I came across a couple of articles on The Guardian the other day, that got me thinking about how females approach the sexual market place. I’ve written about how men often approach it from the expectancy and equity perspective, which translates into a play based in reciprocity, where the man engages in actions with the expectation that the female will seek to bring back equity to the relationship through doing nice things for him (reward him with sex). This is the chosen approach that most men tend to default towards unless they find themselves in a community where the red pill mindset is common. In my article on the male sexual strategies I also touched on the fact that the Red Pill SMP for men is in many ways a continuous arms race to be in the top 10 – 20% of males that due to the nature of hypergamy are chased by most, if not all women.
However, apart from the female sexual strategies (Part 1 and Part 2) I hadn’t written much about the female perspective. The two articles I referenced earlier are both on beauty and beauty standards, the first dealing with the concept of the “beauty backlash“, which according to the writer is concerned with actually rejecting the grooming standards that have been socially established for women . The second dealing with the tendency for women to photoshop the photos they share on social media .
While the former is clearly a part of the same narrative that most feminist and feminist-adjacent rhetoric centers on, namely to reduce any form of standards or expectations of women to zero, thus “liberating” them from the shackles of having to do anything except what they want, while simultaneously raising the standard of men, in order to secure an alpha (with just enough beta in him) for every woman, the latter is in a sense centered on women imposing standards on other women.
The latter is the far more interesting article, as it demonstrates that in the war for online attention women may live as in article one, but airbrush as in article two.This is the feminine created arms race, wherein women project their own sexual market frame on to men, just as men do when they engage in reciprocity game. The online arms-race among women for social media attention works to drive an arms race in the real world. When men utilize reciprocity frameworks, they are projecting the tendency of men to be deductive problem-solvers that seek to maintain equity in relationships, onto women.
The Feminine Frame – 80/20
The feminine frame is based on the concept of the Pareto principle, wherein a great majority of women are interested in the top 10 – 20% of men, while displaying no interest in the great majority of men. This manifests in that some men live in a world of sexual abundance, while the great majority are relegated to a position of sexual scarcity. The addition of hypergamy through which a woman seeks to bed and lock down a man who is higher sexual market value than herself, acts in a reflexive manner to increase the mechanisms outlined in the first sentence. Hypergamy can be summed up as “always seeking to maximize her high-SMV window“, in which she will seek to balance her long-term and short-term strategies of alpha fucks and Beta bucks to reach the optimal synthesis of the two.
However, as I recently argued, “Alpha fucks” is arguably the longer-term strategy, as securing high value genetics can drive generations, as it has a probability of leading to an inner quality of offspring. Whereas “Beta bucks” is a short-term strategy, largely dependent on external characteristics such as wealth or social status. One can lose the qualities that makes one a good “Beta bucks” choice, however the internal characteristics that form the foundation for “alpha fucks” have a higher chance of being maintained and expanded over generations.
A woman seeks to lock down as high value a man as is possible for her, while balancing multiple other characteristics. She needs to secure quality genetics, but she also needs to secure provision and protection for her offspring and herself. A man who exceeds her value greatly is thus is a risky proposition as he may find another partner more on his level. In a sense, she wants to mate up, but not so far up that she compromises everything to do so. A woman may temporarily be able to engage in a liaison with a man 4 – 6 points above her own SMV, however this is a man whom she can never lock down into a long-lasting provision relationship, but that she can sleep with momentarily.
If one assumes that women, as do men project their own theoretical framework onto the other sex in a case of mistaken egalitarianism. The articles I cited, and female behavior in general makes much more sense. When one dives into statistics regarding fashion for instance, females 16 and over represent 33% of spending on apparel, versus 18% spent by men 16 and over . This makes perfect sense if women project the 80/20 frame onto men, as females would feel the same need and urgency to be in the top 20% of women as red pill men do to be in the top 20% of men.
Women inherently project their own sexual market perspective onto men assuming that in order to realize sexual market success they must be in the top 20% of women, as they know that they are truly only attracted to the top 20% of men. The remaining 80% are only chosen as a part of her “Beta bucks” strategy, which is a case of negotiated attraction. An early manosphere author I read a little over a decade ago was fond of the phrase “attraction isn’t a choice“, however he was only half-right. Attraction can be a choice, but genuine attraction is not. A woman thus assumes that if she is not in the top 20%, men experience the same feeling of negotiated attraction as she does when she knows that she settled.
The Role of Negotiated Attraction
When a woman reaches her epiphany phase and the wall, her perspective is altered from her normal 80/20 perspective, to one wherein she somewhat accepts the reciprocity game played by a majority of men. This is not her inherent preference, and as such this does not result in genuine attraction. What takes place here is a courtship where the woman seeks to qualify the male according to a second set of criteria, that has manifested as a result of her declining value. A woman in her prime can command great volumes of attention and secure mating with males 4 – 6 points above her own sexual market value, but cannot lock them into long-term pair-bonding. As she feels her decline, her approach changes to attempting to secure the best possible deal for herself going forwards with some sense of urgency.
Her ability to secure such a deal is declining year on year, and this is perhaps the reason why many manosphere authors posit that women ages 30 – 35 represent much more of a challenge than the same woman would have in her twenties. Her conscious preference has shifted towards a game of negotiated attraction, this does not necessarily mean that this conscious frame will override her inherent preference, merely that the threshold for triggering the “beta provider” schema in her mind is much lower. Once this schema is triggered, the requirements are at an elevated level wherein she seeks to establish whether the man is a true provider specimen. In the same manner that women shit-test all men, including alphas early on, the courtship phase of a negotiated attraction relationship is also a form of shit-test to which the requirements for passing are different.
A woman who makes a man wait 3 dates for sex for instance, is seeking to see how much of an investment the man is willing to front-load to establish his scarcity vs abundance mindset, his provider ability and his willingness to succumb to her frame. Secondly, it serves to create a sunk cost in his mind, where if she decides not to engage in sex on the third date, he is more prone to continue the dance for another date or two, rather than seek out more fertile grounds. Thirdly, it manufactures a case of loss aversion for him, wherein not going on that fourth or fifth date would feel like a loss, even if no winning outcome is on the table.
Negotiated attraction is a misnomer in a sense, the female does convince herself that she feels genuine attraction for the man, however what is actually taking place is a woman approaching the sexual market place based on deductive problem-solving and subverting her real pattern. While her preference is the “alpha with just enough beta sprinkles“, she will make the “sensible choice” that beta males have been attempting to sell for a decade or two at this point over failing at her sexual strategy.
Summary and Conclusions
The basic premises of this post are very simple, what if women as do men, project their own sexual market framework onto the other sex? We would expect females to invest heavily in the means required to differentiate themselves based on the salient qualities they look for in a partner. Both of articles from the Guardian represent a woman’s critique of a steady increase in requirements placed on her in order to attract the mate she considers herself deserving of, and arguments against the continuing arms race among women. In essence “if all women stop doing this then our lives become easier“. This is somewhat the same problem that I wrote about from a male perspective, of increasing performance burdens. The second article about women utilizing image processing tools to appear better on social media, further creates a problem when reality doesn’t conform to the expected reality.
While the sphere has written much on the effect of women gaining easy access to validation and worship through social media, including increasing mate requirements and narcissism, the downside for women has not been spoken of as much. If men become accustomed to, and expect reality to conform to the “take 60 selfies to get 1 that looks good, process that with an image tool and post” men will come to expect a higher standard of appearance from women they encounter out in the real world. This is partly the issue the woman in “33 Red Flags” had, where if her boyfriend is on a steady diet of women who look better than her on social media, and women who act better than her in his social circle, this increases his performance requirements for her.
To draw a parallel to Gendernomics, every participant in the sexual market place is attempting to reach a situation wherein they get the maximal possible value in exchange for the minimal level of effort. The beta male value proposition to women is that by selecting him as their mate, he will not require much of them, and will offer much to them.
One could argue this as a case of capital in a joint venture, the beta male accepts offering 50% ownership or more despite the woman not bringing 50% of the capital, in addition to offering to do the majority of the work in this venture. The Alpha male on the other hand, having a much higher volume of joint venture prospects, requires a balance between capital, ownership and decision making power.
Women are inherently aware of how the sexual market place works on an intuitive level. They grow up observing how men act towards other girls, they observe the intra-girl hierarchy with the queen bee on top. They enter the sexual market place years before their boys the same age do, and as a result they have an inherent advantage, but also one based in experience. If men traded on perfect information as women do, their ability to make deals would be better. If a man knew that his sexual market value would increase drastically and deviate positively from his experience, the average age of marriage would not be when a woman’s value starts to decline, and right before a man’s value starts to increase.