Here's a weird one. I've been married 26 years. A few years ago, I was out with my female friends, all married, and they started taking about men they'd kissed, not long ago but recently. Men who weren't their husbands. I was shocked. I haven't kissed anyone other than my husband since we started dating nearly 30 yo. Given this scale of yours, I'd say the entire group was at least frisky in their youth (including me) and a few sluts. When I suggested that kissing a man who wasn't your husband was cheating, the alpha of the group said, "from my waist down is dedicated to my husband but the top is mine to do with as I please." All the other women nodded their heads and when I said the only man to touch me in 30 years was my husband, another said she felt sorry for me. "Ah, then you won't mind if I kiss your husband then?" I asked. They all went quiet and changed the subject.
Great insights on the balance of beauty and chastity.
Proverbs 31:29-30
[29] “Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all.” [30] Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.
That made me think how shocking it would be to meet a woman - outside of church - who declared boldly her submission to Christ. And for real, not for social media clout. Vanity is the new religion (for men also, largely). Maybe inside the church as well, lolzlzlol.
I suppose girls making fun of each other for still being virgins is that ruthless competition aspect, as per the short hair article. I can see some minor dilemma that goes along the lines of, "How do you know you're desirable if men haven't had you?" but I imagine it only works on the naïve and uneducated.
It works on more than just the naïve and uneducated. Don't underestimate the allure of belonging to a group. Many women/ girls will go along with behaving in a way that is destructive because the threat of social exclusion is terrifying. (There's safety in numbers after all.)
There’s never any physical danger to any of the girls. A guy is always assumed to play the part of the hero or the sacrificial goat or both. Girls are only harmed by each other. And by their choice of men, diets and poisons.
As a young Christian guy I was taunted for not frivolously throwing away my resources. I was a "financial prude" for not gambling in the casino, and a coward for not driving my car into a tree on a dare. "Well, how do you know those airbags are gonna work if you don't try? You need to see if you're accident-compatible." Rolling my Buick was my "favorite mistake".
Good observation especially about the naive. Because what’s the one of first things, if not the first, a woman calls another woman she hates? It surely isn’t “She is a virgin!”
Beauty fades too, and not just in the inspirational fridge magnet sense. You get used to it. It stops compensating for other things. Attitude has the opposite reward pattern. The longer the time invested, the more betrayal damages.
There's another explanation for Rushdie's success. It's the fatwa. He's a dangerous man and women are attracted to danger. Also fatwa sex is the best sex there is
Add in the desire of men to avoid a woman who constantly tests their authority, and you're bang on for marriage prospects. Like the article states, I know I didn't seek out the most physically attractive woman, but the most chaste, but also one of the most mild/virtuous women I've met. Good example to the children of a virtuous mother. She'll still occasionally test authority, but -nothing- like what I've seen other poor SOB's have to go through.
I always try to recommend to other men to marry down a notch or two the women that they -could- land. So that their wives feel blessed to have them, always and forever. Keep the hypergamous testing to a minimum, and everyone's happy, especially the deltas.
If you're not attracted, you're not attracted. Don't worry about it beyond that, but realize that if you set the bar too high you might eliminate yourself from what you can reasonably get
Like Vox says - the future belongs to those that show up for it. The real test of a woman is how she'll handle the motherhood aspects and accomplish tasks when she's expecting, but already has several young children already demanding attention. It's a hard life, and high expectation.
I don't know how to look for that, pre-marriage though, beyond basic competence in other tasks like you said, and staying chaste. If she can't do those, I don't know how you'd expect her to handle the long term expectations of long family, giving up immediate desires for long term family and dynasty building.
This is really good. You got me thinking if the desire for low body count has more to do with what you said about testing authority than is does about a guy being "jealous" of all the "fun" a woman had in college (a common retort to men's preferences).
Eh. Low body count is a sign of women's virtue. Remember, Chastity and temperance is a virtue. Women's ability to hold in her short term desires for long term planning is critical in marriage - think of long term goals in planning estates and households, families and dynasties.
Blowing up a marriage over sexual deviancy is just the start of what you want to build. Critical and a sign, but Chastity simply is the foundation of Christendom.
Agree, however I was asking in a secular sense. The Christian aspect is a different layer, and in a perfect world would supersede this entirely.
Asking more clearly: Average men tend to prefer lower body count. Even deeply secular men. This is often turned back on them as "jealousy" and "insecurity". Even on a purely secular relationship-mechanics level, I think these guys know that a woman with a high count has instability, and likely is flighty or tends to monkey-branch more than average. Leading to authority issues, as I was asking on the original commenter's point.
A woman with a low count is demonstrating an unwillingness to be this way. Perhaps an inability, but most women can get it if they want.
Temperance / Chastity is a natural virtue. Even pagans have it. There are no pagan civilizations that don't laud it, and every kingdom or government that has had it undermined went through trials as they did. They either fixed the problem or eventually collapsed.
For the individual though, yes, it does lead to instability. Because she lacks self control over important things, so she'll tend to lack self control over other areas of life too - money, food, what she says, her friendships, everything.
A woman without self control is miserable to be around, and it's often miserable to be around other men with wives who lack it unless they're dear friends. Otherwise I exit conversations or change topics. But the men chose that life, and often want to drag others down in their misery rather than pull themselves and their wife up with the hard work necessary.
It's my understanding that this post refers to a long-term-leading-to-marriage ranking primarily? Or does it have application between women as they interact in their own social dynamics?
As a Christian, for reasons both practical and spiritual, I'd be trending to the right column of that list.
Regarding the top-tier women and their Alpha/Sigmas husbands ("rounding error" - that's pure gold) , I wonder if and when they finally couple up it is for different reasons, and that they are in an entirely different head space. Sort of like the uber-rich. I can't understand their world or motivations, other than to know that mine are nothing like theirs.
I am reminded, though, of two cautionary tales from my past with the chaste jane zone. I knew a couple of these from church and social scene. Absolutely virgins. But they were in a nearly crazed pursuit of the local alphas in college and the workplace. Watching a 4.5 - 5.5 girl attempt to poach the boyfriend from an easy 8 was something to behold. Thinking it through, maybe I am conflating "virgin" with "chaste". The spirit wasn't chaste here even if the physical was a virgin.
This is the closest thing I can think of to a female Gamma in the sex side of the SSH. She would freak out / nuke reject if normal guys even talked to her (begone, and take your Delta stink with you!). She morphed into a a purring kitten around the alphas, regardless of their "taken" status and hot girlfriends. Last I checked she finally married in her late 40s to a guy who looks like a fire hydrant. The other one? Same, but even worse.
On paper, they were a match for the guys at my level. The fact that both of them arrived in their 40s unmarried I think bears that out.
I recall two women I used to work with, both babes. One was chaste and was looking for the *perfect* man. She married in her late 30s and will not have children of her own. When she married, she still looked good (especially good for her age).
The other was very into having a good time and was almost engaged when we worked together (they did not marry). I could only guess if she were normal or frisky. She did not marry until in her mid-40s. She also let herself go and is now a Jane. Sad, but she wanted to party, travel, and see the world before settling down. As she neared 40 without being married, she expressed some regret, but apparently the regret wasn't enough to make her settle down.
The guy she had in our 20s vs. the guy she married... you can guess the difference. 20s was a solid Delta, maybe Bravo, great guy, friendly, handsome.
But I'm sure that marrying in her 20s would really have put a dent in her plans to see the world and experience life.
Women regularly overestimate their own attractiveness, especially nowadays when liberal society fluffs up their egos. Secular liberal women are, of course, worse ("every woman is a 10"), but the broader culture affects Christian women to some extent as well.
"For permanent relationships, which I assume is the primary interest of those reading here.." To answer your first question I would take this to mean primarily marriage minded males
1. To be wack. Worthy of being mocked. Weak, chumpish, and generally to be avoided.
It's origins lie in New York City, and with a national commercial campaign by Burger King where it stated "Don't be a herb, get the Whopper." In it Herb was a combination of a nerd and a moron.
Women have a focus on accruing and shepherding resources for their personal benefit, for their offspring, and for their family. Those resources also include their attractiveness, fertility, and ability to long-term pair bond.
High partner counts are a rough signal to many men that a particular woman may not be as good at resource shepherding compared to other women, since short time preferences and a more casual use of resources are not a significant benefit to building and maintaining either a marriage or a family.
I will never understand the willingness of some to shorten some words for the sake of ease, 'are' to 'r' being one example, while also taking the time to fully type out longer words such as 'retarded'. Maybe in their minds it raises the communication level from childish to lazy.
There seems to be some correlation between men with high partner counts being less satisfied with their marriage partner and thus a higher associated risk of infidelity/divorce, but the correlation is much stronger with women who have high partner counts. And since women initiate a large majority of divorces, I think it's a bigger problem. I'm not telling women not to worry about a man with a past, but I'd say men should be more particular on the issue than women need to be
The social hierarchy ranks are based on observations of sexual attractiveness. This doesn't mean the profiles aren't to some extent endogenous. Gammas are naturally sentimental. If Bezos is a gamma, a woman willing to indulge his sentimentality will score points with him.
Bingo. I think that there is more in play than SSH. Extreme public figures may be edge cases with additional attributes with non-typical motivations and non-typical influential factors.
Is the Gamma more susceptible to such offers? I would suspect more than the other due to the sense of entitlement.
Here's a weird one. I've been married 26 years. A few years ago, I was out with my female friends, all married, and they started taking about men they'd kissed, not long ago but recently. Men who weren't their husbands. I was shocked. I haven't kissed anyone other than my husband since we started dating nearly 30 yo. Given this scale of yours, I'd say the entire group was at least frisky in their youth (including me) and a few sluts. When I suggested that kissing a man who wasn't your husband was cheating, the alpha of the group said, "from my waist down is dedicated to my husband but the top is mine to do with as I please." All the other women nodded their heads and when I said the only man to touch me in 30 years was my husband, another said she felt sorry for me. "Ah, then you won't mind if I kiss your husband then?" I asked. They all went quiet and changed the subject.
if you want the very best view of the current state of male female relationships in the West
no one does it better than hoe_math on utube. Master class of simple diagrams and shorts.
Funny guy too.
hoe_math is truly an artist.
Great insights on the balance of beauty and chastity.
Proverbs 31:29-30
[29] “Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all.” [30] Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.
That made me think how shocking it would be to meet a woman - outside of church - who declared boldly her submission to Christ. And for real, not for social media clout. Vanity is the new religion (for men also, largely). Maybe inside the church as well, lolzlzlol.
I suppose girls making fun of each other for still being virgins is that ruthless competition aspect, as per the short hair article. I can see some minor dilemma that goes along the lines of, "How do you know you're desirable if men haven't had you?" but I imagine it only works on the naïve and uneducated.
It works on more than just the naïve and uneducated. Don't underestimate the allure of belonging to a group. Many women/ girls will go along with behaving in a way that is destructive because the threat of social exclusion is terrifying. (There's safety in numbers after all.)
There’s never any physical danger to any of the girls. A guy is always assumed to play the part of the hero or the sacrificial goat or both. Girls are only harmed by each other. And by their choice of men, diets and poisons.
I hear ya -
As a young Christian guy I was taunted for not frivolously throwing away my resources. I was a "financial prude" for not gambling in the casino, and a coward for not driving my car into a tree on a dare. "Well, how do you know those airbags are gonna work if you don't try? You need to see if you're accident-compatible." Rolling my Buick was my "favorite mistake".
Good observation especially about the naive. Because what’s the one of first things, if not the first, a woman calls another woman she hates? It surely isn’t “She is a virgin!”
One could argue for inclusion in Tier 5: Women with children.
Because there do exist some women who think Normal Barbie with biracial child is somehow above Tier 5.
This post by Vox so important I hope it makes it in the SSH book somewhere as an aside.
The SSH book when published will be part of my homeschool curriculum upon receipt.
Already included under History.
White women with black children, and black women, have similar illegitimacy rates... roughly two-thirds.
No. One could not. That would obviously depend upon a) the attractiveness of the woman and b) the child. See: Heidi Klum.
You have to learn to separate your personal feelings about things - I would NEVER - from what can be observed in the world around you.
Beauty fades too, and not just in the inspirational fridge magnet sense. You get used to it. It stops compensating for other things. Attitude has the opposite reward pattern. The longer the time invested, the more betrayal damages.
Trying to fight the observable facts in this post would be a social construct.
Those stats are older than I am.
There's another explanation for Rushdie's success. It's the fatwa. He's a dangerous man and women are attracted to danger. Also fatwa sex is the best sex there is
Good stuff.
Add in the desire of men to avoid a woman who constantly tests their authority, and you're bang on for marriage prospects. Like the article states, I know I didn't seek out the most physically attractive woman, but the most chaste, but also one of the most mild/virtuous women I've met. Good example to the children of a virtuous mother. She'll still occasionally test authority, but -nothing- like what I've seen other poor SOB's have to go through.
I always try to recommend to other men to marry down a notch or two the women that they -could- land. So that their wives feel blessed to have them, always and forever. Keep the hypergamous testing to a minimum, and everyone's happy, especially the deltas.
Chaste, mild women men. Chaste and mild.
If it would be illegal to pass her tests, don't marry her.
Treat beauty as an elimination criteria. For example, you don't marry below X, but, above that number, other criteria rule instead.
If you're not attracted, you're not attracted. Don't worry about it beyond that, but realize that if you set the bar too high you might eliminate yourself from what you can reasonably get
agreed. How they handle stress is key.
Like Vox says - the future belongs to those that show up for it. The real test of a woman is how she'll handle the motherhood aspects and accomplish tasks when she's expecting, but already has several young children already demanding attention. It's a hard life, and high expectation.
I don't know how to look for that, pre-marriage though, beyond basic competence in other tasks like you said, and staying chaste. If she can't do those, I don't know how you'd expect her to handle the long term expectations of long family, giving up immediate desires for long term family and dynasty building.
One possible way to see a woman's motherlyness ahead of time could be how she interacts with younger siblings or nephews and nieces.
This is really good. You got me thinking if the desire for low body count has more to do with what you said about testing authority than is does about a guy being "jealous" of all the "fun" a woman had in college (a common retort to men's preferences).
Eh. Low body count is a sign of women's virtue. Remember, Chastity and temperance is a virtue. Women's ability to hold in her short term desires for long term planning is critical in marriage - think of long term goals in planning estates and households, families and dynasties.
Blowing up a marriage over sexual deviancy is just the start of what you want to build. Critical and a sign, but Chastity simply is the foundation of Christendom.
Agree, however I was asking in a secular sense. The Christian aspect is a different layer, and in a perfect world would supersede this entirely.
Asking more clearly: Average men tend to prefer lower body count. Even deeply secular men. This is often turned back on them as "jealousy" and "insecurity". Even on a purely secular relationship-mechanics level, I think these guys know that a woman with a high count has instability, and likely is flighty or tends to monkey-branch more than average. Leading to authority issues, as I was asking on the original commenter's point.
A woman with a low count is demonstrating an unwillingness to be this way. Perhaps an inability, but most women can get it if they want.
Temperance / Chastity is a natural virtue. Even pagans have it. There are no pagan civilizations that don't laud it, and every kingdom or government that has had it undermined went through trials as they did. They either fixed the problem or eventually collapsed.
For the individual though, yes, it does lead to instability. Because she lacks self control over important things, so she'll tend to lack self control over other areas of life too - money, food, what she says, her friendships, everything.
A woman without self control is miserable to be around, and it's often miserable to be around other men with wives who lack it unless they're dear friends. Otherwise I exit conversations or change topics. But the men chose that life, and often want to drag others down in their misery rather than pull themselves and their wife up with the hard work necessary.
It's my understanding that this post refers to a long-term-leading-to-marriage ranking primarily? Or does it have application between women as they interact in their own social dynamics?
As a Christian, for reasons both practical and spiritual, I'd be trending to the right column of that list.
Regarding the top-tier women and their Alpha/Sigmas husbands ("rounding error" - that's pure gold) , I wonder if and when they finally couple up it is for different reasons, and that they are in an entirely different head space. Sort of like the uber-rich. I can't understand their world or motivations, other than to know that mine are nothing like theirs.
I am reminded, though, of two cautionary tales from my past with the chaste jane zone. I knew a couple of these from church and social scene. Absolutely virgins. But they were in a nearly crazed pursuit of the local alphas in college and the workplace. Watching a 4.5 - 5.5 girl attempt to poach the boyfriend from an easy 8 was something to behold. Thinking it through, maybe I am conflating "virgin" with "chaste". The spirit wasn't chaste here even if the physical was a virgin.
This is the closest thing I can think of to a female Gamma in the sex side of the SSH. She would freak out / nuke reject if normal guys even talked to her (begone, and take your Delta stink with you!). She morphed into a a purring kitten around the alphas, regardless of their "taken" status and hot girlfriends. Last I checked she finally married in her late 40s to a guy who looks like a fire hydrant. The other one? Same, but even worse.
On paper, they were a match for the guys at my level. The fact that both of them arrived in their 40s unmarried I think bears that out.
I recall two women I used to work with, both babes. One was chaste and was looking for the *perfect* man. She married in her late 30s and will not have children of her own. When she married, she still looked good (especially good for her age).
The other was very into having a good time and was almost engaged when we worked together (they did not marry). I could only guess if she were normal or frisky. She did not marry until in her mid-40s. She also let herself go and is now a Jane. Sad, but she wanted to party, travel, and see the world before settling down. As she neared 40 without being married, she expressed some regret, but apparently the regret wasn't enough to make her settle down.
The guy she had in our 20s vs. the guy she married... you can guess the difference. 20s was a solid Delta, maybe Bravo, great guy, friendly, handsome.
But I'm sure that marrying in her 20s would really have put a dent in her plans to see the world and experience life.
Women regularly overestimate their own attractiveness, especially nowadays when liberal society fluffs up their egos. Secular liberal women are, of course, worse ("every woman is a 10"), but the broader culture affects Christian women to some extent as well.
"For permanent relationships, which I assume is the primary interest of those reading here.." To answer your first question I would take this to mean primarily marriage minded males
"Herb"? Guessing the "H" is history but the rest?
Urban Dictionary to the rescue:
1. To be wack. Worthy of being mocked. Weak, chumpish, and generally to be avoided.
It's origins lie in New York City, and with a national commercial campaign by Burger King where it stated "Don't be a herb, get the Whopper." In it Herb was a combination of a nerd and a moron.
I think it reads like: hottie matched with some dufus named "Herb"
Women have a focus on accruing and shepherding resources for their personal benefit, for their offspring, and for their family. Those resources also include their attractiveness, fertility, and ability to long-term pair bond.
High partner counts are a rough signal to many men that a particular woman may not be as good at resource shepherding compared to other women, since short time preferences and a more casual use of resources are not a significant benefit to building and maintaining either a marriage or a family.
I will never understand the willingness of some to shorten some words for the sake of ease, 'are' to 'r' being one example, while also taking the time to fully type out longer words such as 'retarded'. Maybe in their minds it raises the communication level from childish to lazy.
Same here. We literally have keyboards on our phones and do not have T9 texting for how many years. The best are the men who use lol, lmao, omg, etc.
There seems to be some correlation between men with high partner counts being less satisfied with their marriage partner and thus a higher associated risk of infidelity/divorce, but the correlation is much stronger with women who have high partner counts. And since women initiate a large majority of divorces, I think it's a bigger problem. I'm not telling women not to worry about a man with a past, but I'd say men should be more particular on the issue than women need to be
@owen curtis
"Don't touch the poop."
If you don't understand it, look it up.
A classic!
Apparently the poop flees before my touch.
Poop asks for your touch. Don't do it.
Don't feed the trolls.
My wife and I are both tearing up laughing at the "cyote" tier. Your comedy keeps improving Vox.
The social hierarchy ranks are based on observations of sexual attractiveness. This doesn't mean the profiles aren't to some extent endogenous. Gammas are naturally sentimental. If Bezos is a gamma, a woman willing to indulge his sentimentality will score points with him.
In Bezos' case, "f"? The way they hold hands is super weird.
https://twitter.com/EnronChairman/status/1662470161926848512
I would be curious to see a post about high-status Gammas and how often they're ticket-takers.
Bingo. I think that there is more in play than SSH. Extreme public figures may be edge cases with additional attributes with non-typical motivations and non-typical influential factors.
Is the Gamma more susceptible to such offers? I would suspect more than the other due to the sense of entitlement.