The Pareto Principle

Pareto

An interesting side discussion was started in what proved to be a very popular post thread for The War Brides of Europe, and rather than let it disappear beneath a thousand-plus comments I thought I’d pick up on an old post I’ve had in my drafts for a while now.

One of the foundational ideas of Red Pill awareness from the earliest PUA years has been the 80/20 concept – 80% of women want to have sex and / or pair off with the top 20% of men. This has been a fast and loosely defined in terms of subjective sexual market value (SMV) between men and women and the ratio of disparity between those valuations.

In intersexual terms, this 80/20 rule finds its roots in the economic theory known as the Pareto Principle: “80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.” While I’m not sure the principle is directly translatable, it mirror the general rule of Hypergamy and women’s innate drive to optimize their sexual strategy with who they perceive as the top tier 20% (Alphas) men are fucking the 80% lion’s share of women. Many a despondent Beta picks up on the principle and uses this to justify his failures to connect with women.

I’m of the opinion that the 80/20 rule is often abused to justify men’s failures or successes with women (more often failure), however the fundamental notion is both observable and easily verifiable in-field as well as statistically. It is however important to keep in mind that the 80/20 rule as it applies to Hypergamy is often bastardized in its inverse. The presumption goes that if 80% of women want to have sex with the top 20% of men it should necessarily mean that the top 20% of men are fucking 80% of women. Many a despondent Beta picking up on this dynamic will use this assumption to disqualify himself from Game or give up in futility. More on this later.

As a point of reference, it’s important to remember that Hypergamy doesn’t seek its own level with regard to SMV comparisons. Rather, Hypergamy is always seeking a socio-sexual pairing that is a ‘better than’ exchange for a woman’s own, realistically comparative, SMV. And as I’ve mentioned previously, Hypergamy is always pragmatic about establishing that ‘better than’ SMV exchange with men’s.

While the Red Pill’s expanded definition of Hypergamy encompasses far more than just ‘marrying up‘, the 80/20 sexual selection process is simple enough that even Aunt Giggles in her heyday could illustrate it:

hypergamy-in-a-pic

As you might guess the fundaments of basic Hypergamy are easy to understand, so the tendency is to oversimplify the complexities that really define Hypergamy and how the 80/20 basics play out. And lastly, it’s important to bear in mind the dual nature of women’s Hypergamous filtering, impulses and attendant emotional investments – the 80/20 dynamic applies to both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of Hypergamy, however the characteristics that would optimize the former tend to come at the expense of the latter (and vice versa).

All that said, the 80/20 principle is fairly simple; a majority of women across the broadest SMV spectrum (80%) will always want for a ‘better than’ pairing (both sexual and provisional) than their own comparative SMV.

If the underlying mechanics of Hypergamy-inspired desire were only about a 1 or 2 step difference in SMV the distribution ratio wouldn’t be 80/20. As sophomoric as it is the above graph is relatively accurate: an SMV 3 woman is desirous of an SMV 8 or above man as representative of a Hypergamously optimal pairing (sex and/or provisioning).

For the 80/20 rule to hold true we’re looking at a comparative difference of 5 steps in SMV. Now, granted, this is on the extreme end of the spectrum, and it should also be noted that SMV is also a question of context and based on a woman’s ‘filtering’ perception of a man’s SMV being legitimate. However, this doesn’t alter the ‘better than’ merited pragmatism of Hypergamy.

Whether or not a woman is actually capable of this optimization isn’t relative to understanding the principle. Indeed, with the expansion of instant communication, social emphasis of women’s empowerment and esteem, and the influence social media exercises over the female ego, an SMV 3 woman of today might likely believe she is in fact deserving of a man 5 steps above her own (a good example). But for purposes of understanding how the Pareto principle applies to intersexual dynamics we must focus on the latent purposes for it to exist.

Common Errors

The easiest (or most convenient) mistake to make about this dynamic is to presume that the consolidation of Hypergamy (locking down a man 5 to 1 steps higher in SMV in monogamy) defines the 80/20 rule. Remember, this principle is about desire and women’s expected (entitled?) satisfaction of it, not the actual consolidation (LTR) of that Hypergamous ideal.

In the prior thread the conversation centered on the mistaken idea that the Pareto Principle is not universal or is only observed in some systems, but not in human sexuality. To which I’d argue that in no other system is this principle more evident than intersexual dynamics – and not just among humans but countless other species. It’s unflattering to the disguise in which the Feminine Imperative would put it in, but, whether realizable or not, the 80/20 rule practically defines female desire.

The second mistake it to presume the inverse: that 20% of men actually get 80% of women. Usually this gets trotted out as an equal-for-equal argument that presumes, again, that desire should necessarily translate into consolidation. Betas and lower SMV men do get laid and pair off with women for any number of reasons, but the principle isn’t about who’s actually fucking who. Rather, it’s about who has more access to sexually available women based on their SMV valuation. Nice Guys may finish last, but they do finish eventually – whether they finish ‘well’ is a thought for another post.

A third common mistake, made mostly by women, presumes the goal-state outcome of intersexual dynamics should be to arrive at a monogamous state. This is the consolidation of a female sexual strategy, and because we live in a feminine-primary social order, that committed, monogamous end to women’s sexual strategy is perceived as the socially “correct” goal. At no point is men’s imperative interests (sexual or life-rewarding) a priority, if it’s considered at all, in the Hypergamous equation. In the absence (or disregard) of men’s conflicting interests the Feminine Imperative substitutes what best fits its own interests as the socially ‘appropriate’ goals for men. Then it qualifies ‘manhood’ according to its proxy interests for men, so that any man not measuring up to them are not considered truly ‘men’ by its definition.

Women’s innate Hypergamous nature ensures a distributive model for desire that aligns with the Pareto Principle – even if the overall result of women settling for less than optimal Hypergamy appears to contradict it. Again, it’s important to remember that women’s Hypergamous desires are often not reflected by the outcome of those desires.

Want is not have

The concept that a woman’s Hypergamous imperative wouldn’t be a mutual goal between the sexes is an alien thought to most women.  Much in the same way that men idealistically want to believe women mutually share their concept of love for love’s sake (and free from the conditions of their Burden of Performance), women are mistaken in believing men’s sexual strategy is synonymous with the female strategy and shares a mutual end. By way of feminine solipsism and a social order that only considers women’s imperatives as legitimate, collective feminine social consciousness rarely gives men’s imperatives an afterthought – and then only when they become problematic to the Feminine Imperative.

Women subconsciously reinforce the feminine-correct goal state of LTR monogamy by a continuous, autonomous, expectation of its fulfillment – even when that fulfillment creates cognitive dissonance with their short term vs. long term sexual strategy. It’s part of women’s Hypergamous firmware to do so because it ensures (or tries to) their subconscious need for parental investment and long term security / provisioning.

What women necessarily must disregard is that their own sexual strategy choices are determined by the want to pair with a mate who exceeds her own SMV. Thus, the Pareto principle applies.

In Open Hypergamy I made mention that there is a social transitioning taking place among women where revealing the uglier side of Hypergamy is becoming more acceptable. The degree of comfort with which women have in revealing the machinations of Hypergamy is proportional to their capacity to play the 80/20 game well enough to consolidate on a 20th percentile man (or his closest approximation). For women still uncomfortable with openly embracing the uglier side of Hypergamy concealing the truth about the 80/20 becomes a practical priority. You will find in the future that many of the conflicts you read between Strong Independent Women® of differing social or moral perspectives will be based in their degree of comfort in openly relating the machinations of Hypergamy.

Women for whom keeping the 80/20 rule concealed from men’s popular consciousness (women with less capacity to compete intrasexually) can ill afford to have men aware of their own SMV and how it affects their long term sexual strategy. High value Red Pill aware men have the leisure to exploit Hypergamy and low value Red Pill men aware of their Hypergamous role risk denying women of the resources to provision them in the long term.

The Male Side of the Principle

Way back in the Peak Hypergamy post Hollenhund got me thinking about how the Hypergamous  aspect of the Pareto Principle can become men’s primary source of frustration and apathy:

I have to COMPLETELY OVERCOME all my handicaps to the point where I am BETTER than 80% of men at least.

I have to have my shit together better than the vast majority of men. I’m having a hard enough time just getting to be AVERAGE, but what I need to do in order to have any kind of sex life and get ANY of my sexual needs met AT ALL is be better than the vast majority of guys out there.

So, in other words, you’ll end up killing yourself anyway, but you’ll do it the slow way, by making sure you’ll end up an exhausted wretch with an ulcer, high blood pressure and similar health problems? Because that’s what you’re basically saying there.

I tend to think of how men confront the challenge of their performance burden is a parallel to their understanding of the 80/20 rule. On some level of consciousness men either possess some evolved instinct for it, or they develop some learned understanding of their own role in relation to how the 80/20 dynamic applies to them.

I think much of what frustrates men about assessing their own SMV in a Blue Pill mindset comes from an instinctual understanding of the 80/20 rule and reconciling it with what they’re being socialized to believe women ought to evaluate them for. Before any Game, before any Red Pill awareness, men’s first deductive impression is to classify themselves into SMV respective “leagues“, and women who would or wouldn’t be sexually accessible according to those leagues.

Ironically, even men’s Blue Pill league evaluations fail to account for women’s 1-5 SMV step over evaluation of their own SMV. The equalist agenda teaches men that their leagues should be based on a like-for-like parallel, when Hypergamy really demands men’s SMV be well above that of women.

This of course gets distorted once men begin to become Red Pill aware and over-exaggerate the abstract concept of Alpha and how it applies to themselves. In a way they fall victim to believing they must become an Alpha parody in order to measure up to women’s apex fallacy impression of a top 20% man.

Needless to say Red Pill awareness and applied Game will reveal the truth about the 80/20 rule. Initially it seems like a horribly unjust set of conditions for an ‘average’ man, but the rule is still based on the fundamental biological and psychological underpinnings of Hypergamy, and therefore open to exploits for a Red Pill aware man.

Quality Assurances

Web

In the above example (h/t Young Patriarch) we can see the comparison between a naturalistic, Hypergamous socio-sexual order contrasted with an idealized socio-sexual structure. The Sexual Freedom model mirrors the 80/20 rule, while the Regulated model is representative of an idealized structure designed with the intent to evenly justify pairings according to a distributive monogamy.

As I mentioned earlier, men have an instinctual understanding about how the 80/20 Pareto Principle applies to women’s Hypergamy. And while Game is a modern contingency for it I would argue that the cross-culture concept of a monogamous marriage between men and women was a broader contingency designed not just to counter women’s Pareto-centered sexual strategy, but to ensure a greater majority of (lesser SMV) men had the opportunity to pass on their genetic heritage.

I could point out that the Regulated model above is very representative of an egalitarian model for monogamy based again on the like-for-like presumption, but Hypergamy being what it naturally is will always confound that ideal. However, I have to also point out that the Regulated ideal has always been a convenient selling tool to keep both men and women ignorant of the uglier, visceral nature of the Hypergamous sexual marketplace.

Marriage as a social adaptation serves (or served) as a negotiated buffer against Hypergamy, but it also serves as a perceived buffer against men’s Burden of Performance that would otherwise necessitate the constant super-achievement that Hollenhund describes above. As a social dynamic marriage was a Beta breeding insurance policy that conveniently enough took root about the time human beings began to adopt a largely agrarian lifestyle.

Today equalism and the fantasy of an idealized, mutually beneficial monogamy based on the Old Set of Books is little more than a contingent workaround for the 80/20 rule reality. As this idealism decays and is replaced by either Red Pill awareness or men learning the harsh realities of modern marriage liability the more we will see a shift away from the Regulated model in favor of a now openly Hypergamous model.

Recently NY Mag had yet another feminist triumphalism article in the same vein as the Atlantic’s End of Men article (apparently 6 years is the period in which the femosphere believes popular awareness of its bullshit memes end). However there was this one salient point that illustrates this shift in monogamy:

In 2009, the proportion of American women who were married dropped below 50 percent. In other words, for the first time in American history, single women (including those who were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated) outnumbered married women. Perhaps even more strikingly, the number of adults younger than 34 who had never married was up to 46 percent, rising 12 percentage points in less than a decade. For women under 30, the likelihood of being married has become astonishingly small: Today, only around 20 percent of Americans are wed by age 29, compared to the nearly 60 percent in 1960.

In the old order of monogamy the mutually beneficial exchange centered on quality assurances, either via polygamy (sexual assurances) or monogamy (provisonal assurances) in a Beta context. These assurances, having been more or less compensated for by men’s willing or unwilling assistance via social and legislative means, are no longer an incentive for women to marry or commit to a long term monogamy, and this is evidenced in almost a decade of statistics that show this decline.

A Wife for Every Beta

In Christian Dread I made mention of Nick Krausers’ appearance on London Real. For a bit more elaboration on this principle cue the video to 5:00 and watch until about 8:33.

A wife for every Beta is the old order negotiated social contract function of committed monogamy. In a state of nature where 80% of men can never be assured of a genetic legacy, most men have no incentive to participate in an organized society. What the Regulated model of sexuality does (albeit inefficiently) is gives Beta males the incentive to cooperate in larger society by establishing monogamy as the predominant social order. And then, as Krauser mentions these societies tend to outperform those based on a Hypergamous, naturalistic socio-sexual structure.

As mentioned this arrangement was based on an exchange of long term security for women for assurances of sexual access and ultimately a genetic legacy. Essentially it was a negotiated compromise of the desire for the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy for the assurances of a long term Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy. By today’s socio-sexual standard this old order arrangement is supplanted with the relatively assured guarantee of satisfying both aspects of Hypergamy at different phases of a woman’s maturity in life. Thus we see the Epiphany Phase, Alpha Widowhood and every variety of schema I outline in Preventive Medicine.

The new, post-sexual revolution order is a model ostensibly based on ‘sexual freedom’, but what this really represents is a return to that naturalistic sexual order based on pre-agrarian, evolutionarily incentivized Hypergamy. We revert back to an open acceptance of the 80/20 realities that, if we’re honest, always informed even a Regulated socio-sexual model of monogamy.

In the new era of Open Hypergamy, women’s only necessitated compromise of her sexual strategy depends on her exaggerated self-impression of her SMV measured against her capacity to lock down an optimal male. This also explains the endless push to create self-confident, self-important ‘independent’ women. Women’s naturalistic predilection for the 80/20 Pareto Principle of sexual selection virtually assures their long term isolation – thus the need for a self-created impression of women’s self-sufficiency.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
Karen
Guest
Karen

Wild male (aptly named) says:

“Post agrarian, perhaps hypergamy disincentivizes men’s participation in larger societal structures, until hypergamy reincentivizes men’s ……………………….”

Does a Lorena B. on the balance….

Please get the kumquat out of your mouth b4 posting. Thnxs in advance…

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man

Lorena Bobbitt? – where you goin with that girl?

emilyy96
Guest

^ About 3% of marriages in most Islamic Countries are polygamous.

They are like that because they live in ultraconservative, patriarchal societies, not because they can’t get married.

Karen
Guest
Karen

Anonymous Reader

“Karen, meet Wild Person. Wild Person, meet Karen.”

“The two of you have much in common.”

I beg to differ. I serve up witty double entendres…he serves up nothing but doublespeak…though I sense it was done is a semi-satirical fashion in a (weak) effort to mock me…well, as they say, irritation is the sincerest form of flattery!

Lol

Karen
Guest
Karen

Wildy says….

“Lorena Bobbitt? – where you goin with that girl?”

That’s for me to know and u to hope u don’t find out!

*Evil grin*

Driver
Guest
Driver

A good point about the decline of marriage since 1960. We are starting to see a terrible side effect of feminism (2nd and 3rd wave) and the damage it has done to our society. Marriage used to be a contract and a pretty good deal for all (men and women) at one time. But, with the government taking over as “beta bucks” and legislation that is anything but fair to men (especially in divorce court, child support, etc…) that pretty good deal for all is fading fast. What is left (and I am seeing it more and more when I’m… Read more »

Karen
Guest
Karen

Driver, b4 speaking, make sure u *carefully* remove my bags…I sooo don’t want them to get dirty…

Ok, now u may speak:

Driver says:

“Marriage used to be a contract”

“Love is a disease…curable by marriage”
…Ambrose Bierce

“They don’t call it wedlock for nothing”
…Anonymous male

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man

Hey girl – you got quimkum breath too? (maybe we both prefer the pussy-o-pleasure?) Just asking – I’m cool with dat. But damn that morbid imaging you flailing (that Sharon Osbourne shit sorta freak my out)!

snowdensjacket0x0x0
Guest

One forum I’ve frequented for many years now is pretty much 95% women. A few years back I opened up a massive attack against feminism as that bullshit was pretty firmly entrenched there. I was banned. I made a new account as I was a fairly well know and massively egoed user. And then attacked the feminists again. And again on another account. And again. Over a two year period when they would poke their heads out. I then left the forum for awhile. After getting IP banned. Moved and have a new IP. Registered again recently and browsed around.… Read more »

Karen
Guest
Karen

Wildy, his excitement growing (among *other* things), wonders:

“Hey girl – you got quimkum breath too? (maybe we both prefer the pussy-o-pleasure?) Just asking – I’m cool with dat.”

All inquiries must be submitted on papyrus and notarized by the clerk…

Karen
Guest
Karen

Frosty the Snowman says:

“I took Russian at uni. I’m thinking about arranging my life to move there. I read that in Russia the man gets automatic custody of the children in marriage.”

Sound reasoning to leave America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…

OMG…has the pre-frontal procedure been revived?

*Wonders to herself what universe she’s landed in*

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man

Hey girl – you be imaging the dopamine rushing to man-loins – that be cool

Karen
Guest
Karen

Sir Lawrence (not of Arabia, nor of Wall Street…maybe Parris Island???) is calling (I mean posting):

“Hey girl – you be imaging the dopamine rushing to man-loins – that be cool”

Yes, and from this experience, I shall *never* recover…

*shivers*

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man

Hey girl – you be watchin the South Carolina boys lately? I’m glad to tell ya you probly got the imaging outta focus a bit, wrt to this boy.

How old you anyway – girl you be a woman right?

Karen
Guest
Karen

Frosty begs Rolly 4 help from Karen” (LOL)

“Also Rollo would you ban these attention starved women please? I’m sure their cats need to be fed or something.”

Samuel Johnson once said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel…clearly, the utilization of *amazingly* hackneyed and trite clichés is the first refuge of the “burgeoning* (giggles to herself) male movement…*especially* when they find themselves hopelessly overmatched.

Water Cannon Boy
Guest
Water Cannon Boy

“Would you say part of the reaction to Overt Hypergamy is women who reject being feminist?…” I think some of that is part the latest attention grab method. Back when I used to check in on Return of Kings, they had an article about an increase of girls that would shoot selfies with the hand written signs saying they don’t need feminism or aren’t feminist, in the same vain as the people who would hold signs saying they need feminist. They mentioned, and provided example photos, that the ones doing it seemed to all be reasonably attractive. Easy way to… Read more »

Karen
Guest
Karen

Wildy says:

“How old you anyway”

People often ask if I’m an immortal all the time….

As of right now
I’m not quite sure
When time expires
I’ll know more…

Wildy says:

“girl you be a woman right”

*Checks her b.c. & her V*

Oui!

Karen
Guest
Karen

Water Cannon (OMG these SN’s with their phallic implications are *such* overcompensation…lol) says:

“What was good about the old books they felt slipping away.”

Given the grammatical & syntactical choices I see here…they were not the only books that were lost on the way to school…

W.C. continues:

“It has me wondering now, after all this fuss, if she will appear slimmer.”

Sooo glad that your mind is engaged on important things!!!!!!!!!!!

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man

OK girl – you be be likin your V – and you woman enough so says you – I’ll go with that

Karen
Guest
Karen

Wildy says:

“OK girl – you be be likin your V – and you woman enough so says you – I’ll go with that”

Wildy, isn’t it time you go nighty-night? I mean, you want to be nice & strong to serve The Feminine Imperative when you wake up in the morning. right?????LOL’z

Wild Man
Guest
Wild Man

OK nighty-night girl. Nice talkin. If the FI is goin all post-modern now, you right – you never know, tomorrow might be really existing – got to keep my strength up! (you too girl – don’t stay up too late – best to get some sweet dreams now – see ya).

Stone Dog
Guest
Stone Dog

As usual, a very informative if depressing post. I think we should go a bit further though. The way both hypergamy and civilization can work and probably HAVE worked in the past is simple: women’s base absolute value as human beings was set lower then men’s. By that I mean that – on an absolute scale – a female 10 is not as valuable as a male 10. The reason is simple: a male has a vastly greater power to influence his environment. Take a man and a woman of the same relative strength and intelligence and put them together… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg

“Women need men (directly or indirectly) for almost everything else.”

My own criticism of Paglia’s statement is that it is true only if men build the grass huts.

Otherwise we’d all be living in mud holes.

Morpheus
Guest

Rollo,

I know you value open debate and not censoring comments, but seems to me obvious trolling should be an exception, especially when it is 50% of the comments

Johnycomelately
Guest
Johnycomelately

The prerequisite for open hyperagamy and matriarchal societies is an abundant economic ecology. It’s a misconception that matriarchal societies are unstable and will collapse under their own weight into grass huts. The Semitic matriarchal societies that emerged during the Holocene Thermal Optimum period (high temperatures and rainfall) were very stable. The abundant flora and fauna sustained the cultures for thousands of years and created advanced civilisations. Their downfall was the aridification of the region (the Nile used to hold three times today’s volumes) and Patriarchal Indo/Aryans/Hittites (birthed in scarce economic ecologies) conquering and amalgamating the matriarchal cultures. As long as… Read more »

Liz
Guest

“seems to me obvious trolling should be an exception, especially when it is 50% of the comments”

True. But if I were looking for an amphetamine supplier…

playdontpay
Guest
playdontpay

I have a problem with the 1-10 rating system, it’s heavily favours FAKE female Smv “qualities”. Strip your average HB8/9 of her….. Fake tits Fake hair extensions Fake nails Fake eyelashes Fake tan, make-up and botox and fillers etc for the post wall examples and what is left? A Real Hb5 who thinks she is an 8/9 AND is Entitled to the benefits/choices afforded to a REAL 8/9. Commonly known as 69 syndrome. What did she do do to deserve this SMV uplift? Nothing too difficult! Remove these Fake SMV enablers from their “game” and the pool of REAL high… Read more »

walawala
Guest
walawala

Being married and divorced does have a cache for women. I’m late 40’s banging 20 year olds and always get asked “are you married?” Not any more …is the response that drAws them in. it’s better than just being single or just recently broken up. It’s almost like a rite of passage that as a man you can say you did it once and don’t have to do it again. Most girls are relieved to know I was married. This taps into some pre selection. It also demonstrates some type of responsibility and also a challenge…if the girl chasing yoi… Read more »

Liz
Guest

“The prerequisite for open hyperagamy and matriarchal societies is an abundant economic ecology. It’s a misconception that matriarchal societies are unstable and will collapse under their own weight into grass huts.” Interesting, JCL. I think it would depend on one’s definition of “unstable” and “collapse”. If collapse is losing hope, haulting reproduction and dissolving the bonds of family and community connections that create environments social animals thrive in (replacing them with faux realities and chemicals to make them “happy”) we’re starting to see that right now. Sarah Hoyt mentions this in a recent article, and I think she’s correct about… Read more »

newlyaloof
Guest

Karen = @shoeOnhead

hoellenhund2
Guest

I find Camille Paglia to be equal parts of stupid and clever. Her clever side once said “”If civilization had been left in female hands like me, i.e. Camille Paglia, we would still be living in grass huts,

Assuming women would normally build grass huts.

Bromeo
Guest
Bromeo

From her twatter account, karen:

comment image

LOL, dead

hoellenhund2
Guest

Let’s not forget that the Pareto principle applies the other way around as well, because it’s reasonable to say that 20% of women have access to 80% of male investment (time, resources, attention).

hoellenhund2
Guest

As far as promiscuity is concerned, Novaseeker has made this pretty accurate observation on Dalrock’s blog:

serial monogamy = the form of promiscuity preferred by women
spinning plates / soft harem = the form of promiscuity preferred by men

Pinelero
Guest
Pinelero

She must be from the BP sub-reddits or at least would find a home there. They are not builders only detractors.

hoellenhund2
Guest

The notion that men are also hypergamous is apparently one of those false but nevertheless unkillable memes popular among the women (and, sadly, even some men) among the Red Pill sphere, or whatever we want to call it.

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

Holy shit over 100 comments already?! This site is gonna kill me 😉 Some thoughts drone reading the OP to start. “A third common mistake, made mostly by women, presumes the goal-state outcome of intersexual dynamics should be to arrive at a monogamous state. This is the consolidation of a female sexual strategy, and because we live in a feminine-primary social order, that committed, monogamous end to women’s sexual strategy is perceived as the socially “correct” goal. At no point is men’s imperative interests (sexual or life-rewarding) a priority, if it’s considered at all, in the Hypergamous equation.” It’s become… Read more »

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

*from reading the op

Seraph
Guest
Seraph

So, considering both the tendency for women to generally seek the top 20% of males AND the way modern society inflates their self-perceived SMV’s out of all reality, is that why negs (for one example) are so important for Game?

It forces a recalibration, even subconsciously, on the woman’s internal SMV ranking, bringing it somewhat back in line with reality, or at least closer to it?

Liz
Guest

I’m wondering why the hottest chick (10 on the scale above) has a grimace and isn’t paired up with anyone.

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

“The degree of comfort with which women have in revealing the machinations of Hypergamy is proportional to their capacity to play the 80/20 game well enough to consolidate on a 20th percentile man (or his closest approximation). “ Ever notice most women willing to talk redpill here are pretty confident in their place in the SMP? Liz (allegedly), Emily, and Dragonfly are all attractive. Living tree and Hopless Hypergamy claimed to be. Stingray is in a happy stable relationship, at the least (dunno what she looks like.) See, in these cases they have nothing to fear. They feel confident in… Read more »

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong

@playdontpay I have a problem with the 1-10 rating system, it’s heavily favours FAKE female Smv “qualities”. That’s not a product of the scale. That’s a product of women engaging in deceptive practices attempting to emulate well-known attraction cues to draw men in. I can safely say I’ve never had any of them (especially makeup) work on me. @snowden I have never actually went through with it and fucked a fatty before. I wasn’t necessarily referring to that. I was referring to the fact that the obesity epidemic has created a situation where your very reasonable expectations are now insanely… Read more »

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong

@Liz

I’m wondering why the hottest chick (10 on the scale above) has a grimace and isn’t paired up with anyone.

If you’re at the top of the scale, who is there to marry “up” to?

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

@Liz

The idea is she can’t find any men hotter than her, so she’s not really attracted to any of them. She’s frustrated cause there’s ‘no man good enough.’

I don’t think this literally happens in all cases cause SMV is perceptual and people look for different factors to a degree within it. Maybe the 10 isn’t attracted to an Abercrombie model, but some abusive drug addict w tear tattoos under his eye triggers her Hypergamy. Or maybe a guy who’s very spiritual and passionate. Depends on the chick.

Seraph
Guest
Seraph

Following, it occurs to me that while the above charts and the 80/20 principal seem a bitch (pardon the pun) for men, there is a equally vicious downside for women. As others pointed out just in this thread, how many REAL 10’s are there within the ranks of women? How many REAL 9’s? One of the first things RP taught me (courtesy of Roissy) was to be coldly objective when evaluating female attractiveness and that alone was a eye-opening (if not a little depressing) revelation. Seems to me that when men rip off the Blue and Rose colored glasses and… Read more »

hoellenhund2
Guest

I’m wondering why the hottest chick (10 on the scale above) has a grimace and isn’t paired up with anyone.

Because the men she’d otherwise assortatively pair up with – i.e. the top men – are more likely to take advantage of the current sexual marketplace by recruiting female 7s and 8s as plates (members of a soft harem) rather than satisfying the hypergamy of a female 9 or 10. The hottest women are also the losers of this marketplace, as strange as that may sound.

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong

@Forge Holy shit over 100 comments already?! This site is gonna kill me Mostly due to trollflation this time. It’s easy to have a shit ton of posts when making short inflammatory statements strictly to garner a reaction. If some girl consistently makes my life easier and more pleasant to have around, I’m gonna tend to keep her around. If being monogamous in such a case allows me better focus on non-relationship goals, then that might be a viable option. How does everyone not think like this lol. Try being raised by a single mom in a feminist society that… Read more »

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

My last comment made me think –

Ya know, from one angle good PUA skills are actually a very compassionate thing to develop. Given the sorts of men some girls – particularly the hot ones who can afford to demand excitement – go for, it’s great that more men have the skill to keep their instincts happy without being abusive, violent shitlords.

Liz
Guest

“If you’re at the top of the scale, who is there to marry “up” to?”

Maybe that’s one of the inherent flaws in egalitarianism. From my perspective a high value female could never outrank (or rank as an equal) to a man of high value. Lauren Bacall would never outrank or equal Bogart, Monroe would never outrank or equal Demaggio, and so forth.

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

@sun

Alright, cool. I’ve had a hankering for troll roast this morning.

Also, yeah. I get it – I was the same way. It’s just thinking that way now is strange, like putting on the leather trench coat you thought was *so cool* when you were 15.

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong

@Seraph

Seems to me that when men rip off the Blue and Rose colored glasses and are REALLY objective about the physical appearance of women, the SMV rankings are decidely, dramatically, slanted toward the bottom 6 ranks nowadays, and perhaps it always has been that way.

I always assumed the distribution (without our current problems) was similar to IQ distribution, with extremely high or low attractiveness fitting in the long tails on the end of a bell curve. Our current obesity rates just weight the scale (so to speak) a lot more toward the end of low attractiveness.

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

“Maybe that’s one of the inherent flaws in egalitarianism”

Yeah, one idea about what made monogamy ‘work’ back when was by artificially inflating men’s value such that men and women could pair (objectively) assortively while allowing women to feel that they had married in a hypergamous fashion.

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong

Maybe that’s one of the inherent flaws in egalitarianism Hmmm… you know I don’t think that’s it. It strikes me as being purely due to hypergamy coupled with awareness of what’s available out there (that wasn’t available in the past) and the same validation cranking that less attractive women get (via social media and the like) turned up to 11. I mean, SMV is all about perception. If the perception is that you deserve a man that only exists in fantasy instead of whatever would have been right in front of you in your community as in the past, it… Read more »

Liz
Guest

“Ya know, from one angle good PUA skills are actually a very compassionate thing to develop. Given the sorts of men some girls – particularly the hot ones who can afford to demand excitement – go for, it’s great that more men have the skill to keep their instincts happy without being abusive, violent shitlords.” I know I’m treading on thin ice with this observation (it doesn’t seem to be the accepted one from what I’ve been able to ascertain after spending a couple of years in the sphere), but I don’t think the “hot ones” go for abusive violent… Read more »

emilyy96
Guest

Sometimes I think Liz might be bitter, divorced male. Then I remember women can be degenerates too. I remember coming across a blog where a woman was determined to prove that women are essentially children. imo.. women like Liz just like to degrade themselves and other women. They basically extend their submission and degradation fetishes outside the bedroom. Liz probably gets off everytime some commenter here talks about how worthless women are. Aaanyhow, I did try to be on point here – yall can read my posts here and decide for yourself, but apparently people just want to call me… Read more »

Liz
Guest

Good grief.

Liz
Guest

Fwiw, They (and I) weren’t referring to you above. It was the newcomer.

redlight
Guest
redlight

I know you value open debate and not censoring comments, but seems to me obvious trolling should be an exception, especially when it is 50% of the comments

For trolls just put their comments in mod, so that the comments appear eventually but they don’t get the crack hit of seeing their clever wit immediately show up. Since most trolls have the attention span of a two year old they will quickly move on to other sites.

redlight
Guest
redlight

The hard choices of hypergamy in today’s Dear Abby: I’m in love with two men. My husband, “Victor,” and I have been together for nine years and were married last year. The other man in my life, “Wade,” was my boss, and we’ve been seeing each other for two years. They are polar opposites and make me happy in different ways. I was engaged and planning my wedding when Wade and I started our relationship. I chose to marry Victor for emotional stability and because we had built a life together. I can’t imagine a life without him. At the… Read more »

Liz
Guest

Rollo: “I think a lot of this popularized distancing from the label of ‘feminist’ is really a form of infighting between women whose world views don’t align. One of the issues I’ve always had with Elam and AVfM was their glad-handing women who identify as ‘anti-feminist’ and thinking that means they are pro-MRM. They’re not, they just want a platform from which to fight women with whom they disagree. I think we’ve come to a point since the sexual revolution where women are so used to feminist ideology that they don’t recognize it in themselves. They don’t identify as ‘feminist’,… Read more »

Liz
Guest

Not that I’m claiming I’m flawless and completely objective and reject the FI. I am a rational actor however, and I try to at least be honest.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Well, there goes 20 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back. Please stop engaging trolls.

Water Cannon Boy
Guest
Water Cannon Boy

There’s nothing phallic about it Karen.
And actually, that kind of trope and all that’s behind getting that model in sports Illustrated has been discussed in posts on this blog before.
You don’t know what you’re talking about right now, but keep trying.

having a bad day
Guest
having a bad day

@Sun You know the more I improve myself and aim to have a lot more positive thinking in my life, the less it’s disgust and the more it becomes gracious amusement. props on hitting this way point on your journey… re getting hit on by low smv girls…it just helps to reinforce that you are the prize = abundance mentality… ___________________ @snowdensjacket at 2:21p And if that old one would have realized that at forty five she has no value to me at all her kids might have a father. Or maybe she’d realize she needs to be hitting on… Read more »

emilyy96
Guest

My bad Liz, I thought that was directed at me.

I’d delete the post if I could, but I cant sooo… But whatever. It’s still the truth.

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

Liz, I’m not gonna say there’s a correlation between attractiveness and going for shitlords, but if shitlords do it for a girl they’re more likely to get what they demand if she’s hot. I agree that beautiful women tend to end up in different situs though. Some combination of being able to get the rate men who are both a good measure of AF/BB, and the sort of social isolation that top-status people tend to experience I’d guess (there’s a lot of pressure at the top to associate with only the right people and to ‘make something of yourself’). Alright… Read more »

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

Poorly phrased. A girl is more likely to get the sort of man she desires – shitlords or otherwise – if she’s hot.

Liz
Guest

Agreed, Forge. 🙂
I do think you’re right about the ‘public service’ of learning PUA stuff.
A very beautiful woman isn’t likely to be the one doing the approaching.

Liz
Guest

“My bad Liz, I thought that was directed at me.”

No problem. There was a surge in spam from amphetamine chick.
I do not think you post like you are on amphetamines.

corypheus
Guest
corypheus

Women are hypergamous, yet they claim to want an equal partner (per Sandberg, et al.)

Hypergamy and equality will never mix. This is just another example of ignoring what women say and paying attention to what they do.

theasdgamer
Guest

@ Andy +1 on not feeding the trolls @ habd Good to see you…I think you’ll enjoy my latest post about relationships and GTFO inspired by…Proverbs. Whodathunkit? Red Pill stuff in the Bible? …slambamthankumaam…quick and rough…funny how quickness and roughness can be the hottest foreplay…I’ve been waaay too considerate lately…tingle-killer…do stuff she’ll whine about…and lol at her whining and keep doing it and throw her off balance (figuratively AND physically)…it was all about my desire…zero consideration for her and she was so into it…women crave being desired by hot men… I pulled two 20-something hotties to a dance studio last… Read more »

bluepillprofessor
Guest

@emily: “do you guys think sexual freedom for women is a good thing or bad?” I haven’t read all the comments but I see a lot of pussy footing around with this. Let me be clear. Complete sexual freedom for women is a BAD thing for society, for the future, for our children, for the world. There, I said it. Anybody telling you otherwise is an Alpha (or wannabe Alpha) looking to capitalize on the sluts while society crumbles around him. The central point of Rollo’s post and many of the comments are that 80% of women reproduce with 20%… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

Looking at the comments from the ladies on this thread, it looks almost instinctive for women to try to disqualify the points made with the standard exception-disproves-the-rule fallacy. “Nuh uh, this can’t be true because I married a nerd!” I think women have a visceral need to disbelieve the truths of their own hypergamy sometimes. This is so different from men, who not only seek to explore their own desires, but will openly confess what attracts them and why they date the women they date. It is as if nature evolved women to, at an instinctive level understand, but at… Read more »

theasdgamer
Guest

A very beautiful woman isn’t likely to be the one doing the approaching.

maybe not for herself…maybe for a friend

Atticus
Guest
Atticus

@Rollo From the male side, I think the 1-10 scale ranks looks. In reality, men are binary, would fuck/wouldn’t fuck; would marry/wouldn’t marry (different things). Whether the man is looking for an LTR or a harem, it’s usually a yes/no. Women are always pinging their environment. Someone walks into a bar and every women looks. They always know what’s going on around them. I think YaReally said that once and I started paying attention and he’s 100% correct, they all do it. The 1-10 scale is a necessity for them. Men not so much. the OP was women accepting, but… Read more »

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

“Oh dear, Liz wants to start a flame war again. But I’ll be the more mature one – again.

Anyway, Rollo….”

kfg proposed ‘parapraxis’ as the word of the day. I disagree.

Look up ‘apophasis.’

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky

So we’ve got like, what, 4 people with the whole ‘But men want the top 20% of women too!!’

Really? This is remedial redpill.

Of course men will take a hotter girl if they can get her. The difference is they can still be turned on by a girl who isn’t a ‘top 20%.’ And in what sorts of relations they’d like to pursue longterm. And what sorts of things are attractive in the first place. And all the other stuff that’s literally what the redpill is about.

Dat reading comprehension doe.

Atticus
Guest
Atticus

“The 80/20 rule is about distributive desire. A woman wanting to fuck or consolidate on monogamy with a man 1-5 SMV steps above her own doesn’t mean she necessarily marries or bears the child of that ideally optimal guy ”

We both posted at the same time. So if it’s about desire not reality, what difference does it make?

Not to be a dick but, most men that buy BMW 325’s would prefer a 735. So?

newlyaloof
Guest

I’m looking at this Pareto Principle a bit differently after watching that Max vid @YaReally posted in the last post. It’s like, if you want to get laid, do the opposite of what 80% of the dudes in the bar are doing. Or, put another way, watch how Max goes from A1 to C3 in under 10 seconds sometimes. Amazing to watch, and after watching it (and considering I look similar to that dude minus the accent), I know what to do if the wifey bolts.

bluepillprofessor
Guest

LMFAO Rollo slaps his dick right in Emily’s face with a loud splaaaat.

maelsttrom
Guest

😳

Hux5599
Guest
Hux5599

So unchecked hypergamy leads to a state of permanent warfare and a selection based on looks and force. War and stupid people everywhere. Regression of the human race. The monkey age. Brillant. In today’s world selection should prioritize intelligent/ creative folks not low IQ thugs. Genetic medicine should also help in allowing brillant minds to pass on their epigenetically acquired good genes and discarding debilitating diseases on the way. Think Hawking. This man is more beneficial to us than a stupid jacked up tall handsome man with an 85 IQ score and no disease. Your post bolsters my intent to… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Doesnt make sense. The 80/20 rule is always operatively defined here as 80% of women wanting. As far as wanting goes hypergamously ALL women want THE BEST. ALL MEN want the HOTTEST + abundance. The 80/20 is the hard endpoint of market dynamics where 80% of the effect size is determined by the top 20% of men. So 80% of the sex is had by these men, 80% of women get with these men. Its a description of an end state, not a description of an underlying desire principle. Here Rollo is presenting it as an undelrying desire principle. The… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg

@Blue Pill Professor: “Anybody telling you otherwise is an Alpha (or wannabe Alpha) looking to capitalize on the sluts while society crumbles around him.” If it weren’t for the current state of society I never would have met that adorable little South African girl with the Joan Baez and Joni Mitchell song books tucked under her arm – and a voice to match. If it all burns down I might gain certain advantages over the 80%, but I also appreciate what an advanced social structure gives me as well. I’m not in any hurry to play with matches. @Forge: “kfg… Read more »

Atticus
Guest
Atticus

@Anon

All true, but what’s the point? While were at it why don’t we say that 100% of women desire the top 1% men. We’d still could be be right, but who cares?

From Wikipedia: The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity)[1] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

How is the Pareto principal actually describing what is happening?

emilyy96
Guest

Well, thank you BPP for actually answering my question (that I feel was quite relevant, and yet, most people ignored me and called me out for trolling or whatever.) I agree that if women are completely sexually free then society will resemble 80/20 sexually and that’s bad. However, I think it is in the ‘alphas’ interests for that too happen, so not only do women have to be less promiscuous, men have to be more monogamous too. Thats all I was saying, whats up with the rudeness :/ @Rollo >:( Look… Can we just leave my bf out of this… Read more »

YaReally
Guest

Technology/social media/online dating/smartphones/etc has made the 80/20 more like 90/10 now, and down the road especially once VR-sex/sexdoll etc hits and men voluntarily take themselves out of the game it’ll be like 99/1. Hopefully the VR-sex/sexdoll stuff will be close enough to satisfy the Elliot Rogers’ but if not there will be some beta uprising nightmares as frustrated men take their frustration out on society. Start learning game now, ’cause in a bar where 80% of the men have stayed home to fap to VR webcam chicks and shit, cold approach game and understanding how to use preselection and social… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg

@Emily: “Whether I am cuckolding him or not (im not) is my own business.”

No, it isn’t.

Atticus
Guest
Atticus

@Anon

From Rollo:

“Very complex social conventions revolve around absolving women from the consequences of this rule (Man Up and marry that Alpha Widowed single-mommie), so yes, a woman might marry a nerd, but modern marriage is littered with Alpha Widows who were forced to settle for a less than optimal man in exchange for the provisioning he represents”

So some of the 80% sub-par males are getting married,laid and making babies. Might be starfish; unhappily married; indentured servitude, but some “bad” genes are moving forward.

What am I missing?

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader

Anonymous Its a description of an end state, not a description of an underlying desire principle. Rollo doesn’t write for high school kids, he writes for adults. Read more carefully, you’re missing the whole point. Emilyslut I agree that if women are completely sexually free then society will resemble 80/20 sexually and that’s bad. However, I think it is in the ‘alphas’ interests for that too happen, so not only do women have to be less promiscuous, men have to be more monogamous too. Once again the point flies over your head. Take 100 men and 100 women, 80 of… Read more »

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader

All true, but what’s the point? While were at it why don’t we say that 100% of women desire the top 1% men.

Well, for a start, we shouldn’t say what isn’t true.

How is the Pareto principal actually describing what is happening?

Maybe you should read the OP?

YaReally
Guest

@Atticus
“and making babies”

…or ARE they? 😉

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/france-upholds-the-ban-on-paternity-tests/

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader

So some of the 80% sub-par males are getting married,laid and making babies. Might be starfish; unhappily married; indentured servitude, but some “bad” genes are moving forward.

Ok. Under what conditions? It takes a certain number of normal people to keep an industrial civilization going, and we know that sons of single mothers are at a real disadvantage in the modern world.

What am I missing?

The men living lives of quiet desperation for a start.

Maybe I’m wrong but the OP looks more descriptive than proscriptive.

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader

YaReally – yeah, there’s that. Thanks for reminding me, Rollo touched on this in Open Hypergamy.

AF-BB moving to AF-Beta Cucks…

Atticus
Guest
Atticus

@Anonymous Reader

I was responding to Rollo’s comment at 10:44. Check it out.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

The above being true only in a market realistically optimised for collective hypergamy. Note that even optimisation doesnt completely fulfil the fundamental want. Women genuinely want the best. If not the best then only in the top 20%. Hence you get a 3 “wanting” an 8. For a 3 only an 8 and above is hypergamously functional and optimised. No such thing as COMPLETE fulfilment. In practice even the functional optimisation isnt present either, hence Rollo alluding to the difference between want and have. The bottom 20% of women not getting functional optimisation of hypergamy is the obvious example. Other… Read more »

emilyy96
Guest

“Once again the point flies over your head. Take 100 men and 100 women, 80 of the women want to get down with the perceived top 10 men. Suppose that 9 of those men are totally monogamous, the 1 man left is swimming in poon and will surely have sex with as many of the 80 women as he wants, including married women” Yes, which is why, you moron, the second part of my argument comes in. Women need to be monogamous and not tolerate men having sex with other women. If that happens, then those 80 women will have… Read more »

%d bloggers like this: