:

    jjf12,

    “King Of The Betas is doable, in a way that “become an alpha” is not.””

    Why?

  47. 47
    Larry J says:

    My wife is a retired nurse. She told me many times over the years that she much preferred working with and for men because women were so bitchy. It seems there are a lot of women who never matured beyond junior high school. That’s the age when they are in puberty and really begin comparing themselves to one another.

  48. 48
    Craster says:

    The solution, for men, is to simply not care what women think.

    Feminine behaviour actually selects strongly for men who will be wholly uninfluenced by the feminine. Of course, this means no man can enjoy a woman who truly loves him the way he wants to be loved (other than from his mother when he was young), but we already all knew that.

    I thank God every day I was born a man, and that I grew up with a mother who loved me, and loved my father as much as she humanly could.

  49. 49
    jf12 says:

    #48 a truly noble sentiment, and beautiful in its own way. I finally learned that saddest fact of all last year “no man can enjoy a woman who truly loves him the way he wants to be loved”, only taking 63 years for it to sink in, and although I greatly miss feeling in love it is already now similar to greatly missing a favorite stuffed animal from childhood.

  50. 50
    Starlight says:

    This topic is great, Han Solo! Insightful post and comments! :)

    Wah, I for one agree with Larry J’s wife – some women can be such a pain to work with. You have to find some way to be liked by your female superior otherwise she’ll not be cheering for you any time soon. Quality of work doesn’t matter – she just needs to like you and preferably a lot. Same for your female co-workers. Being nice, adhering to the work culture and doing your job is not enough, you need to partake in all the nonsensical gossip and preferably dress & talk like them. You know, you want to be part of their team and fit in. Otherwise rest assured you’ll have a short career span. Some females can be quite the nasty bullies.

    @ BV

    ““b. You’re a very attractive woman, and even your friends have been jealous of that fact. Trust me, they have been jealous. Women are very competitive in this way, far moreso than men (we could give a shit if a guy-friend is hot or fat) so you are getting some blowback for not being a typical physical example at your age.”

    Yup, so familiar with that. That’s why when I find a good female friend I hold on tight to our friendship.

  51. 51
    jf12 says:

    #45 apoplectic, screaming with bulging veins. King of betas merely requires personal effort and is literally independent of women’s input. In contrast, by definition an alpha is an alpha because of the way women treat him, and a beta cannot make women treat him like an alpha because by definition a beta cannot make women do anything.

  52. 52
    Starlight says:

    Oh yeah, regarding female dynamics – some gibberish you hear amongst some women:

    “You look gorgeous, but you should try my hairdresser one day. He’s the best.” (Aha. If I look gorgeous what the heck do I need to go to your hairdresser for?)

    “I have gained so much weight.” says a slender lady to her friends. Friends chime in: “Nonsense. You look so skinny, darling.”

    Yup, when finding a great sane female friend – you make sure you hold on tight to that friendship. ‘Cause women can be pretty awesome, you just need to find the right ones. :)

  53. 53
    YOHAMI says:

    “by definition an alpha is an alpha because of the way women treat him”

    The opposite.

    Bro, I’ve been omega, lesser beta, king of betas, king of pussy wipped beta, lesser alpha, king of alpha jerks, good-natured alpha, sigma, and some back and forth.

    The way women responded to me on each phase corresponded with the role I was playing. Women always follow your lead. Even the Omega is the one telling everyone how much everyone should despise him. With men you have to push and dominate and fight for the spot, or you end up at the tail. Women are much more docile. They only dominate and push you out of the tribe if you ask for it, and / or if you accept it with grace when they propose it (fail the “test”, take a bad deal, prove your unworthiness).

    The traits you need to be alpha with women are (easily) acquired when dealing with men, while not putting women on a pedestal. But even so, if you put women on a pedestal and have them command you (beta), you’re the one leading and accepting that interaction.

    I was reading your story with your ex. She said no and pushed back – but you moved forward. I guess she followed your lead at the end of the day. There’s a deep beta angle on your approach in that you want to “court her” despise of her rejecting you, but there’s also a dominant angle in that you’re indifferent to her refusal and you go for what you want. That angle is the tingle inducer, and women will follow that whenever they encounter it. The beta part of it, though, will backfire as soon as she starts giving you crappier deals and you keep moving forward.

    But the alpha, the indifferent, dominant, angle of it, the more you have, the more alpha your behavior is, the more they follow, and the happier they are (happiness for a woman also involves drama and tears, but that’s another subject)

  54. 54
    M3 says:

    I’ve heard women’s fashion is a sort of ‘mate guarding’ mechanism amongst women.. sort of to signify ‘look at how much power i wield, don’t cross me’ type of thing. Dressing up to display their accumulated power/wealth and that bitch better not be trying to horn in on her action. I’ll dig up the article when i find time.

  55. 55
    M3 says:

    From http://theredpillroom.blogspot.ca/2014/01/wife-test-attractiveness.html

    “Mating is the context for attraction. But it is important to understand that the perceptions of men and women on the subject are largely filtered by their perspective. Men see feminine attractiveness from the perspective of judgment, while women see it from the perspective of competition.

    Women do not make themselves attractive to attract men, they make themselves attractive to socially dominate women by displaying their ability to attract men. Being attractive to a woman is the social equivalent of having big muscles as a dude. Just displaying them acts as a deterrent against potential competition.”

  56. 56
    YOHAMI says:

    “Being attractive to a woman is the social equivalent of having big muscles as a dude.”

    So, muscles are not attractive to women, and men dont work on their physique to be attractive to them?

    Everyone faunting at the opposite sex must be an accident. I gotta correct all those girls posting fb pics of six packs and muscular men.

  57. 57
    YOHAMI says:

    Women like to say they dont dress up for men because that would mean they are working for it. The fact though is they do get different reactions from men depending on what they are wearing, and they use it. It’s not just intrasexual competition.

  58. 58
    jf12 says:

    #54 “women’s fashion is a sort of ‘mate guarding’ mechanism amongst women” Yes, there was excellent research published last year I think. My own wife dresses extremely fashionably which is to say dressed to the nines, Coach bag(s) and all.

  59. 59
    Liz says:

    “The fact though is they do get different reactions from men depending on what they are wearing, and they use it. It’s not just intrasexual competition.”

    I agree it isn’t either/or. Women dress for men and also for other women. Sometimes both, sometimes one or the other.

  60. 60
    Liz says:

    I don’t own a purse that costs over 50 dollars.

  61. 61
    jf12 says:

    #53 “deep beta angle” I think it’s a permanent stigma. As inescapable as is the Feminine Imperative madhouse Matrix, the Beta Jussive mood may be a stickier trap.

  62. 62
    Liz says:

    Shoes, on the other hand…I have a lot of very nice shoes.

  63. 63
    M3 says:

    Hehe, you misunderstand yohami. Is the intimifation factor towards the same sex. A skrawny dude will not normally try to make a play on woman who’s with a beefcake. The same is implied here, the woman is flexing herfashion muscles to ward off any lesser competition.

  64. 64
    M3 says:

    I’m sure women dress differently based on their current status. Single women dress less with fashion and more slutty (especially when ovulating) while looking to attract a mate vs. How they dress when already having a mate secured. Once they are “off” the market, they compete against other women in a fashion sense to send a message to other women. At least that’s what the study said.. the study I cant seem to find.

  65. 65
    jf12 says:

    Re: mate guarding reference. It just now came out, in fact. I think this is the first of my 2014 citations. The preprint from last year is still available however.

    Yajin Wang and Vladas Griskevicius. 2014. Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women. Journal of Consumer Research, 2014, vol. 40, issue 5, pages 834 – 854.

  66. 66

    WARNING: LONG POST ALERT!

    There is a price-fixing/unionized labor aspect to female intragender social relations that is fascinating to observe. We men have our own problems and consistent self-delusions, but those should be the topic of another post.

    I think that, at a first pass, a woman should assume that the majority of the other women in her immediate social circle have an intuitively anti-competitive, cartel-generating strategic bias and will look to enforce whatever norms this involves. This is just the first pass—a way for one woman to try to consider the incentives that other women have to offer high- vs. lower-quality advice. As a practical matter, Woman A’s advice to Woman B about how Woman B can be more attractive to men appears to frequently be first filtered in Woman A’s brain according to her thought-experiment forecasts of how the local mating/attention-from-men market could shift for or against Woman A should Woman B actually employ the advice in question. After passing through this filter, the only advice options which are on the table for discussion *may* be those that would not negatively affect Woman A’s own relative position in the market.

    In other words, Woman A’s advice to Woman B (and even her social treatment of Woman B) may principally reflect Woman A’s self-interests; this could be good or bad for Woman B depending on Woman A’s recognizable a priori position on female intrasexual competition for mates.

    It’s a bit like a potential McDonald’s franchise-owner visiting a local Burger King to ask the owner of that establishment for advice on where the McD’s should be optimally placed in that neighborhood, best advertising practices in the local market, etc.

    That said, I think we all know women who legitimately give highly potent “Red Pill for Girls” type advice to their girlfriends, but these are typically extremely secure, alpha type women who occupy a different SMP trophic circle from the females that they are advising, and thus just do not feel threatened at all.

    In most conditions, however, the advice almost invariably ends up being rather toothless, or at least heavily edited so that the existing pricing structure/equilibrium is always maintained. At worst, the advice given is consciously or unconsciously designed to actually sabotage the victim’s performance.

    IMHO, there are several key items which are, predictably, seldom going to be viewed favorably by the majority of women in a given social unit. I think that a female seeking mating or dating advice from other women should just assume that these tropes will usually be there unless proven otherwise. For entertainment purposes I will contrast the expected trope with a hypothetical piece of advice that would reveal that the trope was accurate and another that would violate the trope.

    1) General negativity towards any cosmetic enhancements that clearly cater to stereotypical, hypersexualized male aesthetic preferences (attract a lot of male attention, dominate the space, etc.).

    AGREEMENT WITH THE ANTI-COMPETITION TROPE: “Girl, go ahead and cut your hair short! It looks great! And for God’s sake don’t get a big boob job or kill yourself with that CrossFit stuff—guys hate that sort of Marvel Comics look! Also, you should dress for your own comfort when you come to my party…hell, go casual and outdoorsy. The good guys want to SEE INTO YOUR SOUL, not the outer packaging. Be natural, be yourself, be quirky.”

    VIOLATION OF THE TROPE: “You know, what a really pretty 22-year-old like you should really do is go for a look that features long, blonde hair and a tan, impressive fake rack, and a hypertoned ass from hardcore metcon workouts. Then please highlight these features at my upcoming 50th birthday party by wearing a plunging-neckline red cocktail dress and those Louboutin spikes. That will make me and my friends feel really good about ourselves.”

    2) Any assumed threat to lower the current “price of sex” in terms of its emotional support/commitment/resource extraction convertibility. If the woman is in a relationship and especially if she is hotness-challenged, she may disapprove of any social conditions which logically would serve to increase the number of women who are sexual “free agents”—especially if these unattached women are at peak fertility (or look like they are because of #1), if aggressive pursuits of casual sex is culturally normalized, etc.

    Those who aspire to finding a “provisioning” male will of course be even more concerned about deteriorating conditions in #2.

    AGREEMENT WITH THE TROPE: “Guys need to learn that sex without emotional commitment and/or tangible resource-exchange, preferably with the coercive power of the state involved, is a form of rape. You need to stand up for your human rights; a man’s job is to spend his adult life preparing himself to be available to provide for your physical and psychological needs if and when you decide that you are at a point in your Personal Achievement Journey when a relationship with him is acceptable BY YOUR STANDARDS!”

    VIOLATION OF THE TROPE: “After getting the big-boobs blonde Barbie bombshell (B-5) look down pat, you should really go out and just have fun for awhile. Make sure that you can infiltrate all-male bastions by being the Cool, Low-Maintenance Dream Chick. Also, you should routinely undercut other women to make them appear to be psychotic bitches (they aren’t your friends, anyway, believe me—they gossip constantly about you behind your back). Make sure that the guys know that you think other women who are constantly obsessing about relationships probably just want to exploit guys and use them for free psychotherapy and lifestyle expenses, then become self-absorbed Bridezillas.”

    3) If the woman is older, she will almost never wish to highlight the existence of older male/younger female sexual liaisons. This appears to be true whether or not the older woman has a partner or not.

    AGREEMENT WITH THE TROPE: “I don’t really want you to meet my husband and his friends.”

    VIOLATION OF THE TROPE: “In fact, you should look at having hot, sexy relationships with men my husband’s age. Have you seen ‘Le Divorce’…?”

    4) If the woman is older, she will almost never wish to highlight a later peak or plateau in male SMV. Once again, this appears to be robust across the older female’s relationship status spectrum. Simultaneously, even talk of the very existence of menopause is usually suppressed, or comforting evidence is sought from fertility scientists to try to push this physiological phenomenon out as far as possible using the latest “Frankenbaby”
    medical technologies.

    AGREEMENT WITH THE TROPE: “I’m not kidding. Stay the fuck away from my husband. He would think your gross, anyway. He hates Barbies. Besides, he passed his SMV peak 25 years ago, when he was the Gap-wearing, scooter-driving junior analyst at the company rather than the Norton & Sons-suited, Porsche-driving CFO that he is now.”

    VIOLATION OF THE TROPE: “You may not realize this, but guys my husband’s age are actually a lot better for you to have highly sexual flings with. Why don’t you ask my husband about it while the two of you have an unsupervised chic-bistro lunch together. Make sure to wear the shorts with that tank top and talk about your background in gymnastics as much as possible, as well as how much you enjoy watching porn and violent sports.”

    5) Any situation in which a man is satisfied with a lower level of sexual activity in the relationship than his partner is will be subject to highly emotive and reactionary condemnation and deep suspicions. This would be fine except that the reverse is considered perfectly ok—a woman who complains that her male partner wants more sex than she does is actually in far better position because the imbalance creates a supply shortfall that can be useful in negotiation, creates an experience that is emotionally validating for the woman (she feels wanted, sexy, etc. in the face of his pursuits), and may be pleasant in the long-term because the man may feel that he needs to continually up his game in order to seduce his partner, etc.

    AGREEMENT WITH THE TROPE: “Unacceptable. Sexual initiation is a man’s job—the man should be the one to make the sexual bid, and you should decide if it is an appropriate reward for his recent behavior and his validating commitment displays. There is something wrong with him! You shouldn’t have to stand for that—he’s attacking your self-concept and making you feel less desirable. It’s a mental form of abuse, of soul-rape—! This would be a DEALBREAKER FOR ME!”

    VIOLATION OF THE TROPE: “If he is having sexual desire issues, you should turn up the heat and consider those porn moves that guys like, or even a 3some with a hot stripper. Use this for your own personal hot-chick development and make him feel REALLY wanted. And, by the way, at my birthday party, please tell all of our husbands that you want sex all the time and that you apparently wear your man out and cause him to suffer penis fatigue, so you are thinking of bringing in another hot girl to spice it up and get the mojo back. This little confessional should have great consequences for our marriages.”

    6) Any modifications to the marriage contract which, if popularized, might marginalize key female-centric strategic aspects of the current family court regime.

    AGREEMENT WITH THE TROPE: “The family court system is unbiased and very fair. Child Protection/Child Support Service officers are equally objective and gender-neutral. There is no rational reason why a man should be concerned about divorce risks. The system works very well.”

    VIOLATION OF THE TROPE: “Oh, I almost forgot: after telling our husbands how you—the hot porn goddess in the red dress—are highly attracted to men their age and how you are the sexual aggressor in your current relationship, please tell them that you think current family law is extremely biased against men and how you would like to see it changed.”

    The expressed intensity of opinions 1-6 will obviously vary according to a particular woman’s vulnerability to catastrophic relationship failure, a philandering partner, etc. FWIW, my advice to a woman who wants to ask other women for dating/mating advice is to first assume that an anti-competitive paradigm of strategic detente is in effect and that any advice which is forthcoming should be assumed to primarily function to support this detente. If the advice she gets from a girlfriend actually violates these assumptions, then this may represent a *particularly valuable* friend (or a maniac, which may still be valuable in its own way).

    The above does not mean that men always give each other the best advice, but I think that active sabotage in terms of mating market performance is probably a lot less common within a “Bro Code” environment (guys can generally tolerate extremely handsome leading men in their action films more easily than women can tolerate extremely beautiful leading women in their romantic-comedies, etc.). Intense male competition is just expressed more directly and obviously, and there can be a spirit of hunter-killer teamwork in which a buddy’s increasing prowess ultimately means that the whole team gets stronger.

  67. 67
    Liz says:

    Bastiat, I confess my advice to a friend would probably NOT be to get the huge boob job (#1).

    Because huge artificial tits make a woman look cheap. Appropriate in certain environments (stripper poles, trailer trash parties), but inappropriate in the ones most people outside of the entertainment industry would frequent. I’m all for symmetry and self-improvement, but anyone can buy a pair of tits…no reason to supersize it. I’d liken huge fake boobs to something you described on another thread as the “grasping class” equivalent to personal enhancement. And I had huge boobs (HUGE) after all my pregnancies and know they’re awful to lug around…they make a person look fat, or just ridiculous, often a combination of the two. They were a serious pain in the ass for exercise.

    It’s kind of like telling a man, “Hey! Women LOVE muscles. Here’s what you gotta do…workout, get peck implants…just get as HUGE as possible. When random strangers seem to fear you and dudes at the gym tell you you’re huge, you know you’ve made it.” Okay, rant over.

  68. 68
    Han Solo says:

    @Bastiat 66

    Good stuff on how women should have a bit of distrust towards other women’s advice until proven worthwhile.

    Your point 5 also made me think of how women will come up with all kinds of excuses as to why they shouldn’t or don’t want to ask out a man (in spite of many men telling them they would be happy if a woman roughly in his league asked him out). I think it is, in part, because they want to maintain the position of power, of being in demand, and if they start asking men out it suddenly gives the power to say “no” to men.

    @Liz 67

    My view on fake boobs is that I think that if a woman is A or smaller that a boob job going up to about a C if she’s smaller in frame or C or D if she’s larger is a good idea. I’m not a fan of the fake, volleyball porn boob look though, so whatever breast enhancement should be done to look more natural, with a bit of the slight sag that even pert, young breasts display. I don’t think most women should be going for DD’s or above because that starts to enter the realm of trashiness. These are just my thoughts and some men like the fake big guns but I imagine most men are a lot more similar to me, at least in terms of the kind of boobs they want on a wife. I once had a work colleague who said that for a ONS he’d want the fake DD chick while for a wife the average-sized natural would be ideal.

    Also, if a woman is already a B or C then I think that’s just great and really doesn’t need a boob job, although I suppose giving them a bit of a lift later in life could be aesthetically helpful.

  69. 69
    jf12 says:

    Apparently alpha mares lead around a band of other mares, and a couple of shiftless but good looking stallions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_behavior

    Hen parties also have alpha females, which don’t lead the flock per se but do enforce social structure.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecking_order

    Some of you may remember this article, the classic reference about chickens.
    http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/files/chicken.pdf

  70. 70
    Han Solo says:

    @jf12

    That is an interesting link (which I believe I linked to in my other post on the hierarchy of the herd).

    I wouldn’t call the stallions shiftless but it is interesting that they focus on protecting the herd against outside threats and keeping the herd together when traveling and during mating season. They are mostly sperm donors and protectors. Don’t do much providing. It seems like it’s usually (but not always) the alpha mare that leads them to a new area (presumably to find new pastures–so it’s a providing role). Does the stallion lead the move in the other times? But you could argue the stallion is contributing to this provider rol in that he keeps the stragglers moving along with the herd to get to the new area.

    Interesting how the alpha mare is more involved than the stallion in the day-to-day governance of the herd (which is mostly other females and young males). Since most or all of the other adult stallions are driven away then there is not much need for the stallion to engage in day-to-day competition within a male hierarchy, which is different from human societies.

    From the link:

    Role of the stallion

    A stallion (foreground) exhibiting the flehmen response.
    Stallions tend to stay on the periphery of the herd where they fight off both predators and other males. When the herd travels, the stallion is usually at the rear and apparently drives straggling herd members forward, keeping the herd together. Mares and lower-ranked males do not usually engage in this herding behavior.[17] During the mating season, stallions tend to act more aggressively to keep the mares within the herd, however, most of the time, the stallion is relaxed and spends much of his time “guarding” the herd by scent-marking manure piles and urination spots to communicate his dominance as herd stallion

    Also, it’s interesting about the pecking order in chickens.

  71. 71
    Morpheus says:

    AGREEMENT WITH THE TROPE: “The family court system is unbiased and very fair. Child Protection/Child Support Service officers are equally objective and gender-neutral. There is no rational reason why a man should be concerned about divorce risks. The system works very well.”

    Reading this one reminds me of the post Rollo just put up:

    http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/20/suck-it-up/

    You could have a woman strenuously argue the point above (nothing to worry about, system is fair), but then when presented with concrete examples, she flips her position to “you chose poorly, too bad sucks to be you”. There is no way for the guy to “win”. He shouldn’t be concerned, but if it turns out he was right to be concerned it was his fault anyways.

    I may be overstating the case, but I am beginning to believe the most women even if they won’t consciously admit it believe on some (subconscious) level that they are absolutely *entitled* to a long-term committed mate (until they decide otherwise) with strong provisioning capability simply because they are female. All the various intellectual positions and “moral/ethical” systems flow from that default position of entitlement.

    Off on a tangent, I read something amusing today which was a woman talking about DQing a guy and “not settling” because he isn’t a proficient text message communicator. Ha. Add *effectively communicates via texting” to the 457 point checklist as item 458. It isn’t a surprise to me why some women literally are incapable of landing and retaining boyfriends.

  72. 72
    Liz says:

    “Also, if a woman is already a B or C then I think that’s just great and really doesn’t need a boob job, although I suppose giving them a bit of a lift later in life could be aesthetically helpful.”

    I agree with your perspective. I’m all for personal enhancement, but not comic book-turned-into-reality. That isn’t healthy for anyone.

    I think we should keep in mind that Barbie is a fantasy made for adolescent females.
    Ken was a neuter (we substituted Skipper for Ken in my Barbie games long ago…if the girl didn’t have Ken, and more often than not she didn’t bother to have a Ken doll, unless her parents were divorced and then they’d give her whatever she wanted out of guilt).

  73. 73
    Badpainter says:

    “Ken was a neuter ”

  74. 74
    Liz says:

    #73: lol! Exactly. :-)
    Ken didn’t exist as a real, live male.
    He was the super-safe neutered model-thing adolescent females could use as accoutrement for androgenous reindeer games.
    All non-adolescent women prefer GI Joe (or Indiana Jones, or whomever that guy was).

  75. 75
    Anonymous Reader says:

    Bastiat
    In most conditions, however, the advice almost invariably ends up being rather toothless, or at least heavily edited so that the existing pricing structure/equilibrium is always maintained. At worst, the advice given is consciously or unconsciously designed to actually sabotage the victim’s performance.

    In bygone days when women competed with each other via domesticity, it was rather standard for a woman sharing some recipe with another women to “forget” to include one key ingredient, thereby all but guaranteeing failure.

  76. 76
    Badpainter says:

    Liz, that’s part of the conditioning. Ken is a beta orbiter. Misc. Action Dude is an alpha unaffected by the FI, well at least until the guns were taken away, and he was curiously replaced with FI approved superheroes, imagination limiting video games, and jaundiced, androgynous yellow Lego people.

  77. 77

    “Is there anyway for us guy’s to use this herd mentality to our favor.” Jack.

    I feel like Glinda the Good Witch talking to Dorothy.
    “You’ve always had the power to get back home.”

    As Han said its all in the Preselection, when men, alone or as a whole, start paying attention to the women who are behaving in the manner you wish they will all start acting like her. There are not many good role models out there for young women in particular. When I am speaking with young women I have them call out current famous women who would make appropriate role models it’s amazing how quickly it gets quite, and I let it stay that way until the silence gets uncomfortable, it drives the point home.

    jf12 # 36 As you said if you really want to mess up the herd start picking off the lower mares it will make the alpha panic.

    BV #b. Yup been there too.

    Like Starlight and Larry J’s wife I don’t like working with women and would rather work with men any day. That said my current boss is a woman who like me hates working with other women for the reasons Starlight stated above (good work Starlight). So my boss is in one office and I run the other office we each work alone.

    @ Liz,
    Not so much money in accessories as in excellent quality wardrobe staples, wool and or polished cotton tailored pencil skirts, cashmere sweaters, 3 seasonal LBD’s. Shoes are just to much fun to by so I don’t spend my allowance on them and they must always be heels ;)

    M3 seems to be a good night to link Ironwood:
    http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-crab-basket-effect.html
    http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-circles-in-your-wifes-matrix.html

  78. 78
    Han Solo says:

    @77

    And I think one reason there aren’t that many good role models is because when hypergamy is unleashed then how do women go about competing for the top apex males (or for men that are 1 or 2 points out of their league)? In part by being sexy hoes who never say no. And I believe that that attitude exists amongst many women and that’s why ho music and raunch queens have such market power–because they sing to and celebrate that desire among many women. Think of Miley and any number of other female singers who are selling a message and persona of hoishness. These particular women may or may not themselves by hypergamous sluts in real life but that is beside the point.

  79. 79

    @ Bastiat
    “”That said, I think we all know women who legitimately give highly potent “Red Pill for Girls” type advice to their girlfriends, but these are typically extremely secure, alpha type women who occupy a different SMP trophic circle from the females that they are advising, and thus just do not feel threatened at all.””

    No threat, because most of the women don’t want to accept what I have to tell them nor do the want to make an effort to change. Your trope examples are dead on.

  80. 80
    Han Solo says:

    @PP 77

    Good links from Ironwood.

    A minor disagreement would be that the female social matrix isn’t hierarchical. I think there’s lots of evidence it is.

    But beyond that minor point, the rest of the stuff is good in those posts.

  81. 81
    Badpainter says:

    Are women chasing the top 10-20% of men so hard exclusively because of hygergamy or is part of the problem not being overtly discussed that the bottom 80% of men aren’t reliable as men? In other words, if by magic all men woke up tommorow as Redpillars would women change, or would they just see it as having better plan-Bs?

  82. 82

    Hypergamy unleashed… that’s mostly it but I also think as Susan Venker talked about in her book “How to Choose a Husband” living an examined life verses and unexamined.
    ” An unexamined life is when you move through the years mindlessly, not really thinking about what you’re doing or why you’re doing it, or even if you like doing it. You’re just doing it, whatever “it” is because that what other people are doing–because that’s what you think you’re supposed to do. Or because quite frankly it’s easier. Living an unexamined life means living a life someone else designed for you.”

    Following the herd is easier for most.

  83. 83

    @Badpainter #81

    Are you asking if women would see all Redpill men as better plan B’s then what they were before?

    The expectation of women is totally out of wack, but I wouldn’t put all that on hypergamy. I think they think they have all the time in the world and if they wait long enough and pray hard enough or wish on enough falling stars some day their prince will come. Totally unrealistic and foolish.

  84. 84
    Badpainter says:

    practicallyperfect2,

    Looking back to the Greatest Generation when the men came home form the war the traditional sex roles resumed their supremacy, and most men found wives and raised families. I have a difficult time believing that there were substantially more alphas during that time. However, I can see that the a combination of social, economic, and cultural influences, have over the last 70 years, degraded the quality of men generally.

    That degradation impacting the betas most particularly. Since it’s the greater betas who are usually the best followers, the most consistent and reliable workers (by shear numbers) they are the ones who need stable social structures to achieve individually, and by allowing them to thrive everyone benefits. After all the alphas are left with mud huts without productive male followers. The FI, progressive liberalism and Blue-pill thinking have taught betas to be drones, denigrated their role in society, and encouraged them not to be men, and all but shut them out of the MMV and SMP.

    So what I’m asking is if we could Redpill all the men would women dial back the hypergamy? How much of the current state affairs is because the betas a no longer good men (as opposed to being decent people), and how much is because of hypergamy run wild? No matter who started this mess, at some point it seems to me both, sides are racing to the bottom.

  85. 85
    Liz says:

    PP2 “No threat, because most of the women don’t want to accept what I have to tell them nor do the want to make an effort to change.”

    This. I can’t offer advise either. It’s pointless.

    Today my husband was cleaning some fish he’d speared with a friend this afternoon. There were five men helping in total, three bachelors (youngish…mid-twenties and early thirties). My husband and another man in his early forties were the married ones.

    So the conversation went to the other guy’s wife, and they were having some sort of trouble (they have three children).
    And one of the bachelors said, “You should have your wife hang out with Liz. She’s so awesome. She brought us warm towels at the dock after we came in from spearfishing.”

    These guys were amazed by the fact that I put a few towels in the dryer for five minutes to bring to them when they came to the dock. Occasionally I make them dinner. A modicum of consideration goes unbelievably far these days (when women have consideration for men, that is…the other way, not so much unfortunately).

  86. 86

    One other thought brought up in Venker’s book that is applicable to this post is the Green Grass Syndrome. Paraphrasing Venker:
    It is the result of the feminist movement and the self-esteem movement. These two world views are so hopelessly similar they’re impossible to extricate. Feminism says, “Your mothers’ lives were constrained. Don’t live their lives–reach for the stars instead!” And the self-esteem movement says, “There’s no one quite like you. You’re amazing. Go–seize the world.” The implication is that women are entitled to lives that defy description. It’s a message they receive daily in social media. The problem with the Self-esteem movement is that it is elitist, the implication is that the lives of these supra achievers are somehow superior to those who live regular lives. Moreover the kind of lives that women are being steered towards don’t even represent the lives most people live. It’s all a mirage, but women are being taught that if they don’t do something monumental, their lives are meaningless.

    This book is great and full of wisdom. I only wish she had picked a different title for the book. It is so much more then just about choosing a husband and more about how young women can live wisely.

  87. 87

    @ Liz,
    Amen. I’m always saddened by the amount of amazement and appreciation of men when women like us do something nice for men. Really sad isn’t it. Want to have real fun? Address your husband or another man with the title of Sir and peripherally watch the reactions of the women close by.

    @Badpaiter,
    “If we could Red pill all the men would the women dial back the hypergamy?”
    No, because not all men are capable or believe as those who are inclined to red pill thinking are. Personally I feel the days of everyone (western cultures in particular) acting within the same moral code is over, for now. The validation of the diverse lifestyles and the ascendency of the individual over the group has, (sorry I lack of eloquence of Bastiat and BV,) brought nothing but chaos. Nobody is moving in a general consensus instead they are going their own way. It’s a hot mess.
    But this is the way it always happens in history, as old social constructs break down new ones will emerge, and out of the messy chaos people of like minds will find each other and form new communities.
    This is where my hope is, in the new, and what is to come.

  88. 88
    Badpainter says:

    practicallyperfect2,

    I agree with what you said above. My questions were meant more a thought exercise based on an ideal hypothetical.

    “this is the way it always happens in history, as old social constructs break down new ones will emerge, and out of the messy chaos people of like minds will find each other and form new communities.”

    Only took western civilization 1000 years to work it’s way out of the collapse of Rome. Took another 400+ years to hit its zenith, and less than 100 to slide to this point.

  89. 89

    One more thing, I don’t think its a matter of men not knowing how to be good at being men any more. They are and always have been. What I think happened is things changed so fast most men were blindsided and are still following the old script. It’s time to write a new one, one that eloquently slays the argument of feminist and runs rings around them. This is already starting to happen just look at the wonderful examples of Black knighting. What needs to happen now is some form of community beyond the internet.

  90. 90
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    @ Morpheus 71:
    What a pathetic display. Men need to be friends to girls because girls have constantly busy lives and that’s the way to build attraction. Unless of course she wants to invest in him because she finds him attractive immediately, in which case he must text constantly, preferably within 24 hours, because she needs constant assurance that he is invested and not a player.

    On the other hand, it just goes to show how fucking easy it is for girls, who can run through three guys in less than a month and whine non-stop about how hard it is to date. The common denominator is YOU, little girl.

    The advice is simple, you suck at filtering, HARD FUCKING CORE. STOP DATING MEN. PERIOD.

  91. 91

    @ Badpainter #88
    “My questions were meant more a thought exercise based on an ideal hypothetical.”
    But I’m soo good at the hypothetical when I have gone way past my bed time!
    Have a good night. :)

  92. 92
    Han Solo says:

    PP, those are good points and two important factors.

    Liz, there is a dearth of female kindness towards men these days (though there are some kind women). But it’s like women think they can’t do anything nice or they’re being subservient or taken advantage of. Insane.

  93. 93
    Han Solo says:

    @Morpheus and ADBG

    Women’s lists are way too long these days and they get tons of attention but act as if they get none, just like that ugly chick from the online dating TED talk.

  94. 94
    jf12 says:

    #81 In the feral state, if they can then women will share a top male rather than getting Plan Bs for themselves.

  95. 95

    […] It’s an interesting question and to find the answer we have to delve into the recesses of the female mating mind and the incentives for survival and reproduction that lie beneath.  […]

  96. 96
    Starlight says:

    @ PP

    “Following the herd is easier for most.”

    Wise words! Mind numbing how many don’t feel like thinking for themselves nowadays. Thinking is too much work, so accepting what others tell me as true is easier. Making your own informed choices involves thinking, so let’s go the easy way and follow others even if it’s the blind leading the blind.

    “There are not many good role models out there for young women in particular.”

    I wish we had some. But at least we have the power to be a great example for others, we have the power to inspire others and consequently make a change in society – even if the latter is small and happens very slowly. There may not be many of us sharing this school of thought, but with persistence I’m hoping we’ll grow in numbers.

    “Like Starlight and Larry J’s wife I don’t like working with women and would rather work with men any day. That said my current boss is a woman who like me hates working with other women for the reasons Starlight stated above (good work Starlight). So my boss is in one office and I run the other office we each work alone.”

    Thanks PP for the kind words. :)

  97. 97
    Liz says:

    I don’t like working with women so much either, Starlight. There’s always drama. I’ve always prefered working with, and for, men. Long, long ago I worked at a cafe with all women. They decided they didn’t like me (they were fat, much older, most were single) so they told the owner (another woman) I never did any work and also claimed I was stealing. I was actually the only one who did any work in that place, never stole a thing in my life, and my looks were a draw…the place was full of customers. The owner spoke to me, and I quit. I just wasn’t willing to take that kind of shit and didn’t have to. They went out of business a few months later.

    After majoring in a STEM field filled with men, going back to school later in the RN program was a real eye-opening experience. Half the class hated the other half. When we voted on class representatives I was the only one outside of the box, the one person between two herds and I refused to vote so it was always a draw (they had two reps). The actual hospital work environment was comparatively sane. I liked it.

  98. 98
    jf12 says:

    #97 In most species of birds and mammals, a minority of females escape the travails of the pecking order by seeking the company of males. Seriously.

  99. 99
    Starlight says:

    Liz, your ex-colleagues at the coffee shop are pretty mean! Glad you moved on to greener grass into a hospital work environment.

    I don’t mind working with sane women – it’s the nutters that I try to avoid.

    Cool, you studied a field in STEM! What did you study if you don’t mind me asking? What made you change into becoming a nurse? :)

  100. 100
    Liz says:

    #99: I agree, and do have some close female friends. We tend to be ideologically alligned though. Monogamy and traditional values are the equivalent of thumbing your nose at the establishment…positively countercultural act these days.
    :-)

    My first degree was in Chemistry (I was originally a Chemical engineering major, but after marrying a military guy I needed to finish FAST, and chemistry took two years less). Got my second BS as a medical technologist (credits for the first degree transferred so it only took a year)…thought it might come in handy with the multiple moves if I got certified to work in hospital medical laboratories. But automation kind of made those jobs scarce as well. I did work as a clinical chemist, but only for about a year and a half. Then I went into the RN program.

  101. 101
    Liz says:

    Just read again…why did I go into the RN program? We don’t have anyone in the medical field on either side of the family and I thought the knowledge would come in handy (it has, many times…what I know now I think everyone should have someone with medical experience in the family). Also, it’s a marketable field for a military spouse.

  102. 102
    Starlight says:

    “Monogamy and traditional values are the equivalent of thumbing your nose at the establishment…positively countercultural act these days.”

    That’s one of the best things I’ve heard today.

    “My first degree was in Chemistry”

    Sweet! I must say, you’ve got an interesting life. Hope you are enjoying working as a registered nurse. I’ve got some friends in that field, the tales they told me about night shifts. They love it though. :)

  103. 103

    Thought I’d throw out a cautiously optimistic observation: because of the female-female “indirect aggression” social dynamics outlined above (which can combine the lethal cocktail of (1) emotive snap judgment, (2) snark/gossip to reinforce those judgments and form alliances, (3) increasing sensitivity to competition for male attention and intra-gender status hierarchies, and (4) long-term unrepairable grudges) + the sheer numbers of females moving into and already occupying higher educational and occupational spaces, I believe that more women are running into these problems and developing empathy for what men in exploitative, toxic relationships have to deal with.

    Maybe I’m being a Pollyanna, but I can imagine a growing cohort of women who feel a sort of reactionary bias towards understanding the male side of the story. I think we clearly see examples of this among the women who post regularly at J4G. Is total agreement going to occur? Of course not. There is also a potential psychological tension created when one feels simultaneously defensive about one’s gender and disgusted with the behavior of some bad apples among one’s gender. How do we navigate this? How do we properly encouraged the Supergirls while simultaneously dealing with the Toxics?

    Re: fake boobs and trashiness. At the risk of sounding like a vulgarian or member of the muddy proletariat, I will confess that I often find the well-executed “Pow!” (but within the limits of taste and athletic reality) boob jobs to be quite fetching. This may be due to years of heavy porn use—I don’t know. I suppose my criteria would be that if a woman felt self-conscious about this aspect of her body—for whatever reason—then breast augmentation might be a significant boost for her confidence. These *will* generally increase visual/sexual attention from men; how this increased primal attention is handled by a woman who wishes to prioritize non-sexual aspects of relationship is another story, and I agree that this can be a bit of a tightrope.

    However, I personally think that sometimes the smart girls, good girls, etc. prematurely and reflexively concede useful tactics, techniques, and procedures to the more aggressive and body-conscious “bad girls”, and that in this regard a big fake rack *may* be a valid consideration for a woman who is dealing with a physically hyper-competitive SMP (as is the case in many Florida cities, I believe).

  104. 104
    Liz says:

    Thanks Starlight. :-) I enjoyed working as a nurse most of the time, but hung up my spurs (perhaps temporarily, perhaps forever) a little over a year ago. I didn’t like the job I acquired after the last move (number of reasons…culminating when they demanded that I commit outright fraud), and it kind of turned me off to nursing for now (also, my husband is away a lot so it’s difficult with kids, always was really…can’t exactly leave if you’re needed at home when a bunch of patients depend on you).

  105. 105

    I’m sure Danny 504 and Liz can confirm this nurses are the worst.

    jf12 @98 I do this all the time.

    Bastiat
    “However, I personally think that sometimes the smart girls, good girls, etc. prematurely and reflexively concede useful tactics, techniques, and procedures to the more aggressive and body-conscious “bad girls”, and that in this regard a big fake rack *may* be a valid consideration for a woman who is dealing with a physically hyper-competitive SMP (as is the case in many Florida cities, I believe).”

    Until recently I fought this same issue with my own daughter. She is smart with a strict moral code (INFP) and buys into the lie that men should see you for your inner qualities and she shouldn’t have to be “all made up.” The force of Feminism is strong and even slinks its way into the best of homes. In the last year she has embraced the physical aspects that go along with dating. Now I am afraid she is acting a little like ADBG described at #90. I’m at a loss right now.

    As for being Pollyanna, I really see us coming to a time in the culture as you said when women will hear and experience and start speaking out.You probably know the correct term for it but we are coming to a course correction of sorts. Reading Venker’s book was like reading a more eloquent version of my own thoughts.

  106. 106
    Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    #92: But it’s like women think they can’t do anything nice or they’re being subservient or taken advantage of.

    Similar, I guess, to my feeling like I’m penalized for showing the slightest appreciation for anything my wife does for me. To the extent that I show appreciation, she cuts back on the activity.

    Insane.

    Yep.

  107. 107
    PVW says:

    As I think about countercultural women in today’s world, I couldn’t help but consider the possibility of numbers of women being categorized as “sigmas.” I forget who explained the sigma category best, but it was applied to men, those men who eschew the games and the battles over hierarchy, but come out on top in the end. I think for it to work in a female context, sigma women would have to be those who can fit in and run with different herds, but remain loyal to none, insofar as they are independent contractors, or if they are part of a herd they remain loyal to, it is countercultural herd that is outside of the mainstream herd of alpha females.

    What might she look like? She might be of any race or ethnic background, she is presentable and attractive enough, she is cordial to everyone, but doesn’t seek to impress and kow-tow to the alphas females, and neither does she seek to run with them. She isn’t gossipy, so no one knows much about her. Yet, she comes out on top; everyone seems to like her, but when it comes to finding mates and working, she is in a field of her own, in that she works in environments where the herd won’t be found, and she finds boyfriends outside of the herd of men the alpha mares look to. I can think of several women who seem like this.

    Their mindsets and orientation to looking at the world are almost masculine; they don’t gossip about men, clothes and other women. They are all married, and they work, though, in fields that are dominated traditionally by men. They talk about projects, ie., projects related to work or their extracurricular activities, ie., engineering projects, financial projects, legal projects. Yet, they seem very feminine; they have husbands whom they adore, and children they take good care of.

  108. 108
    PVW says:

    Similar, I guess, to my feeling like I’m penalized for showing the slightest appreciation for anything my wife does for me. To the extent that I show appreciation, she cuts back on the activity.

    Insane.

    Yep.

    Me: Insane, I would agree. For some wives, getting appreciation makes them want to do even more…For the follow up to the appreciation is very good indeed!

  109. 109
    deti says:

    Badpainter 84:

    “ So what I’m asking is if we could Redpill all the men would women dial back the hypergamy? How much of the current state affairs is because the betas a no longer good men (as opposed to being decent people), and how much is because of hypergamy run wild? No matter who started this mess, at some point it seems to me both, sides are racing to the bottom.”

    Yes, it’s a race to the bottom. But the answer to your first question is no, and is essentially the hypothetical “red queen” scenario. It’s hypothetical because it will never ever happen. The answer to your second question is that it is precisely because of hypergamy run amok.

    If you make all the men into “alphas” but left women as they are, women would still find ever more ways to separate out the top men. There would be ever increasingly fine gradations: 9.2, 9.4, 9.34, 9.565, etc. This man is “more alpha” because he earns $10 million while this other guy only earned $8 million. This man is more alpha because his stubble is more even than this other man. That man has a 9.5” penis and is more alpha than the man with only a 9.3” penis.

    What has happened is unleashing hypergamy with no constraints on it whatsoever. There are no (immediately apparent) bad consequences or adverse judgments for women doing whatever they wish. What has happened on a macro scale is women at all levels participating in the SMP, sexing the top men for the fun and for a longshot at commitment. Lower tiered men get squeezed out and increasingly “betaize” themselves by becoming commitment sluts (i.e. offering commitment to literally any woman who will have them). Many who try that route and fail simply drop out altogether.

    So no, making all men more alpha won’t ultimately fix it. It will help some men; those who can become game-proficient (which most men cannot do because they don’t have the tools or the raw materials or the perseverance) or game competent (which a few more men will be able to do). Most men simply won’t do it; they’ll get commitment by offering it to a substandard woman, or will simply not marry.

    The way you fix this is to clamp down on hypergamy by eliminating no fault divorce and government assistance to baby mamas and divorced moms. You incentivize marriage and disincentivize divorce. You tell women to select husbands very, very carefully because absent death or extremely extenuating circumstances, this man whom you’re picking is IT – he is your husband for the rest of your life and you had damn well better find a way to make it work. You clearly demonstrate to women that if they don’t select a suitable husband soon, one of two things will happen – she’ll be very, very limited to the low value men; or she’ll be shit out of luck altogether and will be a spinster. You clearly demonstrate to women that the consequences of premarital sluthood are the same – marriage to a low value man or no marriage at all; and that’s just for starters. Show sluts they’ll also have to contend with STDs; infertility; alpha widowhood and grinding unhappiness because of it; loneliness; social isolation; alcoholism; and drug abuse.

    But you don’t have men tell women this. You have mom do it. Grandmas, aunties, older cousins. Except now you can’t have mom do it because she herself has a drinking problem, probably the result of the parade of alphas in and out of her bedroom after she frivorced dad. You can’t have grandma do it because she long ago gave up on her daughter. You can’t have paternal grandma do it because she was kicked out of her life along with dad. You can’t have older cousin do it, because older cousin is herself a party girl slut.

    So that’s the problem, really.

  110. 110

    I think you’ve got it PVW. It’s how I opperate to a t and I bet Liz does too.

  111. 111

    Deti,
    Are you saying that even making positive examples of women who get it over time won’t change a thing. I need to know if I’m tilting at windmills in my efforts with the young girls in my group.

  112. 112

    Never mind Deti, no need to answer that.

  113. 113
    SirNemesis says:

    @ Badpainter

    Only took western civilization 1000 years to work it’s way out of the collapse of Rome. Took another 400+ years to hit its zenith, and less than 100 to slide to this point.

    Which brings up the question: is there a place like Constantinople in the West? Perhaps Utah?

  114. 114
    deti says:

    PP:

    I’m glad to answer it. Yes it will help to have women who get it serve as a positive influence. What you need to have is women who have married with varying degrees of success and who have made it work.

    You also need dads who control their daughters. Not dads who are friends or buddies to their daughters. Dads who CONTROL their daughters; who make and enforce rules, and lay down consequences for violating them. Dads who say “no you cannot go out with F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer. IDGAS if you yell, cry, scream, and shout “I hate you” at the top of your lungs. You still can’t go out with F*ckbuddy. You’ll get over it.”

    The way you get dads who control their daughters is to have dads who live with their daughters. The way you have dads who live with their daughters is to have moms who fucking stay married to them and who don’t bolt at the first sign of trouble or unhappiness.

  115. 115
  116. 116

    I would also add fathers can remain a huge influence over their daughters once they get past 18. Right now it is the opinion of my husband that reigns her in more than mine.

  117. 117
    PVW says:

    @Practically Perfect: I think you’ve got it PVW. It’s how I operate to a t and I bet Liz does too. Me: I would put myself in that category, although I have numbers of female relatives who would love to have me be part of their herd of gossipy women. I just focus upon my female friends who are more like me.

  118. 118

    @PVW,
    It’s nice to know there are more of us out there then we think. :)

  119. 119
  120. 120
    SirNemesis says:

    @ pp2

    Deti,
    Are you saying that even making positive examples of women who get it over time won’t change a thing. I need to know if I’m tilting at windmills in my efforts with the young girls in my group.

    I think he meant that there need to be more women like you making positive examples, but that this won’t happen, because there aren’t that many women like you left to give proper advice…

  121. 121
    jf12 says:

    #109 “So that’s the problem, really.” Yes, that is the problem: a complete lack of women who CAN demonstrate the value in settling for a good enough man. Because they never did.

  122. 122
    jf12 says:

    So, condensing a few thoughts here, the way a herd-woman treats a man like a girl is to make him a beta orbiter. Then she is his alpha mare, and he is her beta mare. The opposite of this is, I think, the main reason so many betas (“Even as you or I!” (Kipling’s Vampire)) fail so miserably with women: the man erroneously believes he can get the woman to be a beta orbiter of him, but that would make him an alpha mare in her mind.

  123. 123
    jf12 says:

    #113 Utah as the bulwark of traditional Western Civ vs .. what? Hoodlums, Germanic barbarians, Mongol hordes, Ottoman Janissaries?

  124. 124
    jf12 says:

    Probably the funniest paradox of irrationally unbounded hypergamy is so many (so very many!) women voluntarily settling for Absolute Nothing and Nobody just because they cannot get the best possible. The paradox of choice. The more rational bounded hypergamy familiar from earlier generations, in which a young girl settles early with the best of the local boys she could get, has been replaced, not least via nationwide saturation bombing of mass media, by not settling with anyone at all.

    Unbounded hypergamy has decreased marriage rate. Has decreased marital satisfaction. Has decreased marital length. The more choices a woman is given the worse choosing she does.

  125. 125
    jf12 says:

    Ohh! Women look to the alpha mare’s choices in order to narrow their own domain of choices.

  126. 126

    @ Sir Nemesis,
    I think what bothers me is the idea that women are incapable of change or learning from the past, but then again looking back at history, change or retaining lessons seems to be something humans as a whole have difficulty doing. Ebb then flow, rise then fall, scarcity then abundance and back again, seems to be the way of life. It seems we are caught in a ebb tide.

  127. 127

    Curious about what how abundance and economic growth effects the elements leadership? Does abundance and growth create weaker or to many leaders/alpha’s or the opposite?

  128. 128
    deti says:

    All:

    Ultimately, the sexual and marriage marketplaces are about the ability to influence the decisionmaking. In short, who has the power, and how that power is wielded.

    Young women are the rockstars of the SMP. Nature puts literally all the sexual power in her hands. She can use that power to either construct a palace; or detonate everything in her path. Past generations well understood that if you allowed a young single woman to use that power indiscriminately or unwisely, she would destroy everything. They also understood that if she received some guidance and used that power within guardrails, she could build her palace and live within that palace in relative peace and contentment.

    Well, young women decided they knew better than mom and dad, and grandma and grandpa. She fought for, and won, the right to do whatever she wanted the moment she turned 18. So, before the SexRev, we had:

    –daughter dates and/or courts under the watchful eye of dad, and with dad’s permission.
    –dad makes the final decision on whether a man can court his daughter. Eddie Steadyman, Paul Plumber, Louie Lawyer, Phil Pastor – they can date her. Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, Harley McBadboy, Alpha McGorgeous, and Frank Fratboy may not date her.
    –if daughter decides to date one of the latter group, that’s fine, but she has now stepped outside his protection. She is on her own. She cannot have both Fuckbuddy’s dick and daddy’s wallet.
    –daughter uses her sexual power to secure for herself the best man she can get FOR MARRIAGE from among men willing to offer her commitment. She withholds sex until she has secured commitment. (He, on the other hand, withholds commitment until he has selected a woman who is in love with him and wants HIM, not the idea of marriage or a wedding.)
    –dad blesses her decision to marry one of the men he allows to date/court her.
    –daughter has between 4 and 8 children with her husband, and she lives in relative peace and happiness.

    Well, daughter didn’t like that. She wanted to do it herself. So now it’s:

    — while at the tail end of high school, through college, and then for a few years while working, daughter dates whoever she wants. She “dates” (i.e., gets fucked by) Harley, Fuckbuddy, Alpha and Frank (and perhaps some of their friends).

    (It’s worth noting that she has her own money, so as to be “independent” of a man – in this case her father, who has nothing to say about who she dates/fucks, because it’s not his money on the line.)

    –unable to secure commitment from the attractive men who fuck her, daughter then decides it’s time to look for a man to marry.
    –daughter finds, fucks and marries from among the first group of men (Eddie, Louie, Paul and Phil). None of them really tingle her, but it’s time to get married after all. So, she does the best she can, heaves a sigh, holds her nose, and picks Eddie.
    –Daughter and Eddie have a couple of kids, But daughter isn’t really all that happy. She’s vaguely discontent but doesn’t know why.
    –Daughter now must choose between (a) frivorcing Eddie for cash and prizes; and (b) remaining in a loveless, sexless, grindingly unhappy marriage to Eddie. Statistically, she chooses (a) because there’s no immediately apparent downside.

  129. 129
    Han Solo says:

    @PVW

    Some comments on people who make their way through life outside the herd.

    The equivalent of the alpha (leader within the social hierarchy) is the sigma (highly successful outside the social hierarchy–as successful and attractive as the alpha but the one thing the sigma usually lacks is the large group of beta followers to bring to bear on any given problem). Also, many sigmas end up creating their own social hierarchy and thus end up becoming alphas of their new herd they’ve drawn after them. Perhaps/probably they can still be thought of as sigmas (or now as alpha-sigmas) to the extent they don’t follow the conventions of the alpha. Sigmas are rarer in number than alphas because it’s simply harder to succeed outside the social hierarchy. The herd/tribe exists for a reason. It’s easier to prosper with the cooperation of others. I would imagine that due to their love of and need of the herd that female sigmas are even rarer than male ones.

    The man or woman who takes or is compelled to take a safer, less-riskier, cog-in-the-machine role in the social structure is the beta. The numerically rarer outside-the-hierarchy equivalent of the beta (man or woman) could be called a ZETA. A zeta could be an artist who makes a living selling their paintings (or something similarly unconventional and relatively difficult to make a living on) but is not a sigma because they don’t have some exceptional talent/genius and maniacal drive to strive for AND ACHIEVE greatness. Just as a man who tries but fails to dominate the social hierarchy is not an alpha (but rather a wanna-be-alpha), a man who doesn’t achieve great success outside the social hierarchy is not a sigma, but as long as they can survive at a comfortable level they could be called a zeta. A homeless bum wouldn’t even rise to the level of zeta but would basically be an omega (not sure if we need to differentiate between omegas inside or outside the social hierarchy but I guess you could lol).

    I’m not going to try to attempt to say whether the women here are the female analogs of alphas, betas, greater betas, sigmas, zetas or greater zetas but just wanted to throw out the important point that alphas are few in number and sigmas are fewer.

    In Lord of the Rings, Galadriel would be an apex-alpha female because she governs her social structure and is a ring bearer. Imagine a woman (or female elf if you will) of similar power that stayed largely alone and wandered the wild and visited the various cities to fulfill important missions, dispensing wisdom to those in need, dispatching bands of orcs when opportunity arose–she would be a sigma. Aragorn was basically a sigma when he was a ranger but then when he finally accepted to come out in the open as the king and lead his people he became an apex alpha. Gandalf mostly plays the role of a sigma–as intended–whereas Saruman loves power and becomes an apex alpha (one who is ultimately defeated) and attracts legions of orcs to his cause and creates further followers in his Uruk-hai.

    Back to the female side of things, in many ways Arwen could sort of be seen as a sigma because she decides to leave the social structure of the elves that are going to the western lands and fulfill her self-chosen mission of helping and eventually marrying Aragorn and having children with him and restoring greatness to the men of Middle Earth.

  130. 130
    Badpainter says:

    Yippee, I’m a Zeta.

    Nicely done Han Solo, and a very good and useful definition of us outsiders. If we can’t label things we can’t understand them.

  131. 131
    SirNemesis says:

    @ pp2

    I think what bothers me is the idea that women are incapable of change or learning from the past, but then again looking back at history, change or retaining lessons seems to be something humans as a whole have difficulty doing. Ebb then flow, rise then fall, scarcity then abundance and back again, seems to be the way of life. It seems we are caught in a ebb tide.

    Yeah, this is hardly a trait that is characteristic of women. It’s something that is prevalent in both men and women.

  132. 132
    PVW says:

    @ HanSolo: “I would imagine that due to their love of and need of the herd that female sigmas are even rarer than male ones.”

    Me: I was imagining in my observations, women who have herd connections, for example, different groups of women with whom they connect, but who don’t seem to be wedded to any one. They might not be as highly motivated to participate in a herd and to be guided by it: women who are more independent-minded. If anything, to get the type of ideal being imagined here, of countercultural woman who resist the toxicity of the herd, there will need to be a lot more women like that. Or if they do participate in a herd, it will have to be very countercultural.

  133. 133
    jf12 says:

    Re: crouching sigma, hidden apex. Sounds like a woman’s fantasy/fallacy.

  134. 134
    Tam the Bam says:

    @jf12: “.. his management style was apoplectic and grown men, including many alphas, literally wet their pants in fear of his displeasure. But women laughed at him, making him angrier.”

    A classic description of autistic rage. Does he do unabashed repetitive movements in public, and possibly falling-down fits, euphemized as “petit-mal” or the like? Along with the socially awkward penguin bit.
    No wonder he wins arguments. There’s nothing else, literally nothing, in his head.

    And the presentation of an alternate “reality” by others, gibing with the (oh-so-painfully constructed, vertex by vertex, and pixel by pixel by his own highly trained brain) world in his head causes absolute meltdown. Destroyyyy1!!1!!
    I feel quite sad for the poor little fellow now. It’s genetic. His kids will be somewhere on the spectrum eventually. And it rarely comes good, in that the abnormality coincides with a particular technological and social milieu in the way that he was fortunate enough to encounter.
    100 years ago he’d have been the village idiot, set to counting nails and grading them by size. Or a lawyer.

  135. 135

    Too many Americans self-define themselves as inner-directed, face-to-the-freezing-wind loners. Its because we are the descendants of the ADHD-cursed peasants who couldn’t cut the tedium of traditional agrarian life in Europe.

    My estimate is that maybe 1 out of 10 of them actually are. The rest are just sodomized chumps like me putting on their Braveheart face.

  136. 136
    jf12 says:

    Given that women in a group are
    1) Even pickier about men
    2) Even harder to approach
    3) Etc
    maybe the form of the herd follows the function of the herd: downselecting males.

  137. 137
    Obsidian says:

    @Deti 128:
    BOOM.

    That is all.

    O.

  138. 138
    jf12 says:

    Women’s interest magazines are filled with half-naked women. Men’s interest magazines that are filled with pictures of sports action, cars, fishing boats, guns, video game swordplay, etc. outsell the lad rags filled with half naked women.

    If I remember right, studies of eye movements of hetero men and women viewing hetero porn images showed that men and women both spent almost all their time looking at the naked women’s body parts and very little time looking at the men. I remember I was a little surprised that women weren’t as interested in the lampshades and throwpillows and drapes as in my experience.

  139. 139
    Badpainter says:

    jf12:

    “Given that women in a group are
    1) Even pickier about men
    2) Even harder to approach
    3) Etc
    maybe the form of the herd follows the function of the herd: downselecting males.”

    Yes I would agree with this. I have a thought as to why this is necessary. Women are insecure and fearful. Women produce children, men produce civilizations. Because men are stronger physically in any debate about whether women, and therefore children, are more important than men, men always win if carried to extremes. Civilization is an idea passed down from man to man, women are interchangeable and replaceable. In order to maintain an equilibrium where women are not just sex slaves women have to herd and select the men that will run the civilization for their benefit. So they over compensate their desired overlords and under compensate, and manipulate the others in search for a sort of autonomy and peaceful existence. If women reward men properly they can get the alphas to enforce civilization on the rest of the men, and acquire the necessary cooperation of the rest of the men in the upkeep and defense of that civilization.

    When women collectively have a sense of physical security the unilaterally change the amounts and methods of compensation paid to the men. What women don’t understand is that civilization was not built for women but rather to secure the compensation paid by women to men.

  140. 140
    jf12 says:

    Badpainter: “civilization was not built for women but rather to secure the compensation paid by women to men” This fits with the evo psych zeitgeist (it’s omnipresent, seems to me, although I don’t know how structured is the concept) of monogamous civilization being the emergent result of men not wanting to battle with other men, while women’s uncivilizing preferences are to voyeur (verb) men in battle and to compensate the victor with the spoils of polygamy.

  141. 141
    Badpainter says:

    Polygamy creates perverse incentives which may make alphas less physically, and politically secure and will certainly compromise the freedom of most women. A society where so many men are left without an opportunity to secure female compensation have to be permitted some leeway when it comes to rape, or women have to where burkas and be escorted by male family members.

  142. 142
    Han Solo says:

    Badpainter, men should not be permitted leeway when it comes to rape (and I mean real rape, not the vague definitions of it that radfems deal with).

  143. 143
    Morpheus says:

    A society where so many men are left without an opportunity to secure female compensation have to be permitted some leeway when it comes to rape, or women have to where burkas and be escorted by male family members.

    Or prostitution? I don’t know my history too well here, but didn’t ancient polygamous societies have structural prostitution. Weren’t prostitutes even elevated in status? I could be way off base here…this is off the top of my head with no research

  144. 144
    Tam the Bam says:

    jf12@ #138, more stuff about that.
    The Finns, being a fun kind of people, decided to do a science thing after my own heart.

    “The results showed that in less than 0.2 seconds the brain shows improved efficiency when processing pictures of nude bodies than when the person in the picture is wearing clothes.
    In fact, the less clothing the models in the pictures were wearing, the more enhanced the information processing: the brain responses were at their strongest when the participants looked at pictures of nude bodies, second strongest when looking at bodies in swimsuits, and weakest when looking at fully clothed bodies.

    Male brains more selective
    Male participants’ brain responses were stronger to nude female than to nude male bodies, whereas the
    female participants’ brain responses were not affected by the sex of the bodies shown.”

    Well slap me tits and call me Mary! Who knew?
    And there was I, being assured it was all ‘cultural conditioning’ by the usual suspects, and that men should just .. don’t do that, guys.

  145. 145
    Badpainter says:

    In a society structured around polygamy forcible rape is reality that has to be expected. One group of men hoarding women is a problem. Those men left out of the polygamous SMP must be permitted sexual access by prostitution, some tolerance of rape or the alphas will find their own lives at risk. Honor killings are how rape is dealt with in most of the Islamic world.

    Han Solo is right in that forcible rape is never acceptable in an absolute sense but barbaric societies work by different rules. Polygamy is barbaric.

  146. 146
    jf12 says:

    #145 the solution to “lost boys” has always been to ensure they get losted. In nearly enclosed society, the fugacity of a lost boy to an outer heat bath is controlled by the socioeconomic analogue of chemical potential: it has to be worth his while. You could pay him to get lost, for example, or ensure that he finds “foreign” girls easier. In a totally enclosed society, e.g. a citizen of Earth, he will have to be killed one way or another.

    I should get bonus points just for using the word fugacity (and earlier, symplectic) properly, much less in context. I mention with amused mastery that my AP history and English essay answers were used as the examplars for a 5, decades ago, to help guide training of graders.

  147. 147
    jf12 says:

    Dalrock mentioned an important point for status among human females.
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/intrasexual-competition-and-the-strong-independent-woman/#comment-106495
    “Getting back to women’s intrasexual competition, what matters most is proving investment by a worthy man. … Unlike the tingle, women competing for the investment of worthy men aren’t just evaluating these men on alpha traits. In fact, while alpha traits are a definite positive[,] beta provision and protection traits are a must.”
    I’m going to go so far as to say that while there are two ladders for men (roughly acuurately, if not precisely, the alpha ladder and the beta ladder), there are two rooftops for women: the whore and the madonna. The whore’s crowning achievement is to be a (a, not the) kept woman of a top alpha, so that for status she doesn’t have to have any other alphas. The madonna’s crowning achievement is to marry the (the, not a) top beta, so that for status she doesn’t have to have any other beta male orbiters.

  148. 148
    jf12 says:

    While I’m still in a grand synthesis mood, what other conundrums of life should I pontificate about?

  149. 149
    Badpainter says:

    jf12, it occurs to me your frugality of lost boys hypothesis implies that hypergamy is ultimately responsible for jihad.

  150. 150
    Badpainter says:

    Damnable autocorrect! Meant “frugacity” not “frugality”

  151. 151
    jf12 says:

    Fugacity is the spelling. It means escaping tendency (same root as fugitive). For a gas, fugacity is basically pressure. The most effect proponent of fugacity as a unifying metric in the natural sciences was Don Mackay at Trent, a mentor and influence. But it has meaning in plenty of systems contexts, including complexity and computation theory. I presume it hasn’t made it to the social (unnatural!) sciences yet, but if I’m not the first that’s fine by me.

    “There will be 72 women for you in the world to come, so don’t mind your lack of women here.” Yeah, I could see how that might work with a scarcity mentality.

  152. 152

    Re: monogamous civilization. Yeah, in such an arrangement—anthropologists typically view these societies as requiring marriage as the gateway to socially-sanctioned sex—there are two major groups of relative “winners”:

    1. Women who manage to secure legally-sanctioned resource-exchange relationships with resource-heavy males benefit because the system prevents these males from doing what they otherwise naturally would (i.e., the men would, under polygamous conditions, intuitively view resource-acquisition primarily from the standpoint of “reproductive consumption”—continually converting fresh resources they acquired into a parade of similarly fresh sexual opportunities. In monogamy, this pathway has been socially marginalized).

    2. “Average” men benefit similarly because the 1 man/1 woman paradigm reduces the opportunities for the males in #1 to wildly run harems and contaminate the SMP with all manner of downside risks for the other, non-party participant men. In a polygamous situation, on the other hand, a relatively small percentage of well-positioned men could exploit their good fortunes by racking up high numbers of sexual partners. A circuit-breaker against this might under primitive, EEA conditions well be actual violence, because a single alpha trying to run a harem would still be no match for three or four guys who were sick of his sex-gluttony and wanted to teach him a painful lesson about being a team player.

    The polygamy scenario could even deeply bother men who were happily partnered off in monogamous relationships because they could feel that they have played by the rules that were well-understood at the time, but now other guys seem to be rewarded in an excessive/unjust way (although the partnered male critics would not necessarily blame the promiscuous guys at all for this).

    The question here is really focused on the prevalence of *pre-marital sex*. It’s not directly about some modern abstraction such as the existence or non-existence of a campus hook-up culture, although I find the campus SMP to be endlessly fascinating. The issue is whether or not men have to get into legally-regulated monogamous contractual situations (an artificially-imposed legal entity dealing with economic resources, particularly in the event of partnership dissolation) in order to acquire sex (a primale, innate drive). This could be perhaps unromantically viewed as a type of harnessing process, a way to domesticate the male via his powerful sex drive.

    If they *generally* do need to get married to obtain sex (or at least relatively reliable sex), then, unsurprisingly enough, men will tend to want to get married quite early in life, and they will really prize chastity. Why? Because they will want to have sex very badly and this is the action funnel required to get it, and because sex is very expensive for them and they don’t want to share it or face price discrimination, cuckold risks, etc.

    So we have good news and bad news with the current regime. If you are not particularly interested in pre-marital sex, be it in the format of one night stands, multi-night hookups, FWB arrangements, serial monogamy, or whatever, then you probably are also likely to want to marry a woman when you are both quite young (and sexually inexperienced—i.e., “pure”), and then build a life together as a single “tactical” entity making decisions based on what is best for the team, with strong use of labor market specialization efficiencies and so on. If this sounds good to you, then this culture is definitely not your friend.

    Likewise, if you are a youngish female who ultimately aspires to a legally-secured relationship with a provisioning male partner who handles resource acquisition, then you probably view sex as an important resource/negotiation pivot which can be strategically rationed to scale with male generosity, commitment displays, etc. If this sounds like your POV in simple terms, then you are also potentially facing a grim mating landscape. Many of your male peers have been systematically conditioned to expect you to be an empowered and aggressively ambitious co-provisioner who leans in to work her ass off in her career. You may have significant student debts, as well as years spent in professional track training and education. Furthermore, as you are increasingly free of the tools of patriarchal oppression—condemnation and control of female sexuality by Taliban-like male committees of sexual prudes + male dominated education and career opportunities which historically limited the opportunity for women to be economically independent—you are now expected to have non-transactional views of sex (i.e., sex is a positive good in and of itself), and may be viewed with suspicion if it seems like you are looking to be compensated for it in some way. No free lunch, no free career/home optionality, no “taking a career break” because now America is counting on you, etc.

    Maybe this is why the various seismic plates of the Manosphere can have an almost schizo attitude about this being both “the best of times, and the worst of times.” In terms of predictions, I suppose that one indicator that things were proceeding down the polygamy path would be if the sexual equivalent of the Gini coefficient, a popular measure in income inequality in a pop, was growing higher—closer to a value of “1.0”—over time. We’d probably see that many men were experiencing low-N sexual austerity while a relatively small percentage displayed quite high N-counts.

  153. 153
    Morpheus says:

    Likewise, if you are a youngish female who ultimately aspires to a legally-secured relationship with a provisioning male partner who handles resource acquisition, then you probably view sex as an important resource/negotiation pivot which can be strategically rationed to scale with male generosity, commitment displays, etc. If this sounds like your POV in simple terms, then you are also potentially facing a grim mating landscape.

    I’d point out that for these women and those who advocate for them or vicariously put themselves in their shoes, men who dispense knowledge to other men about the full suite of relationship/sexual options/opportunities are HIGHLY THREATENING and definitely perceived as the enemy. One of the variables impacting market conditions is the number of men who live in “blue pill blissful ignorance”.

  154. 154
    BuenaVista says:

    BB, I think most everything devolves to your concepts of validational, and transactional sexual entanglements. This particular dichotomy has been very instructive for me.

    When I backtest, by far the most notable romantic experiences were 100% validational. Yet easily 90 or 95% of my romantic life has been, seen clearly, transactional. This is an extremely useful framework that I urged a friend of mine today to consider, as he is buried in an asexual, monogamous relationship with a starfish wife.

    Perhaps the most stable and successful monogamous relationships today are those of the cognitive elite. Murray writes about them a lot, and regrets that they are unwilling to lobby society to follow their example. My first-hand impression of these relationships is that they are utterly pragmatic and Victorian: the sex is transactional and procreational. But to be married, and married over time, is a status symbol far rarer than a new Aston-Martin. So they ‘work at it.’ Elsewhere we’ve discussed the torpor, married celibacy, and simmering rage that characterizes the couplings of two such master race members.

    Polygamy will be legal soon, as Scalia predicted in the Texas sodomy case, and as is being tested now in Utah. I don’t really care, to be honest. It will be entertaining to watch the sex-positive feminists parse some of their flock choosing to be chattel to a manly Mormon. After a generation of having their heads handed to them, I expect a lot of dads to witness that, and the Bedlam of urban alpha-hunting, and just say to their girls, “Knock it off. Bob is inheriting the Ford dealership. He’s not that fat and he’s nice to you.”

  155. 155
    Morpheus says:

    Maybe this is why the various seismic plates of the Manosphere can have an almost schizo attitude about this being both “the best of times, and the worst of times.”

    I suspect views vary considerably across the Sphere (PUAs vs MGTOWs for example) depending on how willing and able a man is to adapt to current market realities. To put in trading terms, the current SMP is chock full of inefficiencies that can be profitably arbed by the man who knows where to look and how to trade.

  156. 156
    Morpheus says:

    BB, I think most everything devolves to your concepts of validational, and transactional sexual entanglements. This particular dichotomy has been very instructive for me.

    Anecdote time :)

    I have a co-worker and I’d say he is a friend as well who is tall, good-looking, and charismatic. He hit the trifecta. He’s got some major issues as well. Anyways, he and his hot blonde 21-year old girlfriend (my best man at my wedding remarked she was the hottest girl there) recently broke up. Oh, and he is in his early 30s. Nope, women WON’T date much older men. LOL. Anyways, he is now single and recently he met a 38-year old MILF (recent divorcee, just a few months at a bar. Her body is rocking…I know…because he has showed me the pics of her in a bra and panties that she sent him. She ended up giving him a blowjob in his car the same night they met. Just the other day, they had set up a “date”. She came over to his place, and when he gave her the tour including his bedroom, she shut the door, and they fucked before even going out on the “date”. That is about as validational as it gets (I doubt he even spent .10 on her up to that point), although I’d add that part of her motivation may also to be validated. His life story is chock full of these validational sexual experiences.

    Now here’s the thing. Obviously, there is no LTR potential there probably from either person’s perspective. I’d bet my entire 401(k) that at some point down the road, when “hottie MILF” is finished with “post-divorce fun” and maybe looking to get remarried, that some other chump is going to have to wine and dine her, court her, and “invest” heavily before he probably even sees her in bra and panties.

    The concept of validational versus transactional sex is very real. I suspect most men are ignorant of it, and if they really understood it, it would be viscerally disturbing. There is no way around the fact that the man getting sex from the transactional framework is taking a backseat to the guy getting it from a validational framework.

  157. 157
    Morpheus says:

    Perhaps the most stable and successful monogamous relationships today are those of the cognitive elite. Murray writes about them a lot, and regrets that they are unwilling to lobby society to follow their example. My first-hand impression of these relationships is that they are utterly pragmatic and Victorian: the sex is transactional and procreational. But to be married, and married over time, is a status symbol far rarer than a new Aston-Martin. So they ‘work at it.’ Elsewhere we’ve discussed the torpor, married celibacy, and simmering rage that characterizes the couplings of two such master race members.

    My sense is these marriages are first and foremost primarily economic arrangements and additionally as you point out status symbols. Powerful sexual attraction and deep love, affection, and warmth are likely often secondary factors. They are like the old school European royalty marriages which were primarily about political alliances.

  158. 158
    BuenaVista says:

    #156, Morpheus, your buddy is not getting validated, he’s getting hustled (transacted). She’s on the make to find out, as quickly as possible, if she can domesticate him with a diet of auto-BJs, phone-sex, and jump-sex.

    How do I know this, you may ask?

    You may ask. If a man responds to this treatment by saying, “Wow, I’ve never met anyone like you, this is so great, I feel so close to you” he will be engaged within six months. Guaranteed. Women in this cohort are highly strategic. You don’t want to know how strategic.

    How to prove my point, you may ask?

    You may ask. Have your buddy say, “Hey, we’re moving too fast, we need to see other people.” I predict she will cut him off dead, perhaps freaking out and making a sympathy play first. Probably, he will get a two line text saying, “Fine if that’s the way you want it bye.”

  159. 159
    Morpheus says:

    BV,

    Sold to you :) I’ll take the other side of this trade. I’ve known this guy for 5 years. No way is he getting domesticated by a 38-year old divorcee with a kid. If she thinks she is running a hustle the joke is on her. She is a hot body to him to dump some loads in AND ON. My best guess is he’ll play with her for awhile, see what she is up for and eventually pull the fade. I’ll be shocked if he ends up domesticated in a long-term deal with this woman. I’ll report back how it plays out.

  160. 160
    jf12 says:

    #152 I’m reasonably certain that the spread of male N, whether measured by std dev or total range, has increased significantly since the sexual revolution, although maybe less of an increase than women’s spread! The top guys have always had a lot of women individually. However the proper metric of spread should jettison the involuntarily celibate since the probability unitarity principle otherwise drags down all measures. The truly relevant summary statistics should be as follows, and I give my estimates.
    1. To characterize the low end of the range. The fraction of men which are currently involuntarily sexless. Undoubtedly increased since the sexual revolution, but not much. I estimate 70% easily. 30% totally celibate involuntarily. 20% less than ten times per year if married, and 20% single men less than five times per year. Half the men are married.
    2. Not quite as low end. The fraction of men with lifetime N = 1 monogamy. Undoubtedly significantly decreased and at record low. Maybe 15%. Lower? 10%?
    3. Middle of the range. Median lifetime N for those with multiple partners, i.e. neglecting the kernel of N = 0 (~25%?), and the monogamous N =1 (~15%?). I think median N = 5. Yes, that low.
    4. High end of the range. The value of N, for men with multiple partners, demarcating the uppermost decile from the next uppermost, i.e. the low end of the uppermost 10%. I think this 9th decile value is N = 50. Yes, that high.
    5. Higher range. Median lifetime N for the uppermost decile of those with multiple partners. Shooting wildly I make it at N = 150. But I think N > 500 remains anomalous. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

  161. 161
    jf12 says:

    Agreeing and amplifying.

    Transactional is for beta males. She says she’ll scratch his back if he scratches hers but somehow hers stays itchier than his according to her.
    Validational is for alpha males. She’ll try to scratch his back regardless of him scratching hers and even if his doesn’t itch.

  162. 162
    BuenaVista says:

    #159: we’ll see. My point was not that your friend was naive; my point is that she has a plan. Let’s figure out if she has a plan. I’ll bet a fancy dinner that she follows my prediction. She’s totally on the make.

  163. 163
    jf12 says:

    #153 “One of the variables impacting market conditions is the number of men who live in “blue pill blissful ignorance”.” You know what makes insider trading illegal? Not the sharing of information openly, but hiding that information from others outside the cabal. You know what they call markets that depend on insider trading to keep prices up? Fraud. Soon-to-crash fraud. Short sell it all, yesterday.

  164. 164

    Re: transactional vs. validation sex. I can imagine a thought experiment with a tool that riffs off the Visual Dominance Ratio (VDR) sometimes used in influence studies.

    Validation Sex Ratio: Quality-Weighted Sexual Experience/Resources Expended

    VSR=1….ambiguous

    VSR1…validation contribution dominates

    From a male perspective:

    VSR deteriorating over time = sex failing to provide validation of attractiveness, feelings of entrapment and shame, ultimately deteriorating interest in sex with partner. In macro terms, sex life may be decreasing in quality even as economic power is increasing—if the ratio was stable, this would mean better sex in the relationship. If the ratio is deteriorating, however, it may mean that more resources are being expended for lower-quality sexual experiences.

    Keep in mind that if the VSR1 for them, VSR>1 for you

    OR

    VSR<1 for them, VSR1 for them, VSR<1 for you

    …the Red Zone. Beta Hell, price discrimination, haunted by fuck phantoms. Ego is destroyed, feelings of inadequacy may follow, Troubled thoughts like, "Why did Chett get his magical BJ experience for the price of a latte, why I had to (insert various expensive commitment displays)

    VSR1 for you

    …Haha, sweet success! Welcome to the winner’s circle. Feelings of deep satisfaction, studhood, and grandeur. All seems right with the world. You head off to sleep with a smile on your face. Good night, sweet prince.

  165. 165

    Something weird happened to that last post—the various VSRs did not come through properly, which unfortunately destroys my whole comic timing.

  166. 166
    SirNemesis says:

    @ Bastiat Blogger #152

    Incisive analysis as always.

  167. 167
    SirNemesis says:

    @ Morpheus

    The concept of validational versus transactional sex is very real. I suspect most men are ignorant of it, and if they really understood it, it would be viscerally disturbing. There is no way around the fact that the man getting sex from the transactional framework is taking a backseat to the guy getting it from a validational framework.

    I’m not so sure that young men today are that ignorant of it. I mean, this whole concept goes to the essence of why alpha fucks beta bucks is so hated, and you don’t have to go to the manosphere to see people complaining about alpha fucks beta bucks. Sure, others might call it something else, but there is plenty of complaint about the bistrategic use of sex by women.

  168. 168
    SirNemesis says:

    @ Bastiat Blogger

    I do the same thing sometimes. You have to HTML-sanitize the comment. You have to use &lt and &gt for it.

  169. 169
    BuenaVista says:

    If there is anything more enlivening than validational sex, I’m not sure what it is. Maybe landing a broken airplane, once you stop shaking, makes you feel a little more studly, and provides a vividness that never wanes. Of course, I’ve never killed anyone (whom I can name). The buzz from selling a company lasts a week, and … err, what else is there? Winning at scrabble?

    I just arrived back home on the prairie after six weeks of field research, and of my recent dates, the one I am missing is the crazy one who talks tough in the sex-positive sexual-outlaw vein. (She’s the one who mocks my former life of monogamy, and needs pills to sleep; her cats are terrorists from Lahore who bring dead rats from the DC alleys to the back door.) But evidently she (and the terrorist kitties) miss me too, and not because I bought her dinner in all the right places. There’s potential validational sex in the offing, here, though I suppose she will relapse now that I’m away and enter into some pointless debauch with one of the contractors on her security detail, and that will be that.

  170. 170

    BV, I absolutely concur re: the awesome wave of neurotransmitter and hormonal amplification cascades that follow validation sex. The power is such that men who have had it in the past will cherish these memories even decades after said sex has occurred. If you ask a man about the best sex he has ever had, I think it will almost always be the most validation-heavy experience. It just feels like victory.

    The validation vs. transactional sex meme has started to color how I see the whole SMP, divide it into smaller ecosystems, etc. For women, it could be a very useful conceptual tool because it offers a key insight into male sexuality that many don’t seem to care much about. So if one woman is operating under a modality in which “all sex is sex” and that male validation is relatively unimportant, she may be pushing a transactional agenda that unwittingly and slowly allows deep-seated resentments to build as her man feels that he is paying for sex rather than getting it because of his intrinsic qualities. She may think that when a guy orgasms from a transactional sex experience that he’s “fully satisfied”—he really is not, it’s more complicated than that.

    At some point we may get the hideous scenario in which the guy is self-reporting that he is perfectly happy with a clinically sexless marriage or relationship (I believe “sexless” is typically defined as <10 times per year). The guy is now saying that he is happy with no sex!! He has stopped complaining; he just disengages because he feels cheapened when sex is the relationship battleground and he has to be the one who argues for more, bargains, etc. Maybe he now lives for that brief window of time in which he gets a furtive fap to porn while the wife is in the shower, or maybe he just entertains fantasies about the new receptionist who compliments him about his appearance occasionally. Who knows. But I think that this transactional implosion thing could be considered a deep source of male depression.

    The woman who has mastered validation sex will be essentially making her man come away with more confidence and less stress reactivity, to say nothing of the addictive qualities of validation sex for a man. I am not sure that said woman will typically get much support from other women on this—being proud of providing validation sex may be seen as highly questionable from a feminist platform POV, perhaps even as a form of pandering to base male sexuality that should be restricted as it threatens a transactional agenda. This would be interesting to hear a panel of feminists discuss.

    Speculative, but it seems to me that the % of validation sex in a relationship could potentially be a predictor of all manner of other aspects, pathologies, etc.

  171. 171
    jf12 says:

    So why doesn’t a women stoop to conquer, and have validational sex with the man she KNOWS she ought to, thereby making them both feel better? I think I could probably make a horse drink by holding her head under water long enough, btw.

  172. 172
    Han Solo says:

    @Bastiat 170

    Good thoughts.

    I agree that not having any kind of validational sex can be a source of depression for men.

    I think that more broadly, most men thrive psychologically when they are appreciated and given validation from a special woman with a minority (the highly unrestricted) needing it from many women.

    Focusing on the majority of men that aren’t inveterate players, I think that the absence of love, appreciation and validation sex is probably the biggest cause of depression and especially so for young men in the 14-24 y/o range (and I’m not saying that 14 y/o’s should be having lots of sex). The delayed search by young women for a serious relationship, and thus depriving the average and lower males of attention for a good 10 or 15 years, really wreaks havoc with a lot of young men, IMO. Most men are psychologically like dogs that thrive on being needed, loved by a woman and given attention, the very things that today’s society delays for most young men. And I think this has a direct effect on them checking out and not “manning up.”

  173. 173
    Han Solo says:

    Adding to 172, yesterday I was with my extended family and one of the conversations was on how one of my older, intelligent beta-male cousins who just recently married and finally has a good woman in his life and is expecting a child has just made him so happy and brought a purpose, joy and zest to life that was almost completely absent beforehand. Though early in their marriage, so far it’s a success story that there are good women out there and love is still possible in the time of feminism.

    But relating it to 172, I think that it’s a good example of how a typical guy can be kind of floundering through life and then with the right woman is suddenly so much more motivated and happy.

  174. 174
    OffTheCuff says:

    Jf12: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

    Validation sex vs. transactional. Isn’t it this just a fancy word for “casual”? The sex is not in exchange for anything, not even monogamy.

    I agree it can be quite thrilling.

  175. 175
    jf12 says:

    #174 Validational is sex for sex’s sake.
    I’m not sure I believe the men are having so many more partners than the women.

  176. 176
    jf12 says:

    #174 from that link, women claiming to have been lifetime one-man woman: 13395/61561=21.8%
    Men claiming to have been lifetime one-woman man: 9072/61147=14.8%
    So either one gender or the other is heavily lying to the researchers, or a significant percentage of men are several women’s one-and-only man. Or maybe both.

  177. 177
    Morpheus says:

    Validation sex vs. transactional. Isn’t it this just a fancy word for “casual”? The sex is not in exchange for anything, not even monogamy.

    OTC,

    I don’t think so. I think they are separate descriptions. In fact, you could really have a 2×2 matrix of transactional vs validation and casual vs not casual.

    If I go to a brothel and pay to have sex with a hooker, that is CASUAL and TRANSACTIONAL.

    If I go to a bar, approach a woman, spend the night talking with her, creating “chemistry” and then at the end of the night, she says to come over her place, then that sex is CASUAL and VALIDATIONAL.

    If I am married, and my wife wants to have sex very infrequently and mostly out of a sense of duty that I am a good provider, and she is doing her “wifely duties” that is NOT CASUAL and TRANSACTIONAL. We know these situations exist otherwise Athol Kay wouldn’t have a business out of advising married men.

    If I have a girlfriend of a year, who grabs me and tells me how hot she thinks I am, and wants it now, then that is NOT CASUAL and VALIDATIONAL.

  178. 178
    Badger says:

    Been following this for a while, and I think there’s a third tag in there: simple pleasure sex. I think of “validation” as related to other basic needs besides sexual arousal – to feel she’s pretty, to feel loved, to not be alone, to feel like someone of value wants her and so that makes her of value.

  179. 179
    Elspeth says:

    Women only obsess about what other women think when they don’t respect their man enough to care more about what he thinks.

  180. 180
    jf12 says:

    #179 Yes, I totally agree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>