The "Rational Male and Female"? - Biology and Programs in Relationships

I tend to disagree here a little.
If you read accounts of men and how their families have disintegrated over night for no obvious reason or fault on their own, you might empathize with the fact that some men work their ass off only to find themselves single because he was not available enough for her, or did not give her enough attention ...etc..while he was out working a dangerous and hard job only to come home tired..

Added: this is why Hypergamy hurts so badly. Through not all women will do that, a sens of rejection towards their husbands is the norm in the western world.
I'd say there is a fundamental lack of colinearity and valuable commun interest that's the culprint in later LTR.

I tend to blame that behavior more on the spread of radical feminist ideology than anything. So you could say that embracing that ideology brings out the worst in hypergamic behavior. I can sure understand male frustration on that part, but I'd say that's separate from what I was writing about.
 
Though it probably goes a long way towards explaining certain typically feminine tendencies, and we might use it as a basis from which most women operate "by default", there are so many other factors that would also contribute to a seemingly "dualistic sexual strategy" (as I think I understand it, since I'm not entirely sure what it means) - such as early trauma, imprinting, absent father, dysfunctional family, characteropathy (NPD, BPD…), or just plain emotional immaturity. So it's not so simple (I know nobody here said it was). "Patterns within patterns" indeed.

It's also possible that "early trauma, imprinting, absent father, etc." are often narratives or projections onto what amounts to basic instinct. Not all the time, but oftentimes I think they're akin to "Oh, he must have had a really bad childhood." Not necessarily!

Well, is it hypergamous dualistic strategy, or just basically growing up and wisening up? Whatever the case, I don't see it as negative if it's used for "the good" by normal, decent women (yes, such a thing does exist).

Maybe this kind of 'growing up and wisening up' is actually hypergamous? But I agree with you: it can be good. (See Joe's latest post.) What's wrong with finding a relatively high-status male to be a partner providing protection and stability? Here I agree with the evolutionary people: it happens because it works on average. And to bring in the more metaphysical/JBP angle: perhaps this is part of the nature of consciousness. Women see the ideal man (however imperfectly), and men strive to achieve that ideal. I.e., like Andromeda wrote, they provide the inspiration, the ideal towards which men strive. That's not to say it always works, or that the ideal cannot be perverted (by men and women), but that's the overall trend. It's how the ideal/potential/value is manifested over long period of time and within a single life cycle.

I said it in an earlier post, but I'll say it again, or rephrase it at least: the typical male and female mating strategies work on the whole. But I think the reason each sex finds the other sex's tendencies unpalatable is not only because they're different in nature, but also for moralistic reasons. It may work biologically and evolutionarily, but anytime someone acts mechanically, it strikes others as 'bad' in some way, because there's some part of us that has an inkling of the 'higher' - i.e., the possibility for authentic, autonomous behavior in pursuit of an ideal, not enslaved to biological impulses - untapped but real potential. I think in general people don't admire low behavior. (Keeping in mind, from Haidt, that they criticize it in others but make excuses for themselves.) In that sense, men can act as a mirror for women, who won't necessarily realize they are acting mechanically, and vice versa - for those who choose become self-aware.

When wondering what a real man is or could be, Putin comes to mind. A natural leader, I don't think he "became" that way in order to attract women, to be a "gamer". His sense of self-worth doesn't depend on what men or women think of him. Women are not his goal, and yet, many women probably "crush" on him. I think ultimately, normal women will love and respect a man who has a "higher" goal in life.

I agree here. But at the same time, it's funny, because Putin is kind of the epitome of what women would go for according to the whole hypergamy thing. That's why leaders (and other high-status people like rock stars, actors, etc.) have no problem finding women. (See research on polygamy, for instance.) In Putin's case it just so happens that he's also a great guy. But keep in mind he's also a one-in-a-million type guy.

Well, I'm sure there are more levels, but we are only human after all! :-O

It's good that you brought levels into the discussion! ;) That's really what's missing in the way this kind of thing tends to get discussed. That's understandable, though, because the majority of people can't see reality at multiple levels.

There will always be a relatively small minority of people who are completely ruled by lower instincts. I think we can include shallow gold-diggers and antisocial alphas in that category. Then there's a majority of people who are ruled completely by socialization. But for those people, their values are only skin deep. They act for the most part in socially acceptable ways, which channel their lower instincts. But they're still lower instincts. So this is where we'd find the typical expressions of mating strategies. These are all 'decent people' for the most part, but they don't have much self-awareness.

The first step of self-awareness is to see that it's not 'other people' - it's actually you. And then, once you are aware of a trait or tendency in yourself, to decide if it is 'more you' or 'less you', and to work for or against it. There will be aspects of basic sexuality that can stay, and others that will need to go.

On that note, I thought this answer from JBP's October Q&A was good, on relationships. What stuck out for me was the attraction thing. I see that as a 'biological' thing on top of which higher values/levels can be developed. Anyways, here it is:
 
I agree here. But at the same time, it's funny, because Putin is kind of the epitome of what women would go for according to the whole hypergamy thing. That's why leaders (and other high-status people like rock stars, actors, etc.) have no problem finding women. (See research on polygamy, for instance.) In Putin's case it just so happens that he's also a great guy. But keep in mind he's also a one-in-a-million type guy.

I think in Putin's case being a great guy is the key for his attractiveness, and it just so happens that he is also a president. :-)

If we look at Macron or Trudeau, for example, they both are younger, they look good, they are educated, rich, powerful, etc. But are they broadly admired by women? Some women, yes, but even according to their political ratings it's pretty clear that women are not so crazy about these two. They are both fake and women instinctively feel it, imo.
 
I tend to disagree here a little.
If you read accounts of men and how their families have disintegrated over night for no obvious reason or fault on their own, you might empathize with the fact that some men work their ass off only to find themselves single because he was not available enough for her, or did not give her enough attention ...etc..while he was out working a dangerous and hard job only to come home tired..

I think one of the most (if not the most) harmful effects of feminism has been undoing the family unit. I think it's very likely that there was a very different psychology that existed about a century ago+ as it related to the family. If I would attempt to describe it, my guess is that it was the family was regarded more holistically and prominently - maybe even 'communistic' in a sense.

Men and women both had their roles, but what was most important, mainly through religion, was the family. I'm sure there were extreme cases, but I'd bet for the majority of people this social ideal created the pressure of sorting out problems together... at least to a greater extent than people do today. In our times, things are depicted not in terms of the family, but almost exclusively through the individual. And despite that going out the window when children are involved, it persists. Problems come because it's either one person's fault or the other's. That's very rarely the case. We create problems with the confluence of our own problems with other people's problems (pathology creates problems of it's own accord though, so there are important exceptions!) and that is the way they are resolved as well. So, now we have this lack of pressure to resolve disputes along with this victim mentality, and it's wasteful and destructive.

It is the duty of a husband to provide. Perhaps this is idealistic projection, but my guess is that before all this feminist tripe, many women did understand that the act of providing was in itself an act of love for the family. And my guess is that men also generally understood that the emotional intensity of their wives (from their perspective) was also their means of expressing love of the family. Although there's much written about how the sexes don't understand each other today, I'd bet men and women probably understood each other much better in the kind-of-distant past, mainly because the emphasis on the family unit would seem to have made it so.

It's more or less known how feminists avoid the varied influences of history that have played a part in women's position in employment, society, etc., but this also cuts both ways. Feminism isn't the all-powerful creator and destroyer. For instance, technology has played a huge role in social development. It has amplified base human fallibilities that run on easy and biased interpretations of reality (system one), and that has had a significant impact on relationships and communication as well. In this way, MGTOW are often missing the same context that they accuse feminists of lacking.
 
On that note, I thought this answer from JBP's October Q&A was good, on relationships. What stuck out for me was the attraction thing. I see that as a 'biological' thing on top of which higher values/levels can be developed. Anyways, here it is:

Thanks AI, for me JBP is talking about what Tomassi calls being complimentary. It's the balance between the sexes that makes it work. They compliment each other, while still having traits in common and move forward together based on a shared aim. Like JPB says in the video, opposite ends of the spectrum make hard work, while having similar amounts of say, agreeableness, for example, help the partnership run more smoothly.

So, as said previously in this thread, the being aware of yourself and your traits/faults/strengths (essentially being self aware) will certainly be of great help to understanding what you want in a relationship and what a good match would be for you.
 
I think in Putin's case being a great guy is the key for his attractiveness, and it just so happens that he is also a president. :-)

Yes, I agree. He embodies positive masculinity, and it's probably very rare - at least among high status men - to combine not only strength, character, competency, self-confidence, attractiveness, 'cool' demeanour AND conscience + a good heart. That's why, I think, most women like him. They instinctively recognize him as "one in a million" (at least, among people in power, where psychopathic traits seems to be the norm). As Keit said:

I think there is definitely something deeply seated and subconscious that attracts most of women (no matter their status or money) to competent, strong, AND caring men. Their charm is totally disarming.

The problem (as stated by Timótheos here) is that often psychopaths will mimic those positive male traits to lure unaware women into their web.

Timótheos said:
On the surface, the calm, self-assured confidence of a naturally (but good-hearted) Alpha male is virtually indistinguishable from the haughty narcissistic arrogance of the psychopath. Their outward expression is so similar that many women, unaware of their inner biological drives, will be fooled by them.

That's why so many unaware women often fall for convincing caricatures of "the real thing" - psychopaths/Dark triad personalities "offer" a caricature of love.

Why Do Girls Like Bad Boys? Secrets from the Science of Attraction

From James Dean to James Bond to George Clooney (pre-Amal), girls have always had a soft spot for bad boys. And now science knows why. Recent research has found that men who have vain and somewhat er, well, psychopathic tendencies usually get more dates than the average male. Wondering what’s up with that? Well, here’s why.

They’re more attractive.
It’s not your imagination—bad boys really are ridiculously good looking. Research has found that people with so-called ‘dark’ personality traits such as narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism—otherwise known as the ‘dark triad’ of personality traits—are more physically attractive than others. The study by Nicholas Holtzman and Michael Strube of Washington University in St. Louis found that narcissists, unsurprisingly, are better at making themselves look physically appealing. Which explains why it’s definitely not a coincidence that bad boys have both an amazing wardrobe and amazing hair—they work hard at it.

Additionally, those within the dark triad were found to be, “more likeable and had more confident body language, and more attractive facial expressions,” than their counterparts. In short, a bad boy make a darn good first impression. This works well in his favor because, according to the research, when we find someone super hot, we tend to assume they’re also smart, kind, and confident (even if it isn’t true). No wonder bad boys are so irresistible.

They’re more fun.
From motorcycles to daredevil trips, bad boys know how to have a good time. A 2016 study conducted at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona showed that a number of women were attracted to bad boy types because they were considered captivating. “While they are selfish, rule-breaking, imprudent, and rebellious, they are also brave, temerarious, independent, and self-reliant—and they live frantic, galvanizing lives,” said lead researcher Fernando Gutiérrez. He added that this behavior could function as “a signal that the subject has such good genetic quality and condition as to live dangerously without suffering harm.” The study went on to say those traits included in the dark triad, such as neuroticism and impulsiveness, “are not being weeded out by natural selection and actually may confer an evolutionary advantage.” Therefore ‘nice’ guys with their reliably structured existence just can’t compete with their wild bad boy counterparts who apparently have nine lives to boot—it’s evolution’s fault.

It’s hormonal.
If you find yourself ogling the bad boy at the bar, you can blame your ovaries for that. According to research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology back in 2012, women, in the week of ovulation, “delude themselves into thinking that the sexy bad boys will become devoted partners and better dads,” said study researcher Kristina Durante of The University of Texas at San Antonio. “When looking at the sexy cad through ovulation goggles, Mr. Wrong looked exactly like Mr. Right.” That means, during a certain time of the month, women can’t help but be attracted to the bad boy. (Just another thing to blame your baby box for.)

As much as bad boys are downright hypnotizing, it’s important to note that their charming ways quickly wear out. Although bad boys find it relatively easy to begin new relationships, research says that, over time, they find it difficult to maintain their mesmerizing first impression. In fact, they’re noted to be selfish, cold, and arrogant—pretty much the opposite of who you thought they were. (Just be careful because it could take several weeks before your bad boy exposes his true self. That’s because people with dark personality traits are skilled at keeping their unpleasant side hidden.)

[…]

[Extract from another article:]

What did Carter and his colleagues find? Women found the Dark Triad personality more attractive than the control. This result is in keeping with previous studies in which Dark Triad men reported their increased level of sexual success.

What might explain this result? Carter and his colleagues offer two possible explanations. First, sexual selection might be at work. This would mean that women are responding to signals of “male quality” when it comes to reproduction. And with respect to short-term mating, women may be drawn to ‘bad boys’, who demonstrate confidence, stubbornness, and risk-taking tendencies. Second, sexual conflict may be at play. The investigators state that “Women may be responding to DT men’s ability to ‘sell themselves’; a useful tactic in a co-evolutionary ‘arms race’ in which men convince women to pursue the former’s preferred sexual strategy.” They note that like a “used-car dealer,” Dark Triad men may be effective charmers and manipulators, furthering their success at short-term mating. The authors are also careful to note that though women rated the DT character as comparatively more attractive, it does not necessarily mean that they would have sex with them.

Carter and his team report the limitations of the study, including that the participants were undergraduates, a population that tends to be oriented towards short-term relationships. In addition, the Dark Triad character embodied all of the descriptors of the “Dirty Dozen” measure, while the control character had none. In the real world, the investigators acknowledge that both Dark Triad traits and their derivatives run along a continuum, which was not captured in this study.

This study is part of a growing body of research unveiling women's dueling desires. On the one hand, they express wanting a relationship with a loving and committed partner for the long-term. Yet on the other hand, they demonstrate an attraction to men with darker personalities, typically for the short-term. It is important to recognize, however, that this dynamic has been shaped by the demands of evolution. For the women who fall for bad boys—and the men who love them—these insights may help untangle this paradox.
 
Thanks everyone for this great and nuanced discussion, great example IMO of "blind people figuring out together how the elephant looks" :thup:

I was thinking in the same direction as AI and Renaissance (and Andromeda): it's one thing to live in the illusion that these biological drives don't exist or that we are above them. But there are more dimensions to the issue. For example, I think those who purely think in "evolutionary" terms have a hard time explaining why not every man starts impregnating random women the second he knows he can get away with it. And why not every woman collects the seeds from Alphas and conceals it from her Beta husband who then provides for her offspring, again, the second she thinks she can get away with it. That's what animals would do, after all: just execute their biological programs. I'm still waiting for the book, so I don't know if Tomassi tries to answer these questions? Generally what you find in evolutionary thinking about such topics is just far-fledged speculation on why this or that might have been "good" for the tribe or whatever. That doesn't really fly IMO.

I mean, the idea that we can be nobler than that isn't new; it's the battle between the "flesh" and the "spirit" in Paul, the battle between lower drives and higher aspirations that mankind has written and talked about everywhere forever. And it seems to me that what is good and noble about religions was created by people with an "inkling" of something higher, as AI called it. This in turn created social systems that put some pressure on folks not to give in to their biological directives. Isn't it obvious that religion in large parts has played that role? Get married, don't have sex before marriage, don't cheat, stay no matter what, value family, and to hell with you if you don't comply... These provide powerful intrinsic motivations (they speak to the "inkling") as well as extrinsic motivations (the priest will punish me if I don't comply).

And perhaps there is no way around the OP issue here: those who don't have that "inkling". In the past, they were "programmed" by religion and society to follow along, whereas nowadays, not only is the "noble program" entirely missing, the opposite is promoted. Anything goes. On top of that, the reality of biological drives is denied in progressive circles. The predictable result: a world where these biological directives reign supreme. An oppression of those with the "inkling", and an attempt to stamp out that "inkling" in those who have it.

And perhaps that's the reason why it looks as if these biological directives are all there is. Why red pillers think all women are evil, why women think all men are jerks, and why we live in such a spiritual hell hole. And yes, this split between the sexes really is soul-smashing stuff, as Andromeda put it.


ADDED: The more I think of it, the more it seems that the theory that there are forces out there trying to stamp out our "inkling for the higher" explains a whole lot. I mean, people in history have never denied the importance of social institutions, the existence of matter, or the reality of biological drives. But there was always something higher that stood in contrast to this. Nowadays, however, we have sociologists who teach us that social institutions are all there is. Darwinists who teach us that biological urges are all there is. And physicists who teach us that matter is all there is. This is exactly, precisely how one would expect an OP to view the world. They rule us!
 
Last edited:
Fascinating Discussion . Don't mind me, just a randomer who's taken aback by the subject at hand. Being a young male brought up under the current western social conditions, this subject and the whole manosphere arena has featured heavily in my life thus far.

There is one particular correction I want to make to what has been said

When wondering what a real man is or could be, Putin comes to mind. A natural leader, I don't think he "became" that way in order to attract women, to be a "gamer". His sense of self-worth doesn't depend on what men or women think of him. Women are not his goal, and yet, many women probably "crush" on him. I think ultimately, normal women will love and respect a man who has a "higher" goal in life. So in a sense, it would be men's job to change the course of the destructive trajectory we're in by simply learning to become men again, independently of what 'wimin' want or need (of course, a strong, independent man is precisely what 'wimin' want/need, but he's not like this to get 'wimin', he's only himself/expressing his masculinity without focusing on how it could benefit him sexually --> and this is where I disagree with RT and most of the Redpillers)

The message out there in the information-sphere relating to this whole subject is that men SHOULD have a higher purpose that is not linked to women (or attaining women). The message is that men should have purpose, should keep themselves busy, should have goals that they are actively pursuing. This is the message within the PUA community and also within the MGTOW communities (except in the latter, they really don't like women at all)

The problem as I see it, is not that (young) men don't have a higher purpose or calling or goals, is that (young) men don't know how to deal with their sexual nature insofar as attaining and maintaining romantic relationships. Firstly

- Young men, like young women have sexual natures that they can't ignore (irregardless of what purpose they may have in life). It's part of our biological nature and is part of the (universal) energy that infuses our bodies (including those of animals)

- Young men in the most (at least those who feel left behind/forgotten) due to various reasons can't approach or relate to women in such a way that the woman of their desire will end up liking them romantically. E.g. they might be socially awkward, they might suffer from anxiety, they simply might not have what the women in question are looking for at that particular point in time e.g. confidence, social acumen, financial stability, humor etc etc.

The thing is, at least from my life, is that the mere fact you have (sexual) desire doesn't mean that women should find you attractive and should be willing to be romantically engaged with you. THAT IS A LESSON. Attraction / courtship requires a certain vague pattern be followed that is roughly in-keeping with what women find attractive. This 'pattern' is not innate (at least for the men who are suffering) - it has to be learnt. A man has to learn how to attract a woman, he has to build that skill-set, he has to know how to be confident, how to talk to her, how to lead a relationship (as women EXPECT men to lead in the most part). Doing ALL of this can be FEAR-INDUCING especially if you have anxiety, if you don't have confidence, if you simply don't know what you are doing! This is where these guys like Tomassi come in and make a living, by teaching young men how to be part of this system.

With regard to role-models like Putin, my personal experience again is that, for a man to really push himself, ideally what they should do is take stock of their current position (i.e. what is it about me now that is keeping me from achieving what I want e.g. anxiety/social awkwardness / what is it about me that can help me e.g. willing to learn so a positive mental frame to set goals to slowly overcome anxiety/social awkwardness etc) and push themselves to become better within their own framework. Sometimes when you look at people who are so advanced (e.g. a Russian President) the gulf between them and you (a 20/30 something year old nameless dude) can be so big that it nullifies the self-improvement journey before it even begins. Using yourself and your goals as a yardstick can be a bit more manageable, at least in getting you to TAKE action towards being who you want to be, not in trying to emulate someone else who is not you, who's circumstances are different from yours!

Even some PUA artists (who have massive following on youtube where guys watch infield videos of these men picking up women) have touched on that last point i.e. guys living vicariously through them rather than them taking action. E.g. of a video (Ps, it's a PUA video so bewarned)


What he says it's true and we have legions of guys living vicariously through other people (e.g. celebrities, video games, their favoured 'hero' etc) and not doing anything themselves personally.

On Guys developing a pathological hatred for women - From personal observations, frustrated young men at some point come to realise women have it easier on the romantic front compared to them. Women don't have to work as hard to get a romantic partner (or choice of partners, though mind you, I think the challenge for most women eventually turns to finding the RIGHT partner, not just any-old partner). We can all agree on this, if not a quick video below of another average romantically frustrated/ struggling Joe who did an experiment to find this out:


Some of these young men essentially feel it's UNFAIR that women would have so much choice WHILST they are in 'romantic/sexual' starvation. This feeling seeps into resentment if not addressed properly.

Reply to Balance - I read a book by an author called Corey Wayne who's another fellow in this realm titled "How to be a 3% man". He says that in order to attract a women and get into a relationship, you must have done certain things to win her over. However, he says that for most men, once that is done, they go back to essentially not working to build/maintain attraction. Over time, attraction diminishes and you get to the point that you touched on in your story. Again, the message is... if you win someone over, that's not the end of it, you still have to work to maintain/build etc the attraction otherwise inevitably you'll be a 'sexless' couple (which I believe from what I've read is a statistic of countless men in long term relationships, especially those married over a certain number of years). Don't mean to be crude by mentioning the 's' word but well, it's part and parcel of romantic relationships as far as this reality goes.

On the 3 date rule - On this I believe context is everything. We live in the age of 'tinder', of social media, of liberal ideological dominance/prominence. Personal experience is the rule mainly holds only in that, if you ask someone for a date and they say yes, then it's clear to both of you that there is romantic potential. The courtship process begins (many PUA artists now say men should hold back on the 1st date) where the man has to take a leading role i.e. in deciding what to do, in initiating and leading the romantic process. Usually if by the 3rd date you haven't had sex or even kissed, then the reason MAINLY (not always) is there either isn't attraction (so STOP wasting your time) or the guy isn't playing his role effectively (i.e. creating comfort, building attraction, leading etc) and if he likes the woman, he will eventually end up in the 'FRIEND ZONE'. The 'Friendzone' is a destructive place for a guy to be in only because it torments him dearly and keeps him locked in a place of great and debilitating discomfort. To define it, it's when a guy romantically likes a girl but the girl doesn't reciprocate but is instead happy if he were her friend only - the girl usually proceeds to date other men whilst the guy (the 'friend') doesn't engage other women romantically and is forever locked in a place of pining for this particular unavailable woman.

This stuff might not touch on the higher realities and transcendence but it's what most (young) men experience and struggle with, it's part and parcel of modern (young) men's lives in most western countries. At the end of the day, no one wants to be alone, people have images of ideal partners and at least for men (the majority), women aren't going to come knocking on your door, let alone the ones you want. So we end up here... struggling, some going in the direction of PUAs, others MGTOW, others just lost at sea suffering in eternal solitude looking for outlets for their frustration/anger, others to god-knows what other places.

Anyways, all fascinating stuff - this is what life's about, rolling up your sleeves, getting your hands dirty and working on the various challenges.
 
That, in a nutshell, is how I understand the concept of hypergamy as it is outlined in the books.

Thanks for the great summary. That’s what I understood as well (he outlines it detail in the second book). And when looked at it from that point of view it makes more sense to me. The point being that it operates firstly from a subconscious level as in something like ‘system 1’. While I’m not defending the ‘pure biology’ route, it still appears as an evolutionary substructure has worked to optimize a woman’s chances in successfully raising a child, or so the theory goes, and has merit.

Other factors like family, culture, environment, level of self-awareness etc. which keep biological imperatives in check differ for the individual quite a bit whereas hypergamy as explained above is common to all woman. However, within the scope of hypergamy how woman deals with the act of optimizing both alpha/beta traits (to the degree that they can) will differ according to her specific situation (culture, morality, childhood, self-awareness, etc). In some cases very little, in others, that’s all there is.

But that’s not to say hypergamy in of itself is bad, and as a directive it appears to me to be quite complementary to the masculine. Not necessary as in ‘male’ but as higher order reflection of feminine energy being expressed – ‘the chaos from which order arises’. Its pluralistic and contradictory mechanisms I think demonstrate this aspect. The demands it makes on men to embody the masculine in proper form and do in a real sense is the ‘order that arises’ when properly dealt with. When not properly addressed, it becomes a destructive force.

What is the masculine in proper form? I think it’s something like the hero archetype that Peterson talks about. Though in this case it would be something like the blending of the masculine so that one isn’t too Alpha (because then you’d be a tyrant, or a total jerk) neither too Beta (or then you’re just a pushover) but either/or at the appropriate times in order to ‘confront the dragon’... the treasure is you get to keep what you’ve earned.

Interestingly he says in the 2nd book:

You could even argue that much of our cultural and species-level achievements were the result of men’s latent drives to deal with women’s innate Hypergamy.


Perhaps so. If hypergamy requires men to continually be ‘on top of things’, improving themselves and environment, having an aim (without the woman themselves being that aim) etc. - then yes, perhaps that was a driver in our societal achievements.

What I find to be one of the greatest ironies of today is how feminism, a tool intended to empower woman, is doing the exact opposite by feminizing men and labeling what are positive masculine qualities ‘toxic’. It’s very effectively removing man’s ability to fulfill the requirements that a woman’s hypergamy dictates. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
 
This has turned out to be a very interesting topic. I remember Caesar's comment about starting young with education and people being fickle. It seems all these problems are not meant to be sorted out in 3D. Those with eyes to see will learn the hard way. There seems to be the need for all this friction to exist on this level for some to learn. The C's said it's all about balance and and even if we learned all about how other folk think and act from the cradle something else would pop up to put the spanner in the works. Hope I've not gone off on a tangent here.
 
I think in Putin's case being a great guy is the key for his attractiveness, and it just so happens that he is also a president. :-)

If we look at Macron or Trudeau, for example, they both are younger, they look good, they are educated, rich, powerful, etc. But are they broadly admired by women? Some women, yes, but even according to their political ratings it's pretty clear that women are not so crazy about these two. They are both fake and women instinctively feel it, imo.
Point taken. Not sure I totally agree, though. I'd say your perspective is more of a "top-down" perspective, which is quite good - i.e., the perspective of the pure ideal. The way I phrased it was more of a "bottom-up" observation. Here's what I mean:

From the perspective of biology, ANY leader, no matter what their character, will attract a flock of women simply by virtue of their achievement and status. That's why I referenced polygamy studies. Tribal leaders will acquire numerous wives while other males (who may have much more positive character traits, but who are not successful in terms of the tribal hierarchy) don't get any women. From that perspective, it doesn't matter how great a guy Putin is. He would still be attractive to a large number of women simply by virtue of his social position. The fact that he also has a solid character, however, means that even more women will be attracted to him. Which also supports the hypergamy perspective. Basically, he is not just at the top of the social hierarchy; he is at the top of the character hierarchy. Which means even MORE women will be attracted to him, because he embodies more than one ideal. (Caesar was the same way - intelligent, attractive, talented, accomplished, principled, and at the apex of the Roman social hierarchy.)

BobDylan touched on this in the post above:

With regard to role-models like Putin, my personal experience again is that, for a man to really push himself, ideally what they should do is take stock of their current position (i.e. what is it about me now that is keeping me from achieving what I want e.g. anxiety/social awkwardness / what is it about me that can help me e.g. willing to learn so a positive mental frame to set goals to slowly overcome anxiety/social awkwardness etc) and push themselves to become better within their own framework. Sometimes when you look at people who are so advanced (e.g. a Russian President) the gulf between them and you (a 20/30 something year old nameless dude) can be so big that it nullifies the self-improvement journey before it even begins. Using yourself and your goals as a yardstick can be a bit more manageable, at least in getting you to TAKE action towards being who you want to be, not in trying to emulate someone else who is not you, who's circumstances are different from yours!

So if you look at the tinder studies (i.e., 80% of women competing for the top 20% of guys), you can extrapolate: if Putin were 'on the market' in a Cinderella-type situation, other guys would not stand a chance. From one perspective, Putin is a positive role model for men who have not formed their own personality ideal. And men admire him too (men tend to admire the same things in men that women do). From another perspective, he is an impossible ideal for the vast majority of men. By the very nature of social hierarchies, there can only be one Putin, so other men will never match up.

But that's life. As BD also said above, you can and should take JBP's advice not to compare yourself with others, but with who you were yesterday. In that way, you can find your 'fit' within the social fabric, be the best that you can be within that fabric, and things will fall in place according to your own essence and achievements (including finding a suitable romantic partner, ideally). Similar things can go for women, of course, and the standards by which men measure them.
 
I think Approaching Infinity put it quite nicely with regard men like Putin. Whilst it can only be a good thing to have them as role-models, it is also unrealistic to expect the majority of men to achieve such status (e.g. in terms of position in society or even in terms of their own characters). I think a more realistic proposition is for men to hold themselves accountable based on their dreams / ambitions and to also look to pick out inspiring men a bit closer to their lives / station in life.

Also, something that hasn't been touched upon explicitly is that the demands of women change over time - this is something that I am finding. So a lot of guys who are having a really hard time in their early to mid-twenties, if they keep at the self-improvement journey, they might find their luck swing when they approach their late-twenties and early 30s. Based on life experience, I have found young women (so early / mid 20s) to be the MOST demanding in terms of what they ask a man to be. The demand is usually placed ENTIRELY on the PERSONALITY. They want (no, they DEMAND) you're personality is firing on all cylinders - you are confident, you talk a big game, you know how to lead, you are funny, you are assured, you fit into whatever the vogue social things are in the circles you operate (e.g. hipster, business person, writer etc), you have dreams that you can sell (you don't even have to be achieving these dreams, you just need to be good at selling it to her and others within your social circle - just think of a struggling artist) etc etc. Now this is bad news for most (young) guys as they are coming through their teenage years riddled with all sorts of personality problems - anxiety, shyness, social awkwardness, lack of direction in life having spent their teen years watching porn / playing video games rather than actually talking to females their own age and building on those social skills that will be vital later on. You usually end up in a situation where you'll hear young women say there are 'no good guys' (i.e. eligible guys) around and guys saying young women are very 'picky'.

But alas, if the woman in question gets through her twenties and finds herself still single or is in a relationship that ends in her 30s, then the demands start to morph and change. So in a way, I think most of these currently frustrated guys will eventually end up coupling up despite the torment and frustrations they experienced in their 20s. They just have to make it through the rough years, have improved themselves adequately, be more stable character-wise and things should hopefully fall into place naturally at some point! After all, not every single woman can end up with the top 20% of males. Mathematics will eventually come to the rescue and I believe it does :lol:

Anyways, not entirely sure on the merit of the above but it's a bit of an observation I've made but haven't read anywhere yet.

To Balance - I think you'll find these videos interesting. They are a nice/numerous example of what being a 'nice' guy is about i.e. just a tool men use to get what they want cheaply. (ps, bewarned by watching the video, you accept to enter into the world of the 'nice guy')


Mind you, there are really scary examples of the feminine dark side too here

 
If you read accounts of men and how their families have disintegrated over night for no obvious reason or fault on their own, you might empathize with the fact that some men work their ass off only to find themselves single because he was not available enough for her, or did not give her enough attention ...etc..while he was out working a dangerous and hard job only to come home tired..

Added: this is why Hypergamy hurts so badly. Through not all women will do that, a sens of rejection towards their husbands is the norm in the western world.
I'd say there is a fundamental lack of colinearity and valuable commun interest that's the culprint in later LTR.

Nothing just disintegrates overnight. If a man wakes up one day to find out that his wife has left him for someone else, emptied the bank account, and taken the kids and the dog, it's just easy for him to say, "I devoted all my life to her and she just left out of the blue."

Things mostly break down slowly over time because they're not maintained properly. To not take any responsibility for a failed relationship is just wilful blindness and self-soothing.

That's not to say that western laws and cultures haven't been lead to the point where they reward women for behaving like this. Many women believe they don't need men anymore because a number of the functions men have historically served have been replaced by the state.
 
Thinking of my higher Agreeableness, Beta traits and "smoothing the waters" is a habitual way of thinking/operating for me. But that's changing, especially now, after these realizations. I'm learning to be less and less agreeable when situation is appropriate for that (sh*t-testing, confidence, decision making etc.)

That's really good to hear, Balance. I was wondering, what do you mean by sh*t testing?

Also, one of the biggest lies I fed myself with is "Communication is the key". You cannot negotiate sexual desire with women and dopamine pathways generally. Even if your partner knows how hypergamy operates, knows about material and wisdom here, listens to Jordan Peterson and loves you, it's simply not possible. End of story.

What do you exactly mean by 'negotiating sexual desire with women'? If I understand you correctly, if you cannot negotiate sexual desire with a woman, then yes, something may be off! I don't think that you can state it as a fact and say all women are like that (whether in the beginning of the relationship or after years have gone by). I'm pretty sure there are women who can put the other person's needs first! And communication about sex can actually be quite important.‌ I'd say it would also help if you both know where you stand on that topic more or less before the relationship.

Also, considering what you wrote afterwards, which is that communication is also nonverbal (a good point), then perhaps it IS key and part of keeping a relationship stable. For verbal communication, I would say that both should have certain qualities that ensures communication to be effective and fruitful such as insight into one's own issues. Just a few thoughts! :-)
 
Back
Top Bottom