youtu.be/_4jKAgYL0gg
Podcast #229: How Men and Women Socialize Differently | The Art of Manliness
Clink On This Link And Scroll Upwards. Then Begin Reading Where You See The Title Dads, Cads, Coys, and Sluts
https://quillette.com/2016/06/11/women-are-far-more-anxious-than-men-heres-the-science/
Scroll To The Comments Section And Find The Comments From sevens2. Later This Week I'll Finish The Warriors And Worriers Blog Post And Tie It Into The Blog Post Above. Wait Until I Tie It All Together. It'll Make So Much Sense!
As society relaxes its controls of female sexuality — and unleashed female sexuality is the wilder and more fluid and more dangerous of the sexes — more women rush to the “thug lover” side of the hindbrain continuum, and away from any latent preference for dutiful betas. Conversely, when society strengthens its controls over female sexuality, something close to the opposite happens: women are incentivized to favor the company of beta males.
Thug loving serves a useful purpose in evolutionary terms. The sons of thugs make better protectors of the tribe, and in point of fact stupider, thuggier people outbreed smarter, empathetic people. Experiments in fruit flies have actually proven the concept of an emergent idiocracy.
Soft alpha/beta loving serves a useful purpose in civilizational terms. The sons of K selected women make better builders and maintainers of prosperous societies.
Both strategies come with their weaknesses and strengths, but it has to be said that, in most practical senses, the evolutionary goals are at odds with the civilizational goals. In simpler terms: what’s good for the individual man or woman is not necessarily, or very often, good for a prosperous society. This has been a core concept here at the Chateau since its inception.
- Hypergamy, then, is ever present. The only thing that changes whether it is realized or not is the extent to which women are free to act on it. Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily guarantee an inequality in actual sexual encounters, but the more free that women are to act on it (and this is personal speculation) the more likely are there to be social norms and institutions favoring women, i.e. fault-free divorce, preferential child custody laws, anti-slut shaming, hyper-popularity on social media, (the free trips to Dubai that entails), etc.
It’s kind of a victorious vagina queefback loop: the greater hypergamous freedom women enjoy, the more that institutions have to bend to cater to women’s prerogatives, and the more those institutions feminize (by essentially locking out beta males from economic and sexual opportunity) the more hypergamous women become in response.
In a way, this knowledge validates Game, because Game (aka applied charisma) is primarily a hack of a sexual market characterized by runaway female hypergamy. In a monogamous, patriarchal society (which America may have had, customarily, during periods of the 19th Century and for a few decades in the mid-20th Century), Game would be less needed and less effective because female hypergamy — essentially the liberty of women to follow in full the whims of their sexual desire — would have been kept under control, and tempered by beta male oversight.
As I’ve written before, it wasn’t a coincidence that modren Game as we know it started in the late 1990s, emerging from the last vestige of male-only public spaces: the PUA forum, as an answer and a solution to the riddle of a dating scene that had radically changed as a result of the absolute liberation of female sexuality that followed in the wake of abolished sexual norms, abortion, female economic self-sufficiency, the latex condom, and the hormonal birth control pill.
A final, somewhat counter-intuitive point. An increase in the female-to-male population sex ratio increases competition for women amongst men because it increases the time until which women decide they are ready to “settle” for inferior quality mates (Briffault’s Law tells us that the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family, and so when there are more opportunities to do better, why settle early?). As a result, and at least in the context of my simulations, there is a sub-linear scaling law in which a doubling of the population of women compared to men increases the median woman’s number of matches by 50%.
I’m not entirely sure I understand what he’s written here. Is he saying that a sex ratio which skews to more women and fewer men actually favors women? That does seem counterintuitive and doesn’t gibe with what the prevailing sociological research says about sex skew and its effects on mate choice. I hope the author clarifies in the comments.
***
Female hypergamy and *runaway* female hypergamy are a difference in degree with sufficient consequences for the sexual market, and on top of that for society, that the two female selection states function as a difference in kind.
I am not saying female hypergamy is evil, or wrong. It’s an amoral Darwinian mechanism that exists because it powerfully, if somewhat inefficiently in the post-industrial environment, maximizes the reproductive fitness and survivability of women. Given that hypergamy is a part of the world, men should learn to leverage it when it cannot be contained, and to contain it when it threatens civilization. As the Selonomics guy wrote, female hypergamy in moderation and locally contained by limited choice is a positive force for quality control, but unrestrained female hypergamy in highly complex, mass scale societies can turn ugly fast, creating gynarchic dystopias of bluehair fatties bragging about their cock counts and haggard cat ladies “holding out” for a 6′ 4″ Adonis, while swarms of men from invader tribes hate-rape lonely #Resistance divorceés who welcomed them in, and ghetto mommas crank out five or ten bastard spawn who have to blow their allowance on a basket full of father’s day cards:
In summation, Hypergamy is a general purpose filtering mechanism for maximizing the genetic quality of a stock of evolving agents.
In simple systems with few additional feedback loops, Hypergamy can be a good thing. In complex systems, such as human societies, however, Hypergamy, the mating access and genetic inequality that results, is likely to cause a society to self-implode, in much the same way that too unequal a distribution of household income in an economy, for example, stalls growth by making it impossible for a debt-loaded Middle Class to continue consuming increasingly sophisticated and expensive technology.
Beta males are the debt-loaded middle class of the ultrahypergamous sexual market, and the price for entry to the world of slender, chaste, feminine, young White women has skyrocketed beyond their means. An angry young man revolt is all but assured under these chronically persistent conditions of sexual, romantic, and marital inegalitarianism. Trump’s election was the first salvo of this justifiably angry young man revolution. If Trump fails, the next salvos won’t be so benign. Shitlibs and pussyhatters will soon know what real anguish is.
Dads Versus Cads
Physical domination of rivals is one way that men achieve reproductive success that was more important in hunter gatherer societies than in medieval England, and more important in medieval England than after the Industrial Revolution.
Direct physical competition is getting supplanted by economic competition where women select as mates men who are financially qualified to support children. In recent decades, men also did a great deal more child care and housework, selecting for a mild and nuturant disposition incompatible with violent confrontation. So violent crime gets concentrated in depressed areas where there is little economic opportunity and women are attracted to successful fighters (5) at least those associated with youth gangs.
The steep decline in homicides in Europe continued from 1300 to 1950 without any reversal of trend (1), constitutes one of the longest, strongest, and most poorly understood trends in the social sciences. It is probably no accident that declining violence accompanied increasing wealth in Europe. As daily life was organized more and more around monetary transactions, homicides declined.
Why this happened is best understood in terms of the impact of money on sexual competition. When money controls sexual relationships, it removes direct physical confrontation from the equation.
In Victorian England, a wealthy man would negotiate with parents for permission to marry a daughter. Once married, he might choose to visit a brothel to add variety to his sex life. In either case, he negotiated new sexual relationships without any danger of physical rivalry with sexual competitors. Indeed, he might conclude either transaction without ever meeting a competitor.
Matters were very different in late medieval England where there was minimal privacy, where sexually active women could be encountered in taverns, and where everyday life was extremely violent (1,6).
https://methalashun.blogspot.com/2021/05/dont-know-what-im-talking-about.html
Look At What Liberalism And Its Feminist Imperative Has Done To The Hawaiian Race - Slowly Ushering It Into Extinction Through Multiculturalism And Interracial Breeding.
Price and his colleagues have come up with what they call “the female economic dependence theory of anti-promiscuity morality.” It states that “opposition to promiscuity arises in circumstances where paternity certainty is particularly important,” and predicts it is likely to arise “in environments in which women are more dependent economically on a male mate.”
"OPPOSITION TO PROMISCUITY WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER AMONG HETEROSEXUAL FEMALES WITH HIGHER INCOMES, AND SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER AMONG HETEROSEXUAL MALES WHO MADE MORE MONEY RELATIVE TO THEIR PARTNERS."
In other words, these feelings are a remnant of some of the oldest impulses in our evolutionary history: A man’s fear of getting stuck with the tab for raising another man’s child, and a woman’s fear of losing her man’s financial support because he suspects her child isn’t his.
