Not So Bright

Understanding the Dumb Choices Women Make

We need to get some facts straight regarding the way that women make choices, and that’s what this article is about. Let’s begin with Assanova’s reference to Evolutionary Psychology:

Women are attracted to dominant men because their instincts tell them to be. Instincts don’t care whether the guy is abusive of not. Instincts only care what is best for a woman’s offspring, and that is a man with power. So what if the man is abusive (or one of the other bad labels that are associated with dominant men) or not? Instincts only recognize power, regardless of what form it comes in. His clear show of dominance over women is also a show of dominance over many men, which guarantees her offspring lots of resources and the best chance of survival.

With due respect to Assanova (and in recognition of his invaluable contributions to Game theory and the workings of the female mind), this evolutionary psychology perspective that women are drawn to dominant men because it “guarantees her offspring lots of resources and the best chance of survival” is a load of EP poppycock. It sheds no light on the primal forces that motivate women. And while being provided for is an important motivator in the psychology of women, it is not primal (first cause).

The “primal forces” that motivate women relate principally to resistance to change, narcissism and fear… for example, fear of being left on the shelf, fear of not finding a provider to provide for her, fear of novelty and fear of the unknown. David DeAngelo tells us that attraction isn’t a choice, and on this, we can only concur. The thing that excites women about dominant men does not relate to anything as calculated as guaranteeing offspring with lots of resources. That’s nonsense. While women are attracted to power and success, they are never attracted to plodding providers. And you only have to look at women’s dumb choices to realize that if we left it up to them, the next generation would be swinging from tree to tree. What excites women about dominant men has less to do with the banal priorities of being provided for than it does with the simple exhilaration of narcissism, novelty and danger. Being provided for is extremely important to women, it is even a priority, but it is not primal. It does not account for when women throw caution to the wind. It does not explain why women’s menageries of mediocrity typically include thugs, slobs and losers.

In the longer term, dull, safe, beta providers do feature prominently in women’s more calculated choices. But when it comes to primal sex, it is the thrill of the forbidden, with all its attendant risks, that explains women’s more impulsive choices, from sports jockspsychopaths and serial killers, tothugsrapists and violent criminals

It would appear that Otto Weininger was on the right track when he suggested a relationship between criminality and prostitution (which today, arguably, manifests as raunch culture).

The role of self-esteem

Remember the so-called bell-curve distribution for men and women? Women tend to bunch towards the middle of the bell-curve. They don’t like extremes, and prefer conformity and middle-of-the-road to excelling and drawing attention to oneself. Men, by contrast, populate a flatter bell-curve, with larger proportions of men gathering in the tails of the distribution, from the extremely stupid to the extremely smart. The upshot of all of this is that when hypergamous women, typically clustered towards the middle of the bell-curve, select for the best among men at the upper tail of the bell-curve, an unavoidable crisis of confidence emerges. How can someone “average” perceive herself as an equal with someone who excels and stands out from the crowd? At a deeply visceral level, average will always feel itself to be something less than superior. The only tangible thing that a woman has to offer – her “looks” as defined by her biology – can only ever be perceived as something less than the smarts that she so admires in men at the higher levels of the pecking order and the far right tail of the bell-curve. There is no circumventing this cruel fate that awaits women. No amount of affirmative action can remedy this.

It therefore makes sense that while hypergamous women seek out superior men, they really do feel more comfortable with average men who, like they, are clustered around the middle of the bell-curve. There is an obvious conflict here, the basis for a cognitive dissonance that makes it difficult for women to reconcile their hypergamous impulses with their inherent inferiority complex. In this context, we are better placed to explore the breadth of women’s choices, from the ridiculous to the extreme.

Let’s take a closer look at the sorts of dynamics that account for men’s and women’s distribution curves.

The gender that provides and protects is constantly exposed to risk and danger. Men are constantly putting their lives on the line, in one form or another. Men are constantly testing their assumptions, constantly developing their strategies and their identities. At the cutting edge of cultural evolution, men’s survival depends on logic and rationality.

The gender that is provided for and protected, by contrast, is constantly shielded from risk and danger. Women have assumptions passed on to them from their mothers and their peer groups. As creatures of conformity, they rarely have their assumptions tested. Women prefer to assume and conform than to test or compete. Women subscribe to the laws of relational aggression, where popularity represents the height of personal achievement. Popularity and not logic or rationality provides the basis for personal “esteem”.

It is therefore inevitable that the gender that provides and protects will define itself from a perspective of positive self-esteem, while the best that the protected, provided-for gender can hope to achieve is the less resilient self-esteem grounded in popularity. And when you base your sense of worth on the opinions of others, well, that’s hardly empowering, is it? It is impossible to establish a robust sense of self-esteem when narcissism is your passion and popularity provides the foundation on which it is built.

But wait! Have women not achieved parity with men in the workplace, thus demonstrating that women are every bit as reliable as men, every bit as capable of providing-for as men? Not at all. But have women not also earned the right to “respect” for their ability to achieve? Absolutely not.

Women’s “parity” with men could not have occurred without affirmative action. Affirmative action is the essential ingredient that enables the masquerading of women’s supposed “equality” with men. But the reality of the dynamics of men’s and women’s positive and negative self-esteem always plays out in the fresh air of the sexual marketplace.

Thus respect and competition are crucial to a man’s identity, while belonging and agreeability are crucial to a woman’s. And it is at this juncture that properly deployed Game provides its greatest impact. A man with neither self-respect nor Game will never be attractive to women. If a man cannot project confidence, he may still find utility as a provider, or maybe even an arbitrary hook-up with a drunk or a slut who fails to detect his ruse, but he will never make a woman feel sexy (the way that sexual dynamics work is, in a nutshell, men desire, women are desired, and the idea of men as being “sexy” is a feminist-inspired absurdity).

We are right to have our reservations with mainstream interpretations of Game. However, insofar as Game has a place in dating strategy, implicit in the effective deployment of Game is the essential assumption that the woman’s frame of reference is always in submission to the man. Busting on a woman, teasing her, not taking anything she says seriously – all in a good-natured, humorous way, of course – cannot be done without this assumption. And confidence is how you pull it off. Confidence lies at the heart of what makes a man interesting. You cannot “pretend” confidence.

It is the confidence/submission duality that provides the basis for Game.

Women’s low self-esteem and the auto-spook response

Getting back to David DeAngelo’s view that for women, attraction isn’t a choice. Given that a man cannot pretend confidence and a woman cannot pretend desire (we’re not talking about faking orgasms), then this inherently places female eroticism in a position of submission to the male. It cannot be any other way. The sex that is protected and provided for can never embrace empowerment as can the sex that protects and provides. This is much more than a matter of degree. It represents a paradigmatic shift in perspective that, especially for women, can never be traversed.

In terms of what motivates female desire towards men, it is respect for the formidable. Women are drawn to formidable men. At a primal level, they are drawn to men that they can respect and look up to. And so while women often find beta providers useful, supplicating betas are not the types of men that women really notice. “Formidable” covers a broad spectrum of male stereotypes, from successful and charismatic to brooding and mysterious, from cocky sports jock to violent thug. Supplicating betas and omegas are excluded from this spectrum.

Women’s more fragile self-esteem has important consequences. At the gut level of attraction is also fear. Hypergamous women in search of the alpha stud will work themselves into a lather of anticipation. Should a woman encounter the man of her dreams, her first impulse is to spook. Seemingly, she will often go out of her way to jeopardize everything that she had ever dreamt of. She will clam up and play hard-to-get. It is important to realize that this is less a strategy than it is an emotional response to emotionally draining anticipation. Nincompoops like the authors of “The Rules” might strategize deception and evasiveness for the typical Oprah Winfrey audience, but at a more visceral level, playing hard-to-get should never be interpreted as a strategy. Irrespective of whether it is implemented as a strategy, being spooked is just what women do.

Remember that just as DeAngelo assures us that attraction isn’t a choice, so too, a woman’s angst of anticipation isn’t a choice. The lower self-esteem implicit in female sexuality places her knight-in-shining armour (KISA) upon a pedestal to reliably thwart any chance of her dream-beau being realized – that is, if it was left entirely to her. Unless her KISA has Game and can harness her auto-spook response (busting on her, cocky-and-funny), she will lose him. An important part of Game is to disarm a woman’s auto-spook response, to make her feel comfortable, relaxed and at peace with the world.

As I’ve mentioned, women are drawn to formidable men. Just because a KISA might fail the initial introductory phase of an approach does not necessarily mean that he’s mucked up his Game. It is just as likely that she has mucked up her auto-spook response by over-reacting and heading for the hills.

Arrogance is hot. Supplicating arrogance is not. The very thing that women find attractive in men is the very thing that militates against the realization of their dream KISA. Supplication and arrogance represent a contradiction in terms and it is for this reason that a man needs to implement some version of Game in order to harness most women’s auto-spook responses. Western women need to be babied, and this has to be done whilst retaining the mystery that embodies masculine respectability. It goes without saying that this is inherently not an easy task. In the absence of proper training, it is not easy being a KISA, managing that fine line between self-respect and supplication.

In the end, of course, most western women never obtain their dream KISA, and they finish up making compromises. Their rationalization hamster will reassure them that it’s not their fault, but that of their KISA. They will conclude either that he is not interested in them, or that he has failed their shit-tests by failing to be persistent enough. They are thus just as likely to rationalize that all men are insensitive, unfeeling brutes. It never occurs to them that perhaps they should learn to tame their rationalization hamster, that they should ignore The Rules and the proliferation of self-styled guruettes advising women how to snare their beau. Typically, they lower their sites, often settling for the first slob that lunges a second grope, and then calling it love.

After years of having their dream of a KISA dashed upon the rocks in the swirling surf below, western women learn to not expect much of men (beyond the superficial characteristics that supposedly identify alphas). KISAs become gay, betas become providers, omegas become manginas, provided-for women get bored, divorced women become cougars, chumps become husbands and slobs get lucky. The system auto-corrects to the wonderful solution to which we bear witness today. Our zeitgeist becomes a vast sea of arbitrariness where we can expect to see our future generations swinging from tree to tree in Bonobo nirvana. The cultural system develops an auto-immune response that attacks things like honor and virtue, establishing cultural destiny as a cesspool of mediocrity.

The power of projection

The differences in the ways in which men and women think call for a very different strategy in interpreting and understanding our opposite sex. We should never take women’s logic literally. We should learn to read between the lines. For example if a woman tells you that she does not like something, do not always assume that she does not like that thing. You’ve got to read between the lines to understand why she notices that thing, what it is about that thing that relates to her experience of it, and so on. In other words, what is the context behind her dislike? Oftentimes shock and disgust over some thing (such as is typical in women’s emotive reactions to rape) betray a fascination with that thing that is reflected in their fantasies, the choices that they make, or some other inadvertent manifestation of their innermost impulses. For example, shock and disgust with rape stories can actually project a fascination with rape and an inclination to fantasize about rape.

And when feminists accuse men of taking advantage of their positions of authority to oppress others, they are projecting. They are telling us whatthey would be doing if they were put in the same positions of authority.

And when feminists complain that it’s not fair that only men occupy the most powerful positions of authority, they are projecting. They are telling us that men in power are the only ones that matter. Those men at the lowest ranks working as janitors, labourers and factory hands, don’t matter. They’re invisible. They don’t count.

Let’s illustrate the importance of projection with some more arbitrary examples. Consider the following quotations that I had taken from A Voice for Men:

Robin Morgan – former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and editor of MS magazine:

I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.

Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan:

I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.

Catherine MacKinnon:

All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.

Marilyn French; The Woman’s Room:

My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.

Each of these women is projecting. Compare what they are saying, with your own experiences.

Robin Morgan is telling us that she is a vindictive, hate-filled person. By contrast, I have met men who are capable of taking on an opponent respectfully, impartially and in the spirit of competition, without vindictiveness or hatred.

Barbara Jordan is telling us what she notices and values in men. Cold, arrogant and unfeeling is hot, baby. By contrast, I have met many men who are caring and compassionate.

Catherine MacKinnon is letting her rape fantasies get ahead of her. ëNuff said. On the odd occasion, she even borders on graphic:

I think that sexual desire in women, at least in this culture, is socially constructed as that by which we come to want our own self-annihilation. That is, our subordination is eroticized in and as female; in fact, we get off on it to a degree, if nowhere near as much as men do. This is our stake in this system that is not in our interest, our stake in this system that is killing us.

Mmmm… sounds like the basis for a yummy rape fantasy.

And, saving the best to last, what is it that gets Marilyn French’s panties all hot and wet? Well, nothing less than a “handsome young nazi soldier”. What is Marilyn French really telling us about her true values and what she expects of men? “My feelings about men are the result of my experience.” Indeed. Here she is admitting to the very choices that she has made in men, and her inadvertent candour provides a welcome change.

Of course the reality is that whenever we open our mouths, irrespective of whether we are men or women, we project something of what we value, what we notice. But there’s a key difference between men and women as to what can be inferred from the projection. Men focus on the “external” (career, hobbies, interests), while women focus on the “internal” (me, me, me, I, me, I want, I need, I hurt). Projection of a passion for motor sports is thus not quite as insightful as the projection of spiteful contempt.

More on women’s dumb choices

The subject of women’s dumb choices is a deeply complex one. Questions of double standards abound, not to mention the question of how intelligence is measured. Roissy’s takes on the Duke Rejection List and the preference of many women for jerks are compelling, well written and entertaining, and they do indeed resonate with a fundamental truth about women’s dumb choices. Roissy’s gifted contributions continue to provide us with powerful insights.

But then as a guru of the seduction community, Roissy holds Game in undeserved high esteem, in the implicit assumption that there exists some kind of standard, tending to objectivity, for assessing womanly worth. Thus, according to this golden standard, the 9s and 10s that have been anointed by alphas are the real deal and their alpha choices, in turn, validate alpha reality. But we should be clear that, within the broader context of Game, Roissy writes from the perspective of the cultural ecosystem that he inhabits. Within the ecosystem comprising nightclubs, singles and the seduction community, properly deployed Game can work quite well, if you accept their definitions of alpha dominance, female hypergamy and female attractiveness. But the more brutal truth is that women do not always choose alphas. Women do not always go for “the pick of the bunch”. Insofar as one might be tempted to regard frat-boys and jerks as somehow occupying the top of “the” pecking-order, there are other pecking orders, other bunches that do not work well with Roissyesque Game theory. Women choose for a complex of reasons that include security, circles of acquaintances, peer pressure, parental pressure, dumb luck, and so on. Game does not always work. Sometimes it can work against you, if a woman perceives you as a player and she prioritizes security. The bottom line is that Game theory’s ranking system itself does not provide a reliable estimator of womanly smarts. Indeed, Roissyesque Game theory works because it is based on the implicit presumption that women are less intelligent than men, and, by inference, that their choices are vulnerable to easy manipulation. There are some men for whom this kind of shallow, cosmetically-masked, narcissistic woman, regardless of her perceived standing as a 9 or a 10, is simply not all that appealing.

Ultimately, neither men nor women have a clue about their opposite sex. This ignorance works mostly against women. How often do “liberated” women feign the licking of lips in their expression of faux-lust for the hot, grease-covered mechanic, or the bare-chested, hose-carrying fireman? Give me a break. These images don’t interest women. Their faux-lusting for bare-chested “hunks” just makes women look stupid and deluded. Women don’t have a clue either about men or their own sexuality. The ignorance of women is positively dangerous.

In the spirit of the Duke Rejection List, consider the 2009 Cronulla Sharks scandal (transcript here) where a team of Australian Rugby League players participated in group sex with a 19-year-old university student (“Clare” – not her real name) while on a tour in New Zealand. As it turns out, she was naÔve and misguided at the time and apparently, did not fit the profile that we would normally expect of a gang-banger. During the Four Corners interview, Detective Sgt Neville Jenkins of the Christchurch Police said that “she was a nice girl. She was young, um naÔve, not worldly, just a growing up teenager.”

From the Four Corners transcript, it would appear that the Cronulla Sharks team members thought their gang-bang in a Christchurch hotel in New Zealand was all great fun and a terrific joke, a boisterous bonding experience replete with banter, hilarity and wholesome groping and masturbation lavished upon a willing participant. By inference, if we read between the lines, it would seem that “Clare” presumably complied in silent confusion, stunned into passive compliance and not comprehending the reality of what was taking place. Hilarious. Whatever she was hoping to experience as fawning attention from a couple of manly men quickly degenerated into something that had more in common with Sharks in a feeding frenzy on a lone, mutilated carcass bobbing up and down with the waves in a vast blue sea.

The impression one gets is of a misguided social outcast who has failed to connect with her peer groups, seeking male attention and romance in all the wrong places. In this, the story appears to have its parallels with The Atlantic article on the Karen Owen story, including Roissy’s aforementioned interpretation and TuckerMax’s more compassionate interpretation. The common theme that we all appear to agree on is that there is less female empowerment taking place than misguided, impressionable ignorance culminating in considerable psychic harm. Even clinically cool Roissy gets it that, deep down inside, even the raunchiest slut is not a soulless automaton defined by hormonal impulses:

…even the raunchiest cockgobblers have a heart inside that beats for a man to love and cherish them above all others. The love of a man, true and loyal, is the slut’s white whale.

The reality is that sluts are never 100% dumb party whores, and that if you were stuck with one on a deserted island, chances are that she will become your fawning servant, worshipping every one of your footprints on a remote sandy beach – whether you want her or not. Of course we should point out that there are many kinds of sluts, from toxic bitches who only ever fawn over thugs, to misguided teens searching for identity, who have lost their way. Many a slut, as a social outcast who has failed to connect with her peer groups, will readily forgo her cock carousel lifestyle if only she can encounter the good fortune of stumbling upon but one man who can love her above all others. You can count on it.

And Roissy isn’t the only PUA who realizes this stuff. Other PUAs also realize that sluts possess a tender side, try as they might to deny it. Essential to success with women is the ability to make them feel comfortable, to entertain their fantasy that it is a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship that they are in, even if it is only for one night. It’s an essential part of the confidence/submission dynamic that I refer to above. As Assanova clarifies:

Make her feel secure. Even the sluttiest of the slutty women like to feel secure before sleeping with a guy.

So much for feminist fantasies of empowerment and the purported insatiability of rancid cockgobblers asserting their sexual appetites.

Getting back to the gang-bangers. What’s going on here? What is it that women don’t get? Don’t women understand when they are being laughed at, mocked, degraded and ridiculed? Don’t they understand that these gang-bang experiences have less to do with empowerment and connecting between women and men than it has with misogynistic male bonding rituals in which the woman serves merely as a prop? Of course at some gut level they will apprehend this. But don’t expect them to receive support from feminists or from other women whose shallow identities have been cemented securely into “well-adjusted” peer groups. It’s the feminists and their ever-supportive manginas who know an opportunity for masquerading female empowerment when they see one. Their hatred of men exceeds the mounting carnage of impressionable, misguided lives that get tossed aside as collateral damage. Feminists do understand that any suggestion that these experiences are anything but empowering for women could be very damaging to the feminist cause. Of course that possibility would never occur to their supplicating manginas, who, understanding neither men nor women, know never to question the feminist orthodoxy.

The feminist/mangina symbiosis is a very powerful one that relies on two key principles:

  • Ultimately the success of feminism depends on a systemic kind of prostitution, where the promise of sexual “freedom” is traded for an assortment of freebies for women at the expense of men, from “equality” by way of affirmative action, to the pussy-pass in laws and gubmint incentives;
  • Omegas who have failed to secure their place on the male pecking order can exorcise the bitterness in their hatred of men by becoming supplicating manginas.

Interpreting these stories of women’s sexual “empowerment” as tragedies of misspent, misguided youth is not really in the interests either of this kind of prostitution or this kind of mangina. Supplicating manginas are unable to relate to women in a sexual kind of way, so Feminism provides them with the opportunity to at least sniff at her panties, if nothing else.

And there is just one small problem with this collateral damage of misguided lives tossed onto the trash-heap of apparently isolated human misery. It is never just collateral. It is an expression of a culture that values lies and deceit above truth and reality. It is a pervasive dumbing down of humanity where everyone is affected. This is what feminism stands for. This is what feminism looks like. Feminism is the standard-bearer for this kind of “collateral damage”. It is a form of collateral damage that cannot happen in any other kind of society.

Unconfirmed reports suggest that “Clare” went on to marry a rugby player from a different team. At one level bizarre, at another level understandable. It all depends on whether the groom was an active participant in the aforementioned team bonding traditions that take place around the Land, or an exile from them. Both participant and exile share a history that “Clare” recognizes and is drawn to. One of them just might provide the best therapy that she could possibly receive, the other, sealing off her escape and assuring her descent into hell.

Does a woman’s history of bad experiences matter? Maybe women don’t think that it matters. If it was all confined to the genetic code, if it was all about evolutionary psychology and the so-called survival of the fittest, with nature red in tooth and claw, it might make some kind of sense. Genetically superior alpha studs mating, spreading their seed… can’t complain about that, can we? Where’s the problem?

Perhaps we can start by suggesting that sports jocks do not always represent superior genetic material. One study suggests that footballers have much in common with criminals. I can buy that. It presents problems for the evo-psych crowd though, unless they accept that there is such a thing as devolution and reversion to a more primitive state, a throwback to apes swinging from tree to tree.

Or maybe it hasn’t got anything to do with genetics and evolutionary psychology at all. Maybe it has everything to do with something deeper, something about the way we make choices and establish our identities. When a team of thugs mocks and degrades an apparently willing but misguided teenager searching for her identity, do they not effectively also mock and degrade her family, and even society itself? How does this garbage recirculate throughout the culture and the identities of everyone living within it? If someone you loved was a gang-banger, what might that say about you? What are we becoming? Cast your eyes around. Can we really believe that this mockery of humanity that we see around us today is what humanity used to look like a hundred years ago?

Ultimately, these questions relate to much bigger existential concepts, well beyond the scope of The Spearhead. But there is one conclusion that I do bring, and that’s that women are capable of extremely dumb, destructive choices. When they ride the cock carousel in preference to the responsible betas that they find so boring, well, I guess they pay. Their history matters. But why should we care, given that our cultures care so little about false rape allegations and what is happening to men in the family courts, the workplace and society in general?

About Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster)

With his interests in science and philosophy, Codebuster's practical interpretations of theory provide fresh perspectives to contemporary problems. Necessity is the mother of invention, and Codebuster foresees that in men's rights we have the new necessity for maybe a whole new paradigm.

View All Posts
  • Paul Elam

    Another outstanding opportunity!

    Someone who wishes to remain anonymous has just offered a pledge to donate $2.50 per post to those who go to reddit at the link below and comment on this article. The condition is that your comment must be also pasted back here.

  • Paul Elam


    If someone told you what you think was important to me, they lied to you.
    And to boot, your comment is obtuse.

    Women and men both make dumb choices, each kind more prevalent to their sex. That may sound sexist to you, but it is real. And exploring why just might provide some insight into why that happens, and point the way to some solutions – in case you are interested more in that than you are how an article is titled.

    By the way, I have seen many articles in women’s magazines with similar titles (though unlike this article, real sexism could be found in the content). I hope you’ll send them a nasty note.

    I have a lot of respect for the mission the mods here, but even as I see the readers count here has just passed 20k, I know that many are only here to derail the MM message, and that some number of those readers actually think they understand gender politics after about 15 minutes of involvement.

    Where you fall in those groups is not really important, but your milquetoast stance on being so protective of what you “look like” betrays the fact that you don’t fully comprehend that if you are a man, what you look like has been decided for you a long time ago by people that hate your guts for having a penis.

    If something this silly diminishes anyone’s credibility in your eyes, please see the opthamologist before you walk into a brick wall, or worse, lead anyone else into the same wall.

  • T P

    “The thing that excites women about dominant men does not relate to anything as calculated as guaranteeing offspring with lots of resources. That’s nonsense.”

    This is true but the reasoning shows a lack of understanding about EP. Evolution did indeed wire women to seek men who would be the best providers. But that doesn’t mean it wired them to *calculate* who will be the best provider. No, evolution takes the shortest route. It wired women to be attracted to men exhibiting certain characteristics… because those were the characteristics typical of the best providers *at that time in history*.

    Similarly, evolution wired men to engage in behavior that would lead to the most offspring.. namely, fucking everything he could his hands on. But it did not wire us to calculate “if I fuck every woman I can, I will maximize my offspring.” Instead it just made us want to fuck them all as an end in itself, offspring or not.

  • Denis

    This is a very interesting analysis from various angles.

    “It does not account for when women throw caution to the wind. It does not explain why women’s menageries of mediocrity typically include thugs, slobs and losers.”

    -How does that compare to women’s attraction to power and/or success?

    Game Theory works because of the projection of confidence and women’s lack of self-esteem. Game theory is not just applicable to the conquest of sluts. As far as relationship dynamics, women still often seek to control and manipulate men and game can avoid this. Few marriages are male-dominant and if there is a power struggle then men are easily disposed and she maintains her dominance.

    Alpha’s and betas can also be supplicating manginas. Alpha status is determined by women’s perception of value, the men that women compete for. Betas are the men that women settle with and omegas are the rejects.

    “Getting back to the gang-bangers. What’s going on here?”
    “Where’s the problem? But why should we care?”

    This is a natural consequence of the sexual revolution. Sex has always been a transaction in some form, women are devaluing their commodity, which also leads to a poor quality of selection for men. Ultimately, women will need to realize this for themselves.

  • AntZ

    As someone very succinctly put just a few days ago:

    Beta bank motivates a woman’s head, but alpha dick motivates her crotch.

    So what? How do women’s bad or good choices make and difference to the men’s rights movement? Let them solve their own problems.

    Our problem is that every baby boy who is born has a noose around his neck, and any woman who he ever meets can choose to pull that noose and choke the life out of him.

    Our problem is that the law recognizes women as infallible while men are presumed guilty.

    Our problem is that the heavy hand of the state is turned against us from birth.

    I don’t give a shit about women’s problems. We have enough of our own. Maybe what you mean to say is:

    “Any man who sees a woman as a partner had better be ready for that woman to leave him a few years after marriage, throwing herself at a string of abusive alphas. The man will then live the remainder of his life as a wage slave who has to beg for the opportunity to see his children, who will probably be denigrated by every one of mom’s boyfriends with the full acquiescence of their submissive mother.”

    • Factory

      Antz, we don’t all live in a world separate from women, nor do we all want to. In fact, if we were happy living that way, none of us would be here.

      The whole point to the MRM is to restore some sense of sanity to society, in order to make relations with women possible again, without incredible risk. Women are not the enemy, but the prize….just not as they are in their present form. We are fighting for an end to the distortion of our lives and our civilization. We are not fighting to rigidly enforce these distortions.

      I want women back, and that’s why I’m doing this. If this was ever about getting rid of women altogether, I never would have given this movement a second thought.

    • AntZ


      Our courts, law enforcement, and social norms place a loaded gun in every woman’s hand, pointed at the heart of all men. Every woman has the POWER to take from any man his freedom, his children, his livelihood, his reputation, and even his life — and she has the power to do this for any reason, or for no reason.

      You argue that women should make better choices. In other words, women should CHOOSE not to pull the trigger of the loaded gun that they are given, just because they are women.

      I argue that women should never get this choice. Women should not have on-request access to the oppressive machinery of the state. Neither sex should have absolute power over the other, based only the particulars of their genitals. In fact, I argue for strict equality before the law. Nothing more.

      As far as “getting rid of all women”, you have me all wrong. I am married and I have two sons. In other words, I think that there are millions of wonderful women in this world who would never CHOOSE to wield the burning blade of state oppression against their loved ones and their families — and I think I have married such a woman.

      However, I know that if my wife turned into an evil twin:
      1) in 30 minutes she would have me arrested
      2) in 6 hours she would have full possession of all my liquid assets
      3) in 12 hours she deprive me of my home and contact with my children via “protection order”
      4) in 3 days I would be charged with a felony
      5) in 3 months I would be subjected to garnished wages
      6) in 12 months I would be reduced to a wage slave who has to beg to see my own children, via a “fair” divorce order by our “fair” courts

      So, as you can see, I think that I have found a truly wonderful woman indeed, as evidenced by the fact that I am willing to take all of these risks in order to be with her. I would guess that as many as half of all of the world’s women would never aim the loaded gun of state misandry at the heart of their family. I would even admit that there might be one or two American women who can be trusted :)

      But the ultmate goal cannot be to convince women not to pull the trigger; the ultimate goal has to be to remove the gun.

      • Factory

        I don’t know where you got the idea that I think women will CHOOSE to be nice. I am all about removing the ability of women to do as they have done, since given the option too many people will take it (sound familiar?).

        I do not believe women are evil though, I simply believe they are more prone to selfish, short-sighted behaviour than men are…and not by much. People blame “The System” wayyy too much, and never hold those actually carrying out the injustices responsible. I aim to change that.

        “I was only following orders” didn’t work for the NAZIs, it won’t work for the manginas and Feminists either. With any luck.

        • j

          You are being brainwashed to the other extreme, IMO. It’s easy to show lots of news that shows women as this or that as it is to show men this or that.

          Meet a girl, and take her for her. Play some games and then get your sperm in…… after that, work it out with her, talk to her, work as a team together. Women won’t go the extreme if you have a good relationship anymore than men will go to the extreme if they have a good relationship.

          • Denis

            “Meet a girl, and take her for her. Play some games and then get your sperm in…… after that, work it out with her”

            Wow, you don’t know much about relationships do you?

          • j

            haha, for the lame votes.

      • zuismanm

        I think all such “game theories” lack form one (at least) principle weakness. They accept current “playing conditions” as objective reality, that can’t be changed, and build whole theory on those base. That crates claims liek:
        “The thing that excites women about dominant men does not relate to anything as calculated as guaranteeing offspring with lots of resources. That’s nonsense.”
        Females behavior (like any humans behavior) depends on 3 main factors (as I understand it)
        1. Biological imperatives (subconscious impulses)
        2. Existential conditions (lows of child support payments, single moms support programs, WAWA lows and so on)
        3. Educational/cultural indoctrination (at home, school, media and so on)
        Simply saying: abandon child support lows and you will discover, that 90% of females will learn in 2 weeks to make much more rational choices. If she will know, that she can’t fuck around with any one that she is attracted for and after that get child support from her ex-hubby, for child that even is not his , she will in a minute learn to “overbear” her “impulses”. If females will know that she can’t get totally drunk, go to a flat of some thug and tomorrow claim in police that she was “raped” , 90% of females that today hookup all around without giving a damn on possible outcomes, will in moment stop to do so….

        • Dusty

          Absolutely. So much of what MRAs call the “feminine” is actually “the childish.” Women never grow up because we don’t demand it of them as we do men.

          Northwestern U. psychologists Eli J. Finkel and Paul W. Eastwick decided to put the whole female selectivity thing to the test with a novel experiment (“Changing the Dating Game,” Scientific American Mind, May-June, 2010, p.66-67). They set up a speed dating event. Basically, the women sat at tables, and the men went to each table for five minutes, then rotated. The men and women had a list with everyone’s name, and they marked “yes” or “no” depending on who they were interested in. If a couple had mutual “yeses,” they were given contact information. If not, no big deal.

          The men marked “yes” far more than the women. No big surprise so far, right? Here’s where it gets interesting: the psychologists decided to have another speed dating round, but with the men sitting and the women approaching. When forced to take an active role, women were JUST AS selective as men rather than MUCH MORE selective. Now, that wasn’t a complete reversal, but it shows that these roles aren’t as hardwired as people think.

          Men and women are different, but the differences are small. Our cultural attitudes are what amplifies and magnifies them. It’s this whole idea that men are from Mars and women from Venus. Women act like helpless little children because we let them take on the passive role.

    • John A

      AntZ, most of your posts are great, but;

      Women’s problems are men’s problems, always have been always will be. We live in a democracy of sorts, so we need to get an influential block of votes to make real change. If you are thinking violence, then think of what a lot of men will do for a blow-job. Violence will just end up with a lot of men dead.

      Why do we need women on side then? First, men’s rights are in the interest of women. Second, women are getting sick of feminism and the false hope it brought. Third, when women get interested in men’s rights, the manginas will follow.

      I agree with how fucked up and unfair the system is and I understand how bitter and angry a lot of men are. personally, I’m mad as hell. However, no matter how much the system advantages women, they usually only have Pyrrhic victories, with the man worse off than them.

      Rabid, man-hating, feminazi bitches are a minority of women, the majority are ready for something better.

      When you get a blow-job for being a MRA, then this movement will get traction.

  • Factory

    My leave:

    Probably one of the best attempts I have seen so far in trying to marry Evo Psych theory with a little realism. It’s no secret that Human beings are not preprogrammed robots, and I’ve always felt that was the weak point of “Game”.

    This is a major first step down the path of shaking Dogma from Game Theory, and Evo Psych as applied to sexual relations. A grounding in reality is far more important than theoretical elegance, and this type of understanding sets us on a path more fluid, more organic, in it’s approach. Nothing in life is rigid, and all rules have their exceptions. This article points out some exceptions, and suggests a better method of framing these issues.

    An important read, if only as basis for discussion.

  • Promoman

    Women ultimately get the Darwin Award when it comes to sex/relationship choices. Women fuck, date, and marry the opposite of who they say they want in the first place. They alienate and/or exploit the men they profess to want aka the nice guy. The booby prize is all the more deserved when one considers that women ultimately choose who they want to be with and that prospects come to them. Men almost always have to jump through hoops to even just get laid, let alone get in the door to have a chance at a meaningful relationship.

  • AntZ

    I hate articles about the choices women make, and how to prevent them from making choices that destroy my life.


    Her life should depend on her choices!
    My life should depend on my choices!

    Why are we begging for miserable scraps of hope, instead of demanding equality?

  • Stu

    Game is just another mitigation tool to enable a man to continue to extract something out of this misandrist shit sandwich that our culture has become. It works, but it doesn’t change the fact that by employing it, each woman is a possible new nail in your coffin.

    I often think, what would happen if I was to say….go into politics, or become any sort of publicly recognized figure. There is so many women out there with bullets with my name on it that I’d be bound to be publically hung, drawn and quartered in no time flat. I didn’t even know I was using game all my life, I’ve had unbelievable good fortune attracting women for one nighters, friends with benefits etc. In fact, porn stars got nothing on me, they are all cub scouts compared to me LOL

    I never even lie about myself to women. It’s like, if a woman I was dating, or setting up a date with asked, if I’m seeing anybody, I would just say yeah, I’m seeing half a dozen women actually. After seeing a woman a few times and they start with the, so when are you going to stop seeing those other women…….answer…..when they or I get sick of it….and then I’ll just replace them with new fuck buddies LOL

    The thing that makes this work, is to avoid ever, ever, putting the slightest bit of restriction on any womens sex life yourself. From that position, you are fully entitled to your own freedom, and you’ll soon be beating them off you with a stick. Demanding monogamy from a man is the biggest shit test of all.

    Anyway, AntZ is right, doesn’t matter what lifestyle you choose, married and monogamous, player, or even total MGTOW complete with absolutely no sex and nothing to do with women to the extreme. They are coming after you. The choices of lifestyle for men have became choices between which dangerous road to take……all leading to the same trap.

  • j

    I think the point that self esteem has something to do with women’s choice has merit. It’s lovely to be made a fuss over.

    I agree that finding a woman’s insecurities and exploiting them is useful. I would say the opposite to women as they can exploit men’s insecurities also.

    I think fear can have something to do with choice but that’s because a women may need to find a stronger man to free her from the last man or from sexual pressure from gamers whether perceived or real.

    Narcissism, hmmm. I haven’t had time to understand this fully.

    I like that you touched on the NZ case. I agree she was naive and I also think she was being lead rather than giving permission.

    I think there is a connection with projection. I’ve heard people often give what they want to receive.

    All in all, good article.

    • John A

      The point I got with the Cronulla Sharks and Matthew Johns gang-bang case was that it was only when “Clare” bragged about fucking half the team and everyone she told was repulsed by it, that she decided she was raped. Sound familiar?

      • j

        Well, gosh. Don’t men know best for women?

  • Stu


    I didn’t read the NZ case you refer too, but whatever it is, being naive is nobody elses fault. Being lead is giving permission. If you choose to follow someone elses lead, then you have given permission for them to lead. If they lead you to something you don’t want, fire them and get a new leader or lead yourself.

    • j

      I get what you mean. Lucky we have sex education these days. Just imagine living in the days when sex wasn’t discussed even in families.

  • Stu

    Actually I think it’s almost illegal to discuss intimate sex subjects with minors. It is for a man anyway. That’s here in OZ. That privledge is now reserved for feminazis in the school system LOL

  • Stu

    The thing is now, if you get married, be monogamous, your oppressing women, even though you are giving those women what they want. If you stay single and play the field, your exploiting women, even though you are giving those women want they want. If you join a swingers club and only play with women who are full on into that scene, you are expoiting women, by giving them exactly what they want. If you have nothing to do with women, and remain celebrate, you are a loser, and weirdo, probably dangerous, probably a pedophile, because you are giving women nothing they want.

    It doesn’t matter what you do or don’t do guys. The feminists will find reason to hate you anyway. All roads lead to hell, some more dangerous then others, but you can’t win as long as women think they can cry victim. All you can do is choose which road, then try to dodge the potholes.

    To a feminist, the only good man, is six foot under pushing up daisies. And even then….you died and deprived some woman somewhere of your utility.

    AntZ is right, we have to take away the right of women to complain about their choices and palm off responsibility to men. It’s got to the point where it’s…….I’m not happy, so all men are criminals.

    • John A

      I’d rather say that we have to get women to take responsibility for their choices, as adults. Like “Clare” every adult woman has the right to fuck a football team, even if she is married. So if women are adults, it’s about time they took responsibility for their actions.

      Codebuster’s article exposes feminists for what they are: out of touch, out-of-date, insensitive and not representing women. Most women aren’t real feminists, you can tell because they don’t behave like real feminists. By this I mean that if you say you are one thing and do another, then you should be judged by what you do, not what you say you do.

      Yes, “we have to take away the right of women to complain about their choices and palm off responsibility to men.” We do this by showing that women make dumb choices (as do men) and women should take responsibility for their dumb choices, as men take responsibility for their own dumb choices.

      IMHO feminists have just about had their day, but they are by no means the only enemy of the MRM.

  • Stu

    @John A

    Oh…..that case. Yeah, comlete fucking joke. I got nothing against a woman jumping in the sack with 20 guys, no prob at all. I’ve got heaps of female friends who relish is that kind of sex, but, if a woman wants to engage in that kind of sex, then wants to use it as a weapon against guys who entertain her……not on.

    There are different kinds of sluts out there. A lot of what people call sluts are not actually sluts, they are whores. The true slut, in my book anyway, is a women who has a strong libido, and has sex with guys for the pleasure of it. I have no problem with that kind of women, no matter how many sex partners she has at once or over time. The other type of slut, that is really a whore, immitates the true slut. She has sex for manipulation, financial gain, whatever. Any reason that benefits her other then the desire for the pleasure. These are the pretenders and manipulators. They are whores with a hidden price tag, and an unspecified payment date.

  • Kazzi

    Ok this is what I posted.

    Women always think they make the right choice.. so why do they think they can change men after they get into a relationship with him?
    Men dont change.. it is the women who do.
    They think they can multi-task, but they cant as they try and do so many things at one time but never actually complete anything.

    Women chase men into a relationship – and yes it has all got to do with what they do, how much they earn before they will even consider then as a ‘potential partner’. And of course how many times you hear women say ‘ oh I love a man in uniform’- which the protector type of male.

    If you told the women the truth for when they ask a question – oh the tears that would flow ie: does this look good on me – even if it doesnt – the men say yes when they should say the truth.. but they dont so as not to start up an argument.

    Women dress to attract the male – the makeup, the hair, the clothing.. its not about them ‘oh I do it to feel good’ its the attraction factor, and they dam well know it. Its having the ‘sexual’ power and for them to have the guys turn and look at them.. rather than being a wall flower.

    If men stop beating around the bush and said exactly how they felt on every topic and told the women to shut the F**k up and stop nagging all the time.. the world would be a better place… but the women dont want to hear the ‘real’ truth because then they would have nothing to fall back on.

    Yes you have to read between the lines with what most women do say.. ‘oh I dont want anything for my birthday’… that means… buy me something that is really expensive and that shows how much you love me. But if you buy her nothing – because that is what you said.. well you end up being the biggest bastard out.

    They want everything and most of the time the everythings add up to being total junk. They dont think for a moment… do I really need that and how will it actually help with my life… no its – but its on sale.. and I might need it later on… crap..

    This article was pretty much spot on.. and if women dont like it.. tuff titties… its the dam truth…so read and learn. It does not make a person sexist at all (huntwhales) it is just pointing out the true facts.

  • Stu

    Get back in the kitchen and make me another sandwich Kazzi :) :)

  • John A

    This is the best I could come up with, called myself fetching

    This is a great article about why women make choices that don’t appear to be in their self interest. Women, in general, are risk adverse, part of the attraction with bad boys is they can experience the thrill of the risk through their man. I don’t see this article as sexist at all, the only really sexist comments being the quotes from prominent feminists.

    It is not sexist to criticize affirmative action, after all, affirmative action is a condescending gesture.

    Men and women are different, each needs to learn more about themselves and the other as well. This article goes a long way towards furthering that understanding.

    Why does huntwhales say the title is “why do women make dumb choices” when it is “Understanding the Dumb Choices Women Make”? The two have different meanings. The first is aggressive, the second passive. Me thinks huntwales is disingenuous.

  • Eric

    Frankly, I’ve rarely known women to go for the ‘bigger, better deal’. Mostly, they seem attracted to the lowest and most dysfunctional men and the reason for this has nothing to do with biology.

    Think about it: if women were attracted to the strongest and most resourceful males, then men in professions like soldiers, police, firefighters, martial artists, &c. should be the most desirable men. As it is, those professions suffer from about the highest divorce rates. Meanwhile, out-of-wedlock birthrates to dysfunctional thugs are escalating.

    Women chose losers because they are taught by feminist society that women are inherently superior to men and that all men are dogs who can’t function above the crude sexual level. The whole issue for these feminized women is to be with a male towards whom they can feel superior. They are educated not to value men at all and themselves above everything else.

    Anything remotely resembling a meaningful relationship with American women is practically impossible given that women carry attitudes like these. The best thing men can do is avoid relationships with them.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: RIP Tura Satana Edition()

  • gjr

    I saw some analysis in this article I agreed with, and some I found abhorrent. It probably doesn’t matter regardless what I think, as I’m a woman, and one who only just heard about the ‘marriage strike.’

    I guess my main reaction is that my feelings are hurt. I loved a man unconditionally for 12 years, without any financial incentive at all. We were young, and we had a lot to learn, but you know what never crossed my mind? How I could get him to support me financially.

    I guess what seems to me might be missing is an analysis of why men make stupid choices. Why they predictably pass up a brilliant bookworm for a ‘pretty young thing’ with no ambition, why they cleverly keep sincere and compassionate women in the friend zone, so they can pursue their more ‘exciting’ bitchy counterparts. Then the women who are kind, who are self-sufficient, who are faithful and loyal and loving…these get lumped in with the worst of the lot…those selfish, demanding, princesses who were, ironically, the original pick of the litter.

    For my part, I am beginning medical school in the fall. I think about some of the pitfalls of marriage and family from a high-income perspective because it is where I am headed, but at no point did I swear off men entirely, simply because I stood to lose financially.

    There is more at stake when you make these choices than the contents of your bank account. Life is hard, and it helps to have a partner – whether you marry that person or not.

    I hope it concerns you when I say that, as a sensitive, successful, and caring person, the contents of this blog offend and repel me.

    I would be frightened to discover that any guy I liked was busily concocting strategies in his mind, all designed to keep me off-balance and reliant on his ‘formidable’ personality.

  • Kimski


    ‘I would be frightened to discover that any guy I liked was busily concocting strategies in his mind, all designed to keep me off-balance and reliant on his ‘formidable’ personality.”

    Try turning the tables on that last sentence, and then let me welcome you to the very real and scary world that most men in the anglosphere wake up to every morning.

    And speaking of strategies, then ‘riddle’ me this…

    If a man wants to get involved with a woman, with the everlasting risk of loosing everything he owns and his children on a whim, -which would you consider to be the wisest choice:

    To get involved with a brilliant woman, who will get him to that inevitable endline in half the time, and probably get him landed in jail to top it off ???


    One of those selfish, demanding, princesses that he can hump & dump without any qualms whatsoever, and ‘only’ risk a false rape accusation when she wakes up from her drunken stupor, if she’s not to stupid to realize what happened ???

    -Yeah, I thought so…
    Me too!

  • gjr

    Well, as a woman with lots of brilliant women friends, I can tell you that none of them have gotten divorces since they started getting married 12 years ago. All of my friends are still married, most have kids…and they all work for a living.
    Seriously, no divorces.

  • Anto

    Well I think this is true to many women, too much, but not all, afterall using just instinct without mediation is bad in many situation regardless of the gender.
    The instinct isn’t bad or good in itself it must not be repressed, but just used cautiously until you explored the situation then relax and unleash it when your mind rational traffic lights turn green.
    Generalization is not always the devil but then you must use the very same scheme for yourself and for all males, that wouldn’t sound good as you’d say that’s male-bashing we are not all the same. The same for women, the ungrown immature with low self esteem looks for the bastard, but then there are strong indipendent women, astrophisicians, philosopher, writers, scientist, many of them are just married to, yes an intelligent men but not a bastard, not all at least, I can’t know private life of every individuals so do I.
    Indeed there is a naturalistic mode about our evo-psych hardwiring, but we can’t ignore how these instinct are intermingled by learned social reflexes cultural bias, good and bad ones. I don’t advocate the blank slate as it is obviosly our mind is *also* hormone driven and there are a skeleton of innate pattern schemes, but as much as I hate extremes, I can’t believe those who put so big of a weght on our innate schemes which are just the base onto which, given our mind is greater than thos of other animals, are built an infinite series of learnable behavior, and even the hormone/stimulus area evolves and get linked to an enormous array of situations.
    Cathegorizing is important and help us orienting our language and descriptive abilities to synthesize the reality, but we can’t let this synthesis overwhelm the individual with all of his/her variation, or we denie ourselves the chances of being amazed by something outside our narrow view of how we think things should be. Let’s not crush individuals in favor of models and cathgories ;).

  • ruddyturnstone

    Overly complicated, by a mile.

    TP summed it up well. Women choose to have sex with (as opposed to marry, for the most part) guys who give them gina tingles. And women are hardwired to get gina tingles from guys who either are or act (as in the case of guys who know “Game”) socially dominant. It has nothing to do with logically selecting the best provider in our current society, per se. It has everything to with selecting for social dominance, which, in the ancestral environment, usually meant physically imposing, charismatic, confident, aggressive, etc. Because in that environment, social dominance and providerhood were closely linked.

    In the ancestral environment, there was no inherited wealth. Even “political” power, such as “chief” or “headman” status was not hereditary. There were no “jobs,” per se. The men hunted. The leader of the pack was usually the best hunter, but being able to convince other men to follow you (charisma) was important too. Size mattered, but was not the only determinant. As was fighting prowess and aggressiveness. Basically, social dominance in the ancestral enviroment was similar to what it has always been among other mammals who live in groups. The biggest, strongest, most aggressive horse is the one that the fillies and mares want to mate with. Why? Because his herd has first dibs on the best grass, at the waterhole, etc. Because he is more likely to drive off a predator than a weaker horse. Pretty much the same with chimps or gorillas. The big aggressive male ape secures a better deal for his females, and, therefore, their offspring, than the smaller, more timid ape. Social dominance and providerhood go hand in hand. And the females are hardwired by evolution to get excited by the dominance. The providerhood just followed along. Females who didn’t choose dominant males produced offspring with less chance of success in life. So they were selected out by evolution.

    But social dominance, in a society as complex as ours, is not the same as it with horses or chimps or dogs, wolves, gorillas or whatever. Sure, a rich and influential politician or banker or Wall Street hotshot has social dominance, but not all women are in the milleu of such men. Depending on the circumstances, all kinds of men can be socially dominant. In high school, it might be the star athlete is socially dominant among the mainstream boys and girls. But even in HS, there are subcultures within the larger culture. Among the more marginalized boys and girls, for example, the drummer in a punk (or Goth or whatever they call it these days) band might be socially dominant. In society at large, the range wil be even greater. In the ghetto, the toughest gangster is socially dominant, and he is the one who gives the girls their gina tingles. The banker and politician might as well live on Mars. Write this large, and you can begin to understand how a convicted murderer, a tough, abusive cop, a heroin addicted musician, etc, etc, might have social dominance in a given subculture.

    The good provider never has social dominance by the mere fact of that status per se. Among the wives of the executives of a corporation, let’s say, it is not the best provider among the executives (the guy with the best salary, the smartest investments, the least expensive vices) who gives them tingles, but the executive who is socially dominant. The arrogant asshole, usually. And they may just as easily get their gina tingles from the guy who fixes their car, even though he is not one tenth the provider their husband is. It is a proven fact that women often fantasize about their car mechanic. Women almost never fantasize about their dentist, even though he is obviously a better provider. Because car mechanics show gross physical prowess. They are tough and strong. They are, if they are any good, usually cocky and somewhat arrogant. Dentists are none of that, for all their money.

    EP leads even modern women into sexually desiring the guys who most match the profile of social dominance that was prevalent in the ancestral environment. Big, aggressive, strong, charismatic, confident, physically imposing and dextrous. Guys like that thrive in hunter-gatherer societies. Those are not bad things to be even now, but they don’t go hand in glove with being the best provider, the way they did back then. But these are the traits that give women gina tingles, not a high salary, a good investment strategy, a lack of vices, being a good father, etc, etc.

    And that’s what explains women’s sexual preferences, their “dumb choices” when it comes to choosing lovers. Not complicated, multi stage arguments based on psycho babble like self esteem, “projection,” “auto spook” and what have you.

    Of course, when it comes to choosing husbands, as opposed to lovers, most women are smart enough to value provider status over simple social dominance. Most women, if they have the choice, would rather marry the small, timid, shy, virtuous, but rich and getting richer banker than the arrogant, cocky, big, tough, charismatic, but broke and getting broker car mechanic/drummer/bar lout/whatever. And, of course, if she can have her cake and eat it too, say by marrying the asshole, arrogant but also good provider politician/executive/banker/whatever, all the better.

    Really, women’s choices are not so hard to understand at all. They want social dominance in their lovers, and would prefer to have them in their husbands too, as long as they are also good providers. If they can’t get that, they will settle for having social dominance in their lovers and good providerhood in their husbands.

    “Game” is pretty much a footnote to all this. Game is simply guys without social dominance pretending that they do have it. They mimic the actions, postures, gestures, statements, responses and attitiudes of guys who really have social dominance in an attempt to fake women out and get their ginas tingling. At best, and perhaps, over time, by acting the role some guys actually do acquire more social dominance. In most cases, however, it is what it is: an act. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. But it doesn’t change the essential nature of female lover selection.

  • Genius

    No, this isn’t right. It is bad genetics, mostly. This is an issue that cannot be dealt with necessarily, so often it is ignored outright and the blame game ensues. This leads to scapegoating and subterfuge, which is very often the only way to survive against those who are genetically superior. The game is then changed from this real game to a war of genders as that is an easier way to manipulate emotions and engage in psy war, perpetuated by everyone. There are no alphas, nor any other order. There are those that choose to engage their gifts, and those that don’t even recognize them. Blame the schools and teachers, your community, and yourself for not raising intellectual awareness and upholding a constructive attitude. Humans are not necessarily pack creatures, and evolve very quickly. What you are seeing is the lag from such a fast evolution.

    • Divided Line

      Why couldn’t the same genetics which would produce a committed heroin addict who single mindedly spends his life chasing his next fix also produce a workaholic who spends his life in a lab curing cancer? There’s no reason to assume that genetics, which may produce behaviors, are necessarily advantageous or disadvantageous, since the same traits can be either in different contexts. Given that this is the case, what makes sense is tailoring institutions to the reality of people rather than trying to tailor people to institutions. Everything else is ideology, bigotry and excuses.

  • early90s/late2000s

    i only feel sorry for stupid hoes that go after guys with money. It really sickens me. Gold diggers are the scum of the earth…trust me there’s scum men but i’m not into men. I like women so I only want to comment on their ways.

    Especially asian women who run after white guys for status and money. It really is sad when you’ll get with a completely unattractive guy for stability.