I generally don’t go where I’m going with this post today, but one consistent theme of my writing has always been about exposing the latent functions of social conventions. Although I do try to be fair and spread out the analysis between men and women’s specific social conventions, living in the age of feminization usually brings the focus back to the feminine imperative where it originates.
To look under the hood of a social convention – to see how and why it works – often involves asking some uncomfortable questions. Social discomfort is actually an integral part of any effective social convention. Discouraging questions about the latent purpose of a social convention by means of fostering impropriety about it, or putting the questioner in the place of social awkwardness, is how social conventions perpetuate and normalize into a culture.
So when you pose the question “why is it considered rude to ask a woman about her age or her weight?” the ‘common sense’ answer is that it just is, because not knowing so makes the questioner look like look like a fool for not knowing it just is.The real answer of course is rooted in competition anxiety, because a majority of women can’t afford to have their sexual market value qualitatively compared in such overt measures. However, this is how a social convention becomes normalized and promoted to the realm of ‘common sense’.
So, if you will, please indulge me while I look under another hood that may not be the most comfortable place to go.
Mark Minter, a regular RM contributor dropped an excellent introduction for today’s topic in last week’s Amused Mastery post:
My niece has a cute friend, a 20 year old HB7 who thinks that she is an 8 and is grooming herself to be a “trophy wife”. I think she is gonna be disappointed. But she is very status and money motivated in her choice of men. But anyway, the last I had heard from this girl was that she had met this “Ideal boy” who had a winning smile (I had met the guy) and his family owned a restaurant.
A couple of months later, my niece mentions that some other guy was trying to hit on this girl last night. I asked “So what happened to whats-his-face”.
She answered, “He turned out to be a creep. He was very possessive and controlling. Constantly texting her at work, knowing she couldn’t get texts at work.”
SOOOO. The Rollo Tomassi voice in the back of my head says “BULLSHIT. There is more to this than that”.
I asked, “What was she doing to make this guy insecure and also when women have GENUINE DESIRE for a man, his texts don’t bother her, even if she is at work. It’s text and no one knows except for her. So why was she backing away. She was COVERTLY COMMUNICATING her disinterest through her actions.”
There were a couple of other “things” the guy had done with once again, things that if the woman had GENUINE DESIRE, they would not have been “firing offenses”. But I sensed she was looking for a reason to pull away from the guy. So I kept pressing. I had thought maybe he had failed some shit tests or something, had kissed ass a little too much on a 20 year old cute girl. It was far more basic than this and certainly warranted this girl creating a cover story for dumping the guy
So it turns out the guy has about a 3 or 4 inch dick but little Miss Trophy Wife couldn’t broadcast to the world that she would actually dump a guy because he had a little dick. She couldn’t admit that the size of a dick was important to her like it was to “those other sluts”. No, he had to be controlling or possessive or something from femcentrically acceptable than having a little dick.
So the rationalization hamster cooked up this other less slutty behavior from the guy to justify dumping him.
The funny thing is that even though all the girls in the circle knew the dude has the tiny dick, the publicly repeated excuse from all the hens in the coop was “controlling creep”.
I can remember reading a section of the book A Billion Wicked Thoughts where the authors cited studies about the relative importance the size of a man’s penis had for women. The long and short of it (uh,.heh) was that the women surveyed reported a “general satisfaction with the size of their partners penises”, and then went on to make the case that it is in fact men who are more concerned with the size of their cocks than women are.
Something just didn’t sit right with me after I’d read through this. From a porn-search specific statistical analysis it would follow that since men are the primary consumers of pornography that men would have more interest in the various details of the sex act, thus a preoccupation with the size of their own tool, but this doesn’t exclude the ‘interest’ women have in penis size. I could go into the Red Queen / Selfish Gene details about how women would evolutionarily prefer a larger cock to a smaller one (virility, sexual prowess, sexy son theory, etc.), but that wouldn’t cover the social convention aspect of women’s handling of this issue (sorry, you can’t write about this topic without a bad pun every other line).
I can remember a discussion in a mixed gender group of friends I had when I was in my early 20’s. Whenever the topic of sex came up (which was often) there was always a careful, almost tacit acknowledgement among the women to hold back a bit when it came to revealing their wants when it came to the particulars about sex. I’m using this as an illustration because it’s been my experience that the woman you talk to about sex in the company of men and women is not the same woman who talks about sex amongst only women. When questions about the size of a guy’s cock came up (sorry), the timeless classic trope is almost always sure to follow “oh it’s not that important, size doesn’t matter, it’s not size of the ship, it’s the motion of the ocean” or “it’s not the length of the wand, it’s the skill of the magician” or some other cutesy aphorism with the latent purpose of moving beyond that particular detail in the conversation. Even sufficiently feminized men will parrot this same fem-speak unprompted to reassure themselves (does AskMen even employ male writers anymore?).
You see, publicly, as Mark’s story illustrates, it is counter productive for a woman’s long term provisional interests to be compromised by qualifying a potential provider (see Beta chump) by his sexual prowess. Based on sight and imagination (pre-sex conditions) there’s no more graphic an indicator of this prowess than a guy’s length. Certainly height, muscularity and all of the feral, instinctual level physical cues play a part of the total package, but women know that not only do they measure a man’s virility in this regard, but they also know men do as well.
I had wanted to illustrate this dynamic further by making the presumption that women, generally, would either be offended by the very topic, or at the very least be coy about their denying that ‘size matters’, but I can’t go there. As the sex-positive aggressiveness of feminization has taken hold of western culture for the past 60+ years, there has been a gradual decay of this sense of prudence, replaced by the new utility of using men’s insecurities about size as leverage in optimizing feminine hypergamy.
Just in recent memory I’ve had ‘pour girls’ mention to me privately and to other girls that they wanted to leave a boyfriend, or they wouldn’t consider a second sexual encounter with a guy who ‘wasn’t packing’. Furthermore, as women have less and less to lose in their post-Wall SMP reality, mature women (the Cougar generation) place more emphasis on their partner’s equipment. It has coincided with the socio-economic End of Men and the Rise of Women that feminine hypergamy become less and less secretive. Gone are the days when women needed to use subterfuge to keep a less than adequate man enthralled in order to secure his provisioning. So it follows that the truth about the details of that visceral hypergamy be relaxed to the point that women no longer feel the need to cover it up. There may be a token effort in a public context to misdirect the importance of size (Mark’s example), but privately, women know size is important.
Consider the ‘thesis’ power point presentation of Karen Owen’s retrospective sexual safari at Duke University. We can debate the relative criteria upon which she rates each sexual encounter in her thesis, but I would draw your attention to the importance she places upon the penis size of each of her ‘study subjects’ as an indicator of quality (or lack thereof). As most Game-aware men (and women) ought to know already, the Medium is the Message and it’s women’s behavior, not their words that should be used as the only reliable basis for determining inent or motivation. According to the research of the authors of A Billion Wicked Thoughts and the respondents in their cited studies, penis size should be irrelevant to women, if it’s considered at all. Yet here we have a woman quantifying and qualifying sexual merit using length as a factor in sexual satisfaction.
You could make the argument that this is an isolated case, and only sluts worry about your girth, or you might think ‘women say one thing and mean another, well duh Rollo’, but you have to understand the utility, and the latent purpose behind those presumptions. Whenever a guy is slapped with the default ‘bitter misogynist’ label, the follow up line is almost universally “yeah, and I bet he’s got a little dick too.” Even guys will use the “he’s compensating for something” line as a sexual disqualifier when presented with an overt demonstration of higher sexual value from another guy. He’s got a $75K car? Must have a little dick then. If penis size wasn’t a consideration for women in their optimal hypergamy it wouldn’t be the go-to, schoolyard taunt it’s become. Ridicule a man’s penis and you disqualify him as sexual competitor. It’s interesting that men will acknowledged height as a physical prerequisite for most women, but will readily reject the size of his tool as being one as well.