In last week’s Looks Count post I broke down a particular demographic outline that loosely describes the various phases of women’s lives and the importance they tend to place on certain male characteristics in relation to qualifying for their intimacy. The focus in that post was on the importance of physical attributes women filter for, but I felt it deserved a better explanation in whole. Granted, I’m basing my estimates on women in westernized cultures and the general progression most become acculturated to, however I think in a global sense, and accounting for socioeconomic contexts, the progression remains fairly predictable.
Women’s Sexual Pluralism
In the study I linked by Dr. Martie Hasselton there was a very salient point that kind of gets passed up since the focus of that social experiment was more about isolating variables in women’s physical preferences for males. That point was illustrating women’s pluralistic sexual strategies – short term breeding strategies whilst in her sexual peak demographic, progressing to long term sexual strategies as her sexual agency becomes less valuable and subject to the rigors of competition anxiety in the SMP.
According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.
From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.
Over the course of a woman’s life the priorities and criteria a woman holds for a ‘suitable’ mate fluctuate in response to the conditions she finds herself in. The criterion for short term coupling are much easier to demand when a woman is in her peak fertility phase of life and thus places these prerequisites above what she would find more desirable for a long-term pairing. The extrinsic male-characteristic prerequisites for short-term sexual strategy (hot, quick Alpha sex) preempts the long-term qualifications for as long as she’s sexually viable enough to attract men. Thus it follows that as a woman exceeds or is outclassed of her previous SMV, her priorities then shift to an attraction for more intrinsic male qualities. For the short-term strategy, quick impulsivity and gratifying sensation take precedent. For the long-term strategy, slow discernment, prudence, familiarity and comfort satisfy a desire for security as she exits the competitive stage of the SMP.
The dirty little secret to all of this is that although a woman may abandon one strategy for another depending on the phase of life she’s in, nature has seen fit to make sure she never quite abandons one for the other completely. As her environment warrants, she can readily re-prioritize her conditions for intimacy in order to achieve that sexually strategic balance.
This is a very uncomfortable truth for contemporary women in that it exposes the underpinnings of a great many feminized social conventions intended to misdirect men in an effort to maintain superiority in sexual selectivity and effecting these strategies. Men becoming aware of the pluralistic nature of hypergamy is the greatest threat to the feminine imperative. As I stated in The Threat,
Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.
An even more uncomfortable truth is that women’s pluralistic sexual strategy is literally written into their genetics. In a woman’s sexual peak demographic, across her ovulatory cycle she will tend to seek out High-Testosterone cued Alpha Men to pursue for her short term breeding strategy during her pro-phase of ovulation. In her menstruation period her preferences switch to preferring the long term security of a beta provider, and thus filters for these traits in her pair-bonding.
I’m elaborating on the genetic aspects here because I think it’s important for men to understand the biological mechanics of women’s sexual strategies in a broader scope. I endure an endless stream criticism for implying that women are selective sluts. Obviously women in the general whole have the capacity to resist these base impulses to “go slut”, however this is the base biological impulse against which they resist by conviction, rationale, sentimentalism or simply being realistic about having a low SMP valuation. As I’ve said before, all women have the capacity to throw caution to the wind in order to pursue her short term sexual strategy. Right place, right guy, right ovulatory phase, I was drunk, he was cute and one thing led to another,.. Nature selected for women who could best effect a covert pluralistic sexual strategy.
Due to the cyclic nature of women’s sexuality it’s a misnomer to think that “women are just as sexual as men“, however, to to the importance of sexual selectivity dominance, women are much more sexual than most men are led to believe. The key is understanding that women want to be sexual on their own terms as their cycle dictates. Essentially they are serving two masters in this: they want the freedom to pursue a short term sexual opportunity (as well as the freedom from social repercussions as a result) and also the prudence to filter for a man willing to assume the responsibilities of parental investment and provisioning.
From a recent discussion thread:
Here is a tip – level headed girls who are intelligent have told me they don’t want to get fake breasts, even when they’re an A cup. Also some girls prefer to take it a step slower. They don’t NEED immediate gratification, they know that a good thing might take time, and here is an idea, you know how women think men are dumb – MOST ARE. That’s why they play games – to weed out players!
This was from a guy. I used to believe this, until I understood the fundamentals of female hypergamy. For far too many men it’s a comfortable fiction to think that attractive, self-conscious, “level headed” women really have the presence and forethought to ‘weed out’ what men would rationally think would be the best fit for them. However, observably and predictably, their behaviors and choices don’t bear this out. On the contrary, their behaviors prove the validity of female hypergamy even in the personalities of what we’d consider the most virtuous women. Even the bright, intelligent, good-girl selects for, and sexually prepares herself for, the most immediately accessible Alpha male her attractiveness will demand AND they also filter for the players, and develop bonds with men they believe might provide for their long term security when their necessity dictates that they should. They’re the same girl.
Women are keenly aware that men’s primary interest in them is fucking – everything else is ancillary to sex. The difficulty women encounter in perfecting a long-term sexual strategy is men’s singular primary strategy – the value a woman has beyond the sexual comes after she’s been sexual.
The Truth is Out There
Almost a year ago Ferd over at In Mala Fide wrote a very eye-opening post about what appears to be an endemic of online Self-Shooters – millions of unprompted, unsolicited young women shooting and posting nude and semi-nude pictures of themselves from a smartphone. Just image search Google keyword “self shots”, you’ll get the idea. And it goes well beyond just teenage dalliances with bathroom pictorials; with the rise of convenient digital media creation we get a clearer view of women’s true sexual landscape. Click over to Advocatus Diaboli’s blog and check his NSFW collection of links featuring home-porn.
You can reference Ferd’s article for the NSFW photo galleries and forum links dedicated to this phenomenon. Have a look at the sheer volume and frequency with which average women will voluntarily become sexual. This is just one collection, there are countless millions more. Are they all sluts? How many of these women have uttered the words ” I want to wait so I know you want me for more than sex?” How many of these women would make great wives in 5-10 years? How many of these women are already (or have been) wife material? How many of these women are thought of as the sweet natured “good girl”? How many guys have considered these girls “Quality Women” at some point? We can look at them with their clothes off and declare them sluts, but would you know the difference if you saw her in church?
From the same critic:
Most girls wil go through an experimental phase at least. I don’t think that makes them sluts, necessarily. Depends on degree.
I half agree with this. There is most definitely a phase of life where women will opportunistically leverage their sexuality – usually this is mid-teens to late 20s, but you have to also take into consideration why this sexual attention is such an urgency as well as being so rewarding for a woman in this phase. Hypergamy and a rapidly closing window of SMV spur on that urgency.
I’m also compelled to point out that women in their 30s, 40s and even 50s will still “slut it up” and seek that sexual attention if their conditions dictate that they must return to that agency. Again, refer to the self-shots phenomenon; not all of these girls are 18 y.o. misguided youths experimenting with their sexuality for the first time. A solid percentage of them are post-30s women, and some older than that showing off their ‘new’ post-divorce body after 3 months training at the gym. Are they still ‘experimenting’ or are they feeling the need to retroactively solicit male sexual response due to changes in their conditions?
The point I was making is that the “quality woman” meme is entirely subjective to the sexually strategic conditions that a woman finds herself in. As per usual, guys would like to make their necessity a virtue and define whatever is working for them currently as an ideal situation without considering the factors that contribute to it or would radically change it if those conditions were altered. When you met your devoted, soccer-mom wife in her 20s, your first thought wasn’t “I wonder if she’s a quality woman?” It was probably more along the lines of “I wonder if she sucks a good díck?” At the time, the conditions were different for her, and her personality reflected an adaptation to them.
So where does this leave a Man? I think it’s determined by where you are yourself in life and what your expectations for yourself are. If you’re young and just beginning to find your footing in the SMP then I’d advise spinning plates and enjoying yourself, but with the understanding that you are learning from experience. Maybe that’s as far as you want to (responsibly) go, or maybe you entertain the idea of becoming monogamous at some point. Naturally, I wouldn’t advise even experimenting with monogamy for any guy under the age of 30, but lets assume you do have the experience and have an understanding of how the SMP and hypergamy work. The most valuable bit of wisdom you can carry into a monogamy of your own decision and your own frame is to understand this sexual pluralism in women. Accept hypergamy as a woman’s operative state at all times.
The most common words hear newly divorced men utter is some version of “I never saw this coming in my wildest imagination, we were married for 20 years, we have 4 kids, how could she be over me so quickly?” A lack of understanding the basics of hypergamy is exactly why men are blindsided.
My F5 is bigger.
And to the topic, yes, they are the same girl. There are extremes, girls who are short term minded most of the time, and girls who are long term most of the time. Its a spectrum, but 80% or more, say, almost every girl I´ve met is both the “good girl” and the “dirty slut” depending on the moment, circumstances, etc. And about this “experimenting” phase. Experimenting from your 15-29 years of your life? GTFO. Its not a phase, it´s how you´ve been built. Then the hotness is gone and you might have kids which might make experimenting more difficult.… Read more »
Cosign this, Yohami. I’ve said before: every girl I’ve ever known who’s discussed her sex life with me has divulged an “I couldn’t help myself” moment when she sexed up a beautiful alpha.
Female sexuality indeed exists on a spectrum. Inside every woman is the “good girl” and the “dirty slut”. What you see depends on what she decides is compatible with her strategy at that moment and what is in her interest to show you, depending on the moment, circumstances, etc. as you said.
Off topic, but I never understood why some people thought Kelly McGillis was hot.
The blond hair made her a little cute in Top Gun, but otherwise?
i made the mistake of googling her name and clicking on ‘image results’.
The Wall is a cruel thing. It leaves no woman untouched, it works its will upon each and every one. No woman, not even celebrities, escapes The Wall.
It’s why asking a girl to cheat on her boyfriend or abandon her long-term dating strategy are the same thing.
“Every girl should trade up once in her life. I hear it’s a fucking rush.”
The photo of Kelly McGillis in her role in “Witness” was an inspired one for this post, Rollo. In “Witness”, McGillis plays an Amish widow. By happenstance her son becomes a witness to a murder. A detective played by Harrison Ford goes to the Amish community to interview and protect the boy. McGillis is a demure, proper, observant Amish woman. Ford is a strong, silent type cop exuding manly authority. She half-accidentally allows Ford to see her bare breasted while undressing for bed. Their eyes meet; she is not surprised, ashamed or indignant. She makes no effort to conceal her… Read more »
Am I that transparent?
“The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.” Ahhh “scientific studies”, how I love thee. That’s why world leaders have always been super buff Schwartneggers, all guys with muscles rule every other guy around them (there definitely aren’t any muscular beta guys out there standing on death row at the bar or fading into the background around more charismatic alpha smaller guys), and cultures with slavery didn’t involve fat old dudes ruling over buff slaves doing manual labor… Read more »
Yeah, because we all know Russel Brand would never get AMOG’d by an Alpha competitor.
Good point. We all know that being AMOG’ed once neutralizes the hundreds of lays a guy has had. And being shot down or rejected at any point means you have no game since real master don juans never lose a set and fuck anything they look at! Seriously, is this even a game blog anymore? Or a support group for guys who don’t want to go out and interact with the real world? Let’s all just pat eachother on the back and stay in our safe bubble of imagination where we know we totally COULD get all those SHB10s if… Read more »
+2 (I agree with your previous comment as well)
If we had two guys with equal game, but one guy looks better than the other, who gets more girls?
Assuming they are both in the same market, the better looking one. If they are not (example one if a rocker, the other is a business guy) it depends on the girl.
*one is a rocker
Agreed, and that’s my point.
YaReally likes to focus almost solely on confidence and game, which is fine. But he seems to take it as a black and white, either/or, where you’re either ugly but have awesome game, or you have good looks and no game.
And that’s not how it works.
Work on your game, and work on your looks. You can have both, and working on one doesn’t preclude you from improving the other. Play every card in the deck.
You don’t HAVE two guys with equal game. That’s the point you’re missing when you mentally masturbate your hypothetical scenarios that don’t happen in the real world.
In any interaction one person is ALWAYS reacting to the other person. It might be 90:10, it might be 49:51, and it can fluctuate throughout the interaction or in different environments etc, but one person is always reacting to the other. That’s why your question is retarded.
Go out more.
It depends on what the woman values the most. Is the uglier guy more rich? Is he more articulate? Compatibility and luck dictate terms. Game is just a tool.
Status trumps all and fame is the ultimate expression of status.
In other words, it has a lot less to do with him being “the boss” and a lot more to do with the fact that one guy has thousands of screaming fans while the other guy has zero.
THAT’S why women want to fuck him.
He was getting laid a fuckton before he was famous. Do some research. Or go out. Into that real world thing that’s super scary and has bears in it and make friends with some naturals and watch them tearing down pussy left and right. Then work your way into higher value social circles and watch natural guys taking girls off rich good-looking local celebrity types.
Or continue to stick your head in the sand to protect your fragile views of social dynamics. At least you won’t have to leave your computer chair and interact with other people!
dude shut up
It’s sort of funny that the only times women exercise (at least with intensity) is for sports, before the wedding, and after the divorce (and none of those is for the guy she is currently with). A guy can (like someone I know did, but should not have even though they were married) pay for her education, and then once she has a job, no-fault divorced him (did not repay him) and got his house plus $20 grand. They both had to pay legal fees too. Therefore, if someone is going to get married (not me), seeing that a PNA… Read more »
“It’s sort of funny that the only times women exercise (at least with intensity) is for sports, before the wedding, and after the divorce (and none of those is for the guy she is currently with).”
And when you order them to.
Reading this post brought me back to an earlier one, ‘War Brides’ which also reminded me of two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself; “Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out of wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher: Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from… Read more »
Excellent reference, thanks for this, I’ll look the book up.
I can attest to the fact of a woman carrying along a beta and at the same time seducing an Alpha.Seen it with my own eyes.Rollo, you hit the nail on its head. From Guilt of conceit “Hypergamy demands resolution so powerfully in women that evolution has hard-coded it into their subconsciousness. But the enemy of hypergamy is doubt…” These were golden words.I never did get the science behind the “rationalization hamster”.This cleared it all up.Maybe if you can address a post covering strategies with their scientific explanations like behavior traits that outclass solipsism and other female characteristics and how… Read more »
“Hypergamy demands resolution so powerfully in women that evolution has hard-coded it into their subconsciousness. But the enemy of hypergamy is doubt…”
What did he mean by “the enemy of hypergamy is doubt”? Doubt about not marrying up enough?
Ditto Proto’s suggestion…Such as, Biological Imperative > hypergammy > male approach (game) > result…or something like that. Do a sort of breakdown of these traits (if they have a word associated with them) so that those of us that are just ~waking~ to intelligent sites in manosphere get to gain from the collective wisdom, and then hopefully ensure our success in the SMP and MMP, or whatever the goals are.
Will women ever admit to this stuff or be concious of it even? Would that help? Knowledge is power, but when you’re in a marriage it’s also disturbing. So glad I found this site. Now I just need to figure out how to use the information other than fueling my jaded outlook.
If you want to see what it looks like when women “admit” to this stuff got to hookingupsmart. Even when they get it they will never fully acknowledge it.
And yes, this knowledge is disturbing, especially when you are already legally shackled by a marriage. At this point it’s all about using this information to avoid becoming a victim.
So the chicks at Hookingupsmart are lying through their teeth when they say they prefer betas?
What part of ‘pluralistic sexual strategy’ did you get lost on?
postive correlation between the outflow of allied troops and increase in pregnancies, what more evidence does one need.
Context: and how my field report (never mind that they are all married) is aligned with the premise of Tomassi’s post. Night Game: So…I am within ear shot of a 4 set (mind you I do not have bionic ears ever since that damn ride on the S bike from MD to WY)…HB 7 average…whatever. Me: Do you guys know what a word cloud is? Them: No Me: Ok…for example, when the President gives the State of the Union, there are many words that are repeated over and over. In fact, just call them words, concepts, constructs, or whatever. Do… Read more »
“Me: I throw out concepts and constructs…maybe better than a word cloud… “insert women rationalization hamster lingo” in fact I flood them with hypergamy lingo in an interesting way”
I can’t understand this. Would you care to explain, please? Thanks.
This article really puts hypergamy in perspective. A proverb from my hometown says “All women are sluts”. They say proverbs are the wisdom of the masses. Now I understand what such wisdom was trying to warn men against.
Excellent article. And the screenshot from Witness is genius.
[…] good marriage or LTR, you create one, you build one. Your sweet little Good Girl who grew up in the Amish Dutch Country is just as hypergamous as the club slut you nailed last night. Different girls, […]
[…] does the idea of a biologically defined Alpha evolutionarily agree with what we understand about Hypergamy? (War Brides, the attraction of violence, rape fantasy, […]
[…] Mrs. Hyde […]
[…] stupid little fucking shit like “Likes to go camping”. There are a variety of other explanations for why women act the way they do; I will not delve into it too much because “why” is […]
[…] read. Or even how much she has considered different sexual strategies of the sexes (like women’s pluralistic mating strategies). I haven’t seen too much writing on this recently. And really, I only saw bad, blind, […]
[…] Mrs. Hyde I quoted yet another study by Dr. Martie Haselton from Why is muscularity sexy? (Aunt Giggles […]
[…] The criterion for short term coupling are much easier to demand when a woman is in her peak fertility phase of life and thus places these prerequisites above what she would find more desirable for a long-term pairing. The extrinsic male-characteristic prerequisites for short-term sexual strategy (hot, quick Alpha sex) preempts the long-term qualifications for as long as she’s sexually viable enough to attract men. ~Mrs.Hyde […]
[…] mapping of our foraging ancestors reveals the real story about the importance sexual arousal and strategic pluralism played in women’s sexual selection. Historically, only 20% of men bred with 80% of women. If […]