5 ms·

That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. More access to potential partners with less social control lead to a winner take all situation

That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. More access to potential partners with less social control lead to a winner take all situation. In addition, and it is addressed in the OP, women try to get partners which are higher on the social scale while men mostly focus on beauty.

ycombinete 7y ago
Which makes total sense, given the different evolutionary drivers that men and women are motivated by. The problem with most narratives is that they moralize what is essentially an amoral phenomenon.
- simonh 7y ago
  It quickly becomes very much a moral question if any of the women become pregnant. I do realise though that you're posting in the context of a society in which the necessary causal chain between sex and pregnancy has been broken, but the moral systems we have built around sex and relationships are predicated on that link for perfectly rational and valid reasons. Also ultimately we still need people to have children and bring those children up. The moral factor in sexual behaviour can't simply be discounted.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    And I'll just add that the link between sex and children is nowhere near completely severed. I am aware of tons of people who have had children A) before they planned to, and B) with someone they weren't in a serious relationship with.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  Morals and evolution are tightly coupled. For starters, if you consider the practical morals society lives by, many of them are about controlling reproduction. That's one of the primary purposes of our moral institutions (religion). At a deeper level, both morality and evolution are all about encouraging survival of genes.
bubblewrap 7y ago
Women would rather be the second wife of George Clooney than the first wife of Joe Average. Simple as that.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Turns out there are still more than enough women for all of us. Joe average actually has little challenge getting a mate same as before. The guy 3 steps down is the one with a problem that isn't manifestly different than its ever been.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    Doesn't the data discussed in this threat directly contradict your statement of "there are more than enough women for everyone"? And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis? Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man) Also from the article: "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."
    - sridca 7y ago
      Baumeister indicated this in his book that I read a long time ago, but it is more like 2:1, > throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.
      - Fjolsvith 7y ago
        The MGTOW movement is really throwing a wrench into this. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-collective-of-straight-male-separatists https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...
treis 7y ago
>That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. In the sea of disgusting theories and toxicity that is the red pill there is one thing that they got right: Men should approach and try to "pick up" as many women as possible. The guy that's 1/10 as desirable as another guy will get more dates if they attempt to "pick up" 20 times as many women. Of course, it's a bit like the Red Queen running as fast as you can to stay still. If every man tries approaching 20 times the women eventually you end up back where you started but worse. You can see it online. The success rates for men outside of the top 5% are abysmal. You almost have to spam in order to have any reasonable chance of getting dates.
- raducu 7y ago
  Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it? A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women. They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.
  - treis 7y ago
    >Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it? Because if you don't your outcome is worse than it otherwise would be. It's like weight cutting in boxing. Ultimately it serves no purpose. Both fighters do it so neither gets an advantage. Neither fighter can stop doing it, however, since it would give an advantage to the other fighter. >A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women. These aren't mutually exclusive options. Making yourself more attractive will, of course, increase your chances for success. >They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down. Excluding a group isn't going to increase your chance of success.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago

ycombinete 7y ago

Which makes total sense, given the different evolutionary drivers that men and women are motivated by. The problem with most narratives is that they moralize what is essentially an amoral phenomenon.

simonh 7y ago
It quickly becomes very much a moral question if any of the women become pregnant. I do realise though that you're posting in the context of a society in which the necessary causal chain between sex and pregnancy has been broken, but the moral systems we have built around sex and relationships are predicated on that link for perfectly rational and valid reasons. Also ultimately we still need people to have children and bring those children up. The moral factor in sexual behaviour can't simply be discounted.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  And I'll just add that the link between sex and children is nowhere near completely severed. I am aware of tons of people who have had children A) before they planned to, and B) with someone they weren't in a serious relationship with.
akvadrako 7y ago
Morals and evolution are tightly coupled. For starters, if you consider the practical morals society lives by, many of them are about controlling reproduction. That's one of the primary purposes of our moral institutions (religion). At a deeper level, both morality and evolution are all about encouraging survival of genes.

bubblewrap 7y ago

Women would rather be the second wife of George Clooney than the first wife of Joe Average. Simple as that.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Turns out there are still more than enough women for all of us. Joe average actually has little challenge getting a mate same as before. The guy 3 steps down is the one with a problem that isn't manifestly different than its ever been.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  Doesn't the data discussed in this threat directly contradict your statement of "there are more than enough women for everyone"? And so does historical data, isn't it the case that many men didn't reproduce historically, which can be seen through genetic analysis? Edit: cursory googling turns up this, for example: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success (8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man) Also from the article: "In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."
  - sridca 7y ago
    Baumeister indicated this in his book that I read a long time ago, but it is more like 2:1, > throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced. https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/goodaboutmen.htm As someone who favours individualism and was brought up in a culture where arranged marriages are the norm I found this most shocking and interesting at the same time.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      The MGTOW movement is really throwing a wrench into this. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-collective-of-straight-male-separatists https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bdwyx/inside-the-global-...

treis 7y ago

>That’s exactly the theory developed by circles like the red pill. In the sea of disgusting theories and toxicity that is the red pill there is one thing that they got right: Men should approach and try to "pick up" as many women as possible. The guy that's 1/10 as desirable as another guy will get more dates if they attempt to "pick up" 20 times as many women. Of course, it's a bit like the Red Queen running as fast as you can to stay still. If every man tries approaching 20 times the women eventually you end up back where you started but worse. You can see it online. The success rates for men outside of the top 5% are abysmal. You almost have to spam in order to have any reasonable chance of getting dates.

raducu 7y ago
Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it? A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women. They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down.
- treis 7y ago
  >Just how is this a good advice if it's a bad thing if most men do it? Because if you don't your outcome is worse than it otherwise would be. It's like weight cutting in boxing. Ultimately it serves no purpose. Both fighters do it so neither gets an advantage. Neither fighter can stop doing it, however, since it would give an advantage to the other fighter. >A better advice would be for men to understand this tendency of women, what it means to be attractive to women and make an informed decision if they want to play the game of becoming more attractive to women. These aren't mutually exclusive options. Making yourself more attractive will, of course, increase your chances for success. >They can also learn to reverse the game in their thirties and only date women 4-5 years younger, thus penalizing women who wait until their last fertile minute to settle down. Excluding a group isn't going to increase your chance of success.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago