Pseudo-Virginity

There’s a lot being made of sluts recently. Vox, whom I’ve got a great respect for,  just made an (admittedly unscientific) poll attempting to estimate mate worthiness and establish some hard data amongst those aware of it, on rates of fidelity by asking the right questions. I took part in it, but to my disappointment my particular input was useless because I’m a ‘snowflake’ – I’ve been with 40+ women, had 4 significant LTRs, cheated on 2 (was also cheated on by the same 2, but that wasn’t on the questionare), been married almost 16 years, never cheated on my wife, nor have ever been cheated on by my wife (who’s had at least 6 prior BFs I’m aware of) – yep, I guess I’m an outlier. Or at least an outlier in respect to the correlations that other’s wanted to find evidence of.

As expected, Aunt Giggles was eager to gobble up the ‘hard data’ to make her case for fem-centric feminine framed monogamy (despite very loose parameters), but it struck me that, within both the manosphere and team woman, there is indeed an emphasis on the virtues of a woman being as close to pseudo-virginity as is socially manageable. I touched on this briefly in The Slut Paradox, and I do understand the evolved psychology behind it.

If Men are willingly or forcibly going to sacrifice their polygynous sexual strategy in favor of a female specific long-term strategy of parental investment, they innately want reassurances of a woman’s fidelity and that his biological investment is in fact his own. There have been some entertaining experimental studies on men’s innate ability of recognizing their own children’s faces amongst a crowd of uniformly dressed kids; Men are more accurate and faster to identify their kids in a crowd than women. So, for men it’s not a stretch to assume there’s an evolved aspect to confirming paternity if not actual fidelity.

On the feminine side, the psychological fallout ranges from a need for absolution of their sexual pasts (revirginization, spiritual and physical), to notch count revisionism, ASD, and simple cognitive dissonance. With so many coping mechanisms, it would appear that secreting our sexual histories is of paramount importance to ensuring our genetic legacies.

Virgin Pluralism

The problem is that feminine Hypergamy and women’s pluralistic sexual strategies conspire against each other. It is in a woman’s genetic best interests to breed with Men of superior stock (or at least perceptually so) whilst in her prime fertility years. Rationalizations and conscious efforts aside, a woman’s hindbrain subroutine compels her toward striking while the biological iron’s hot. This characterizes Hypergamy in her prime fertility window, but later when long-term security becomes the imperative this Hypergamy fluidly changes toward the best provider of security. It’s at this time that there is a psychological schism for women; as the wall approaches, a need for cognitive dissonance splits between her former sexual strategy and is replaced by a long-term security strategy. This necessitates forming new mental schema to replace the soon-to-be obsolete schemas that allowed her to pursue her sexual imperative when younger. Suddenly she’s concerned not only for her own long-term security, but the sisterhood’s as well. Ask her to tell you the best way to live and it’s always been about monogamy, security, fidelity, relationship,..etc.

All of that doesn’t sit well with a Man’s conflicting sexual strategy. In a woman’s sexual prime, his scattershot sexual strategy makes for a complementary tactic (as far as evolution’s breeding the next crop of humanity is concerned), but when it comes to a strategy of parental investment, psychological contingencies and countermeasures had to evolve to lessen the risk to his genetic legacy. Enter the importance of pseudo-virginity.

The New Virgins

I don’t think I need to reiterate the importance a purported low sexual partner count on the part of women seems to be for men. No wants a slut right? Why?

Vox’s study and the resulting speculations on its indications is evidence enough of this desire, but there is a concerted effort for both parties interested to maintain at least the presumption of a low N-count. The conflict arises in conflating a high partner count as the causation for infidelity.

Is past sexual selectivity / promiscuity an indicator for low / high pair bonding instances, or is it the conditions that prompted those behaviors the cause of infidelity? We definitely would like reliable predictors of infidelity, but I think what we fail to see is the causality of what contributes to the predictability. While infidelity may be morally reprehensible, from an evolutionary standpoint it may actually be the most beneficial recourse depending on circumstance.

Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’ve only ever fucked your wife. For every rare snowflake who moves from a high N-count to life-long marital fidelity, there’s a rare couple of high school sweethearts divorcing who’ve never fucked anyone but each other. We want the True Love couple to live happily ever after because it appeases our emotions and sense of fantasy, while we also expect the slut or the incorrigible cad get their just rewards of a life of self-loathing resentment. Reality doesn’t always cooperate with our idealizations, but the more important question to ask is why we think one couple is deserving of happiness while the other merits scorn?

Notch Count

Women don’t pine away for past beta lovers. All of this handwringing about a woman’s notch count and how numerically close she is to virginity is only so much semantics if you don’t factor in the psychological impact a single Alpha lover has on a woman. Ever wonder why the guy a girl shares/loses her virginity with is so memorable for her? Barring instances of rape, he’s a default Alpha just for having been her first. This is the primary reason I advise Men against deflowering virgin women; the sex is often negligible, but the impact is so significant that it forms an emotional attachement in a girl that most guys are unprepared for.

Once a woman has experienced that Alpha dominance, only another Alpha experience can delimit the previous experience. This is an example of the role conditionality plays in pair bonding. If a woman has had 10 prior lovers who’ve all amounted to beta experiences, an Alpha experience may be all it takes to make her loyal. On the other hand a woman with only one prior Alpha lover may be impossible to convince to be loyal to anyone she sees as a lesser experience.

These are the Alpha Widows. In fact, I’d argue that most female initiated infidelity is a result of hypergamous impulse seeking to find its previous level. Women don’t trade down in experience, they are always perceptually trading up. One of the liabilities of hypergamy is that there is a risk to benefits equation playing in women’s hindbrains that assesses what she can potentially lose. This is a pre-established dread that has to be repressed or ignored in order to for a woman to cheat. Women are prone to infidelity with better options, not worse ones. It’s a mistake to assume that only notch count is the precursor for infidelity.

Moral to the Manosphere

Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.

I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the manosphere.

Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice  not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.

Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.

I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities, and often our own well being. Although there’s many a critic on ‘team woman’ shooting venom from the hip as to my emphasis on the feminine here, don’t think that iconoclasm is limited to the fem-centric side of the field – I catch as much or more vitriol from the manosphere when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.

The Hypergamy Conspiracy

Rollo Tomassi:

“Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.”

Aunt Sue:

“Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.”

Escoffier:

“I don’t think that’s right.

The theory is more like this, from what I have read. Hypergamy is a woman’s natural (which is to say, genetically wired) preference for a higher status male–that is, higher status than herself and also higher status than the other men in her field of vision and also perhaps higher status than men she has known in the past and even (at the extremes) higher status than most men she can personally imagine meeting. That cuts across a range of possible relationships, all the way from a ONS to marriage. In all cases, women naturally prefer the highest status man they can get. And sometimes they want so much status that they won’t settle on ANY man they could actually get.

“Status” has a varied meaning in this definition. Certain things correllate with high status, for intance money, prestige, social standing, etc. However a man can have all of that and still be low status because of low status intrapersonal behavior (i.e., needy schlumpitude). The highest possible status male would be rich, good looking, fit, well dressed, high social cache, high prestige job (preferably one which involves risk, physical risk being better than mere monetary risk), and also extroverted, dominant, the leader of his group of friends, able to command any social situation, and so on. However, women are wired to be turned on more by the latter BEHAVORIAL traits than by be the former SUBSTANTIVE traits. So, if you have have to choose one or the other, to get women, be socially dominant and a broke societal loser rather than socially awkward and a rich societal winner. But best to be both, if possible.

As to marriage, sure women want to marry up. But this does not exhaust the effects of hypergamy. Women can marry up–both intrinsically and in their own mind–and still ditch their catch because someone “better” comes along. That is hypergamy at work.

Also, when women are pursuing short and medium term mating, hypergamy has no less force. They always prefer the most socially dominant male they can get. This is often relative (A&B are both a little dweeby but A is more alpha than B and since I want someone NOW I choose A) but sometimes it is more intrinsic (A&B are both a little dweeby and even though A is a little more alpha, since I don’t have to have someone NOW, I am going to hold out for the Real Deal).

It’s not all about marriage. It’s about mate selection accross the range of circumstances.

That, at any rate, is how I believe the manosphere understands “hypergamy.”

Aunt Sue:

“Yes, because they made it up. Researchers do not recognize that definition. It’s pure Game.”

The main reason I only sporadically participate in the comment threads at Aunt Sue’s echo chamber Blog is because conversational gems like this have a marked tendency to get buried under, sometimes, thousands of other comments. I think it’s a shame really. I wanted to draw particular attention to the difference in interpretation of terms with regards to the dynamic of Hypergamy here.

Escoffier makes an astute analysis of Hypergamy in a much broader perspective than Susan’s definition-approved “researchers” are willing to recognize. On the fem-centric side we have Sue casually dismiss “Hypergamy” (twice) in this context as some fabrication of the Game-set and therefor not a legitimate analysis. A rose is a rose, and as I’ve stated in prior threads, Hypergamy is a term that should have a much broader definition when considered in context with the feminine imperative and the eminently observable feminine behaviors that manifest as a result of Hypergamy’s influence.

That the term Hypergamy should be so wantonly limited in its definition, and in such a way that it serves to deliberately confuse a better understanding of it as an evolutionary impulse on the feminine psyche, speaks volumes about the importance of maintaining its misunderstanding to the feminine imperative.

It’s almost ironic that the collective feminine ego should even need to deign to recognize Hypergamy in the terms that it is cast as in Susan’s default response. “Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.” forces the feminine to at least begrudgingly accept that women are in fact basing their long-term commitment prospects on status (as defined by researchers), and not some ephemeral soul-mate, emotional precept. God forbid men (PhDs or otherwise) should have the temerity to extrapolate any further social, psychological or evolutionary implications that could’ve influenced that Hypergamy dynamic into existence.

While I wont argue the credentials of the researchers Sue will undoubtedly quote – I often acknowledge all of the same in other posts and comments – I will however make the point that her interpretation (as is everyone’s) is subject to bias. And in this case, that bias serves the feminine imperative in keeping the definition of Hypergamy in as closed a way as possible to benefit the feminine. In the evolving understanding of the motivators that influence intergender relations there are going to be terms that describe concepts.

AFC’s, Alpha, Beta, Hypergamy, etc. are all defined by the concepts they represent.

‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the feminine imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate. The real question then is, why would that concept be threatening to the feminine? You can delegitimize the term, but the concept is still the operative issue. Why is the concept of that larger scope of the term so offensive to a fem-centric society?

The Conspiracy that Wasn’t

One issue many of my critics have is that in exposing these inconsistencies, these operative social conventions and the latent purposes behind them, my writing (really most of the manosphere) seems to take on a conspiratorial tone. I can fully appreciate this, and it might shock a few readers to know that I  reject much of the popularized MRA perspective in this respect. I agree with an MRA perspective in a rational analysis to a certain degree, but there is no grand conspiracy, no secret mysterious cabal pushing a negative perception of masculinity – and this is exactly why what I outline on this blog is so pervasive. There doesn’t need to be a unitary group of ‘anti-men’ bent on some melodramatic goal of world domination; because this feminized ideal is already embedded in our socialization. Fem-centrism IS our collective social consciousness.

It doesn’t need a centralized directorship because the mindset is already so installed and perpetuated by society at large it’s now normalized, taken for granted and self-perpetuating. AFCs raising AFCs leads to still more AFCs. This generation doesn’t realize their own bias because it’s been standardized, encouraged and reinforced in them, and society, over the course of several generations now.

What’s to question, especially when calling attention to the feminization dynamic leads to ridicule and ostricization?

So to answer the conspiracy question; no, there is no illuminati shadow conspiracy and that’s exactly what makes feminization the normalized and overlooked default.