Recently Vox had a not unexpected run-in with the ladies over at Aunt Giggles’ Beta Emporium regarding one of my favorite feminine social conventions. There’s a very definitive feminine ownership of certain terms that the feminine imperative uses to maintain its primacy. Like any good ideology, control of the messaging is vital to perpetuating the feminine social frame. Thus terms like “shallow” and “superficial” are contextually defined from a feminine perspective and, through shaming, serve to enforce feminine primacy.
There are a lot of applications women will use “shallow” for, but the primary use is to shame men’s natural arousal/attraction cues being based on physicality. As I detailed in The Wall, women have a life long relationship with the impending decay of their only real agency over men – their physicality and their sexual access.
Why should physical appearance be a criteria for anything? The operative question; Why should the importance Men place on the physical always be characterized as “superficial”? Why is it that a man is “shallow” for following his biological imperative, while a woman seeking commitment is considered “prudent”?
Because women are only acting on behalf of their own biological imperatives when they do so. Like all feminine social conventions, if men can be made to believe that a woman’s best interest is actually his own, she retains control of the frame. How do they effect this? Repeat it over and over until men identify with it and it becomes a societal norm. This then places men into a state of internal conflict – they’re not supposed to want hot women for fear of being deemed “shallow”, but yet they always seem to find themselves attracted to, and aroused by, the most physically ideal women they encounter.
So, how, and why, then does this social convention work? Why is it necessary? The simple answer is that the latent purpose of shaming men into denying their own biological imperative better serves to maintain women’s control of hypergamous sexual selectivity.
The cold hard reality all women face is that, in the sexual market place, they are always a depriciating asset. In a biological sense, a woman’s sexual marektability decreases as she ages, but even when this isn’t universally the case, the insecurity that comes from realizing ths decline is still present for women. With effort, a woman can be sexually desirable at 40, but the internalized anxiety she experiences from having to remain sexually competitive with women 20 years younger doesn’t diminish – at some point she’ll lose her edge.
In order to counter this dynamic a social mechanic had to be developed. Men would need to be shamed for their biological preoccupation with younger, sexier, more sexually available women that they naturally, and observably, prefer. If men could be socially and psychologically convinced that physicality (their primary determinant for attraction & arousal) was less important than intellect, integrity, or any other esoteric, moralized virtue (or the perception of it at least), this then (theoretically) levels the playing field of intra-sexual competition among women. By making his importance of physicality “shallow”, women of all shapes and sizes could be instilled with “inner beauty”. It’s what’s on the inside that counts and any man to disagree is “shallow”, “superficial” and thus undeserving of their intimacy.
With this social convention in place women can have their cake and eat it too. Sexual selectivity in their youth and a realitive assurance of that same selectivity in securing a long term commitment of male provisioning as they age. Social convention circumvents biology and women retain the frame. It’s only when “scientists” such as myself pull back the curtain and show you the Wizard of Oz that men are labelled “misogynists” or “superficial.” It’s the perfect convention; one that even in revealing it still shames the one doing so – or at least calls into question his motives for doing so.
“Shallow” at Home
How important does the role of attraction play in a relationship? The funniest thing is you can apply the same idea to women with regards to a man’s level of success. If a guy cheats on his girlfriend or wife after she ‘lets herself go’ and puts on 20 extra pounds he’s called ‘shallow’, yet if a woman leaves a guy who’s out of work and/or lacks a certain level of ambition she’s just “being prudent” or doing what’s in her best interests and her children’s. It’s a man’s biological imperative to mate with as many fit and attractive females, while it’s a woman’s imperative to choose the male who is best capable of satisfying hypergamy and providing her with long term security, and by default to ultimately share in parental investment. But, feminized society calls a man ‘shallow’ and a woman ‘wise’ for embracing the sexual strategies and arousal cues nature has dealt for them. So it’s my advice that we stop accepting this epithet of ‘shallow’ as some kind of punishment for simply being a man.
I can remember a poll thread on SoSuave we started that went something like, “What do you notice first about a girl?” and went on with physical attributes like Boobs, Ass, Legs, Hair, etc. The thread basically devolved into a ‘you’re just shallow’ flame-fest, but it was fascinating to see the pre-set responses from the teenage male members. Answers that didn’t even apply to the topic like, “I’m really only interested in her ‘great personality'” were common from the more plugged-in responses. This idea of not coming off as ‘shallow’ even in a relatively anonymous forum just proves how endemic this notion of ‘shallowness’ really is.
Embrace your testosterone, really, it’s OK. No one faults a woman for not being attracted to an ambitionless, unsuccessful guy. You shouldn’t feel guilty for admitting to a preference for a girls ass or the size of her chest.