How A Computer Simulation Showed Me The Cost Of Female Sexual Freedom

It is August 13, the temperature is 28 degrees Celsius, there is not a cloud in the sky. About 10 meteres beneath me, beautiful, half-naked Croatian girls immerse themselves in the shadow of my beach house. My brothers and I are pretty much royalty here. As I sit here relaxing, Johnny Cola in hand, cigar blowing gently in the breeze, I wonder: how is it that despite the exceptional gamut of beautiful women in my city, there is still a clear difference in quality between the women who bathe on this side of Biograd, and those who chat up the tourists on the riva?

As a Canadian ex-pat, this wasn’t obvious to me until well after several months into my stay. My neighbors and I enjoy a constant stream of 9s and 10s, yet even the very comparable 8.9s just never make it through our gates. More interestingly, of all the 8.0-8.9s that we know are clamoring to get near us, few if any of them are fucking the guys on the other side of town, and would rather camp on the beach in front of our house. Their beta orbiters remain unfucked and despondent. Much as the men of Romania in Roosh’s “Poosy Paradise,” my poorer compatriots can’t help but complain that all women really want are rich and handsome men.

BoQvzc9IgAEb9Qz.jpg large

I knew this kind of thing couldn’t be understood with simple linear mathematics. So I decided to construct a computer simulation to uncover the secrets of this inherently strange phenomenon. I set out to devise an agent-based model, which is a simple computer simulation comprised of programmable “objects,” and then change things such as the wealth distribution and ecological state of the “environment” in the simulation. My hypothesis? Simple: as I adjusted the freedom of women to choose their mating partners, they would rapidly and aggressively seek out the men with the greatest social status. I also hypothesized that this would come at the expense of long-run social utility.

The interesting thing about agent-based models is that all you do is start with a few simple rules, hit “Go,” and watch as the objects collide and interact. They’re very easy to learn. Unlike regular mathematical models, these simulations generate outcomes which are highly unanticipated, where small differences in initial configurations can lead to dramatically divergent global properties. The only way to test your hypothesis is to press play and watch your simulated reality unfold. So I endowed my “agents” with a few simple albeit realistic rules, and I watched as hell broke loose:


Dominant Rule: If female (pink), seek out highest-value male (blue) in vicinity, attempt to initiate relationship. If rejected, move to next available space, rinse and repeat. Only stop when every other agent is currently in a relationship.

Dominant Parameter: “Hypergamy,” or the extent to which a female agent’s vicinity is defined. As the hypergamy scale increases, her ability to jump from patch to patch in order to seek relatively higher males expands. This is to say that a higher value of hypergamy, due perhaps to technologies, such as internet dating and mobile phones, or political freedoms such as divorce without legal recourse, leads to a better “search” algorithm, so that the female is no longer trapped to males in her vicinity. At the highest levels of this parameter, she is essentially limitless in her options.

FemaleHypergamyABMRevised2 view1 FemaleHypergamyABMRevised2 view2

The result? In a world where hypergamy is high (right screen), the society’s resources are almost completely annihilated, as men allocate most of their assets to consumption in a sad attempt to satisfy choosy women (resulting also in overpopulation). In a world where hypergamy is low (left screen), the society’s resources are more equally distributed, vast reserves of wealth (savings) pocket the landscape, and population growth hovers at a sustainable level.

Why is this all happening? Well, to be blunt, women, when given too much freedom, cause society to become volatile and thus unsustainable. This is why many cultures, and especially those living in marginal desert communities (where a single fuck-up can spell the doom of an entire tribe), practice things like clitoral circumcision, concealment of the body, betrothal, and a whole host of other customs which prevent poor behaviors.

hequals0 hequals6

In my own attempt at affecting positive change, I have begun to bring less attractive girls to my beach and fucking them (occasionally), and allowing them to smoke cigarettes from my third floor balcony for all to see, so that the hotter girls get the picture that they are absolutely unimportant in my eyes. I have lots of money and land, so what do I care; if they can’t cook and look after kids, they’re all the same to me. Either way, as the simulation showed, the hot ones will always be clawing at our gate, eagerly awaiting their time in the sun.

My native Croatian neighbors, not yet satisfied by the luxury that is cheap North American tourist whores (and the increasingly Westernized Croatian women that follow), scoff at me, but they don’t see how they are pandering to a culture which validates women’s feeble social preferences over more stable and fulfilling qualities like connection, family, and integrity. Even my computer can see that as long as this behavior is encouraged, society will grow technologically, materially, and spiritually stagnant.

Read More: Hypergamy Unchained

269 thoughts on “How A Computer Simulation Showed Me The Cost Of Female Sexual Freedom”

    1. Croatia is a playground of European rich kids, but especially Russian oligarchs. I go sailing there regularly.A country of bitchy high maintenance women, though beautiful.
      I would not listen to the author here. Prolly another bullshitter, following the local chieftain’s footsteps…

      1. Ive been to Croatia..not the friendliest women on earth. In fact was just a small step above Danish women. Not going there again..ever..

        1. Croatia is a highly racist and culturally exclusive country. I wouldn’t recommend it for traveling PUAs. In order to court Croatian women you pretty much have to be Croatian. It’s a paradise for ex-pats like me because the women know exactly what to expect from my family culturally, and they also get the benefits of a North American source of income.

  1. Promiscuity is at a pandemic level, even in the most traditional areas of the globe. Church girls, teachers, and even married mothers can rationalize their sluttiness. The reason so many cultures controlled women for centuries is because they knew what would happen if they didn’t. The Sexual Revolution was like Pandora’s box bringing evil into the world.

    1. The Arabic empire suffered greatly from libertinage and allowing women to reach decision making position and publicly trying to bent their once very powerful empire. It’s no suprise that today they get cold response we from the western countries.

    2. Promiscuity wouldn’t be so bad if the sex was evenly distributed.
      Hypergamy run amok is the true poison pill.

      1. 80% of women are being done by 10% of men. It is an unsustainable pattern, specially when taking stable marriage out of the package for men.
        Eventually, the whole social system will collapse, as most women and men simply won`t provide any value to each other. Only apex alphas and very hot young women will benefit, while most of the population will become alpha widows and spinsters, in the case of women, and sexless sōshoku, in the case of men.

        1. “Don’t underestimate the capacity of the average man to accept his depressing fate without doing anything.”
          Best line I`ve seen in a long time and so true.

        2. Exactly. Have you seen the grotesque women being fucked and cared for by men?
          Men are actively involved in their own enslavement. Look at those men in relationships where they only get sex like once every couple of months, let alone at all. They aren’t jumping ship, they just become complacent because they’re afraid.

        3. That’s the thing, though – if the average man dies out, then there’s no one left to man the many services and production industries that provide us with our daily comforts. Autarky might just make a comeback, and it’s not all it’s made out to be.

        4. The worst part is boiling water when it’s hot out and your air conditioner is crappy as hell, because you couldn’t collect enough solar radiation to power it.

        5. Agreed. Convenient how the timing of the commercial release of Oculus Rift and the height of 21st century Feminism seem to coincide. Perhaps the virtual world will totally sedate would-be Beta dissenters.

        6. I agree on that. Most men will be happy with a crappy job and an apartment with internet porn. Women will be completely out of reach for most men.
          Society teaches him that that’s all he deserves but maybe if you man up you will get something better. There’s always the hope that keeps people revolution on the horizon just a massive dropout of men who silently accepts their fate while being removed from the gene pool.

        7. I have millennial sons. They are not accepting their fate. Most of their friends and they have already checked out. They will have nothing to do with marriage, and don’t want to ever have kids, never. I had to advise my 22 year old not to get a vasectomy until he was 35.
          So, the collapse of society will come when there are no family units upon which to build society. Right now the number of households made up of a married couple and kids is the lowest it has been in our history. The trend is continuing to go down. This is already happening. All the old farts like me that had marriage and kids are still out there keeping up the average, but the change is already here and is getting worse (or better depending on your perspective). Women are still planning on having the Beta Bucks portion of their matting strategy when they are in their mid-30s. I am pretty sure that it will not be available to today’s 20 year old women.

      2. I think hpergamy is extremely exaggerated on this site. Sex is evenly distributed in society, in my opinion. The high value males get the best females and the next best males get the next best females. The author of this article says that because he is rich and handsome, he gets the 9s and 10s. Thats just life. Rich guys drive the best cars too.
        There are alot of betas getting alot of pussy around the world. Yeah a girl prefers an alpha but at 2am, shes gonna fuck someone. Chances are that she isnt your first option either. This site makes it sound like only badboy, thug, tattoed guys are having sex and thats not true. I see tons of skinny, hipster, nerdy guys with women. They might be 6s and 7s, but hes a 6/7 so it makes sense. If youre a 7 and grt pissed because 10s arent attracted to you, then you sound just like the fat girl trying to tell men that he should like real women.
        Life isnt fair, everyone cant fuck 9s on a regular basism. Honestly, about 5-10% of the world male population fucks dimes consistently and effortlessly and most of them are rich. Id rather have an 8 that likes me for me than a dime hanging around my house because Im rich anyway.

        1. I agree with most of what you say except this: “an 8 that likes me for me…”
          No woman is going to like you for being you, especially an 8. Your value isn’t static and their interest can drop like a hot potato should a hypergamic opportunity arise.
          If you want to be in a long lasting relationship with an attractive woman you have to remain vigilant.

        2. I’m not so sure about that. In my model, “Alphas” have a disproportionate share of access to sexual resources. But that does not imply a mutually exclusive relationship between Alpha dominance and the notion that Betas are incapable of having any sex at all. Betas can still engage in relationships with the many females who are simultaneously seducing and are being courted by the highest status males in the population.
          An unequal distribution of sex is a by-product of unrestrained preferential attachment by females to men… but that doesn’t mean the distribution is skewed at all times. There are dynamics at play here, and what we are about talking here is “access” to sex at any given moment, not the total stock of sex.
          The major implication is that “Betas”, however they are defined in the real world, increasingly enter new relationships under the pretense that they will have to spend a lot of time and effort courting these women, knowing full well that there is a strong chance those same women might dupe them out of their resources by actively gaming the field with the latest technology in search of the “relatively” highest status men in their vicinity.
          Assuming that social status is closely linked to well-being, this has not only staggering health consequences for men, but will likely incent the average man to work less and become despondent.
          Whitehall Study on Health and Social Status:

        3. Let me clarify my point. In order for your assertion of assortive mating to hold there are two requirements:
          1) No premarital sex, and
          2) Hard monogamy with little or no opportunity for divorce
          In the current regime of no holds barred sexual free for all the male 10 is not hooking up with the female 10 and taking both of them off the SMP. The male 10 is screwing a female 10, a couple of female 9s, and a few female 8s. He also isn’t averse to screwing a female 5 – 7 if there is nothing better available. Your example that a female 8 may try for the male 10 but at 2 AM will screw a male 7 or 8 because she gonna fuck somebody, is pure projection of male life experience onto females. Females are not just males with tits that can have babies. You are falling for the feminist propaganda. Female 8s will go out, have their fun rejecting all men who are not male 10s (including several 8s and a 9), thereby boosting their egos, and then go home alone. They don’t have to screw anyone. They do not have male libidos. Those that can’t hop on the cock carousel will settle for watching it from the sidelines hoping for their chance.
          The major problem in the SMP today is that women have had self-esteem shoved up their asses to the point where they really do believe they “deserve” Prince Charming (male 10 with Brad Pitt looks, George Clooney charm, and Bill Gates money) and will not settle for anything less. The female 6s are as arrogant, and entitled, and demanding as the female 10s. No woman in today’s sexual market believes she deserves any less than any other woman. So, all women (AAWALT) are chasing after the same handful of male 10s. Meanwhile, the male 7s and below are left with little to nothing. Yes, this all changes as the cohort ages. As the male and female SMP value curves cross in the late 20s the females see their value go down a couple of points and the male’s value goes up a couple of points. When the women hit the wall they then “settle” for the guy that used to be beneath their contempt but is now actually above them in SMP value. They then resent the hell out of the guy, eventually divorce rape him, and then try to get back on the cock carousel. When this plan fails they turn to be bitter middle aged harpies that are convinced that men are bastards that did this to them. They never admit or seem to learn that it was all their own decisions every step of the way to living with a house full of cats and no discernable life.
          Most men have been and would be very happy with assortive mating. I know this because I was dating when this was the norm. We all knew that the football captain would be dating the prom queen and we had no real hard spot with that. We got our share based on our own ability to climb the social status ladder. Now the only rung that counts is the one at the top and only one guy can be there. All women are following Oscar Wilde’s dictum that his tastes were very simple, only the best will do. And only one man can be the best man.

        4. No but Im saying that female 6-8s arent only fucking alphas. Theyre fucking betas, probably higher betas, but betas nonetheless. Alpha men are rare, about 5 in 100, just like 9s and 10s for women are scarce. Theother 95% isnt going sexless if they cant Alph McTingles.

    3. Women are trying to purge the lower-order of men. I suspect there will be a lot of men from this generation whose genetic line will die. What women want is the DNA of high status/value men, and not just one man but several of them. They can only achieve this if they create a socialized society where resources are forcefully redistributed from men to women (a la taxation and the welfare state). This kind of society frees women from needing to provide any value to men. They can become fat, tatted, belligerent, androgynous, etc. and men have no choice but to accept it.
      Women don’t just want the genes of one man. After all, in the stock market it’s better to diversify your stock portfolio. Similarly, in the genetic market it’s better to diversity your genetic portfolio to increase the chances of your genes surviving. This is why married women get frustrated when they marry and fuck just one man, and eventually they get an itch to bail. Women, whose instincts and sexual preferences have not had time to catch up with the modern world, are still mentally living in a hunter-gatherer society, and thus they’ll select for men who will thrive in those kinds of societies. Beta men, who must work to provide value to society since they don’t provide natural genetic value, are culled from the population. The population of men will gradually become more aggressive, dominant, and war-like.
      When women select men based on their obsolete hunter-gatherer preferences, they will essentially create a population that will push us back into time. Arrogant, impulsive, irrationally self-confident men will replace the quiet intellectuals whose achievements built the modern world.

      1. You are correct, but there is a significant factor that is being overlooked here. We know that women want alpha fuxs and beta bucks (without now having to even suffer the beta’s vicinity anymore), but as society gradually moves towards a more primitive unrestrained level, it becomes more and more difficult to entice the remaining betas to keep it running. Your smooth rake may succeed at locking in a sizable number of female interests on rotation for the regular bang, but he is usually not that interested in going down into the sewer system or climbing up power lines in order to keep modern society running. With the upcoming dearth of stable life partners for the betas, society has had to resort to various other distractions in order to keep them committed to their professional station (along with importing more clueless and less demanding “replacements” from various other parts of the world, who will work more for less and content themselves with somewhat higher material living standards). As hypergamy becomes pushed to its final limits, it becomes more and more difficult to even preserve that level of social order. The endgame of this little “experiment” is a final collapse into a violent, ruthless, hellhole as found in the most primitive matriarchies still to be found on this planet. Quite the Faustian bargain when you really think about it carefully.

        1. A beta rebellion would certainly bring society to its knees. However, I don’t see any convincing evidence that this will happen. The feminists seem to have convinced most beta men that feminism is to their advantage.
          Feminists say to beta men, “Don’t you want to free female sexuality so you can have more sex?”
          The stupid beta nods his head in agreement as the feminist walks passed him for the jerkboy. Classic female manipulation.

        2. Exactly, and that’s why I pointed out that society needs to constantly recalibrate the “offer for consideration” that it proposes to the beta males for agreeing to participate in it. Before it used to be a “faithful” (at least on the surface) wife who would cook, clean, keep the house tidy and the kids looked after, and drain your balls (mostly) on command. Now, a small apartment in a shitty part of town with your x-box and online porn appears to be the new “entry package” for agreeing to participate in this great civilization of ours. Continuously drop the standards along with the expectations, and you eventually end up where we are now. Rather lovely, isn’t it?
          The scary part about it: seems to be working quite swell so far.

        3. We keep hearing about “pathetic” betas. The same “pathetic” betas who also built Apollo Rocket ships, Tiger Tanks and Nuclear warheads.
          We keep hearing about the “mysterious” and “ineffable” minds of women that cannot be fathomed. Well, thanks to information technology now they have.
          It should be our goal to shatter illusions. A beta’s mind that bent atoms to the will of mankind. . . imagine what they will do to women’s minds once unleashed.

        4. Betas usually tend to be viscerally repulsive to women as they generally constitute the smaller, weaker, skinnier stock among men. They are hence seen as very useful for what they can do for society at a technological level, but there is no miracle that can automatically transform them into irresistible Adonises to the human female hindbrain.
          This simple fact used to be well known and pointed out before we grew up with the “everybody’s special” and “wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings” generation. Cruel and unfair? Sure, but that’s REAL life for ya.
          All we can do is to make the best of it with what we naturally inherited and whatever else we manage to leverage based on hard work and self-improvement.

        5. My point wasn’t that alphas can’t work in science, but rather they are more dominant, aggressive, and competitive. Thus less cooperative, less egalitarian, more self-centered. The irony I was trying to point out is that the alpha traits most women swoon over are antithetical to feminism, and thus will eventually undermine it. The David Futrelle’s of the world will be culled.
          Also, feminism creates behaviors in women that put them (and men) at an evolutionary disadvantage. It’s no coincidence that feminist countries have unsustainability low population growth. In fact, the populations in most of these countries is shrinking. See Western Europe and Japan. In the 1950s and 60s governments thought feminism was a “good” idea because it controlled overpopulation. However, it just puts feminist societies at an evolutionary disadvantage and makes them vulnerable to immigration and foreign hostilities. Now immigrants must be brought in to keep the economy from contracting, and in European case, these immigrants are Patriarchal and completely opposed to feminism. They thus out-reproduce the native feminist population. Look at the Muslims. At their birth rate their destined to replace the white European population. My overall point is that feminism is a destructive force which is ultimately unsustainable. It will eventually be corrected and the natural balance of the masculine and feminine restored, but at what cost?

        6. One of the premises of Radical Traditionalism is the idea of heirarchy and identifying with your natural role or self. The imposition of limits upon society before the enlightenment was that so that each individual could realise themselves in the role that was most suitable for them.
          The leftist progressives have declared a war on limitation, where everyone is now “free” to be whatever they want to be. Of course this leads to most of societies ills that we see today due to the misrealisation of class/caste(within European not Indian society), gender roles and expectations of destiny.
          To realise who one truly is,, one must work within their own limitations to achieve the absolute freedom of being their own sovereign selves.

        7. Real good points you make. Way to go feminism..on your quest to destroy the patriarchy, the white race went extinct and all our beautiful democracies were replaced by patriarchies more violent than you could ever imagine.
          But at least you get your alpha..most harems have an Alpha..

        8. One other interesting observation I’ve made about the women who come here to this site is righteous indignation about not being treated as individuals, as some sort of property.
          In many ways this is a creature without a true self, crying to one that does for a sense of identity and being. It’s interesting that women require men to affirm themselves as individuals, while men possessing true individuality do not ask anyone for this, having already possessed a self.

        9. By primitive matriarchies do you mean like in the public housing projects of Detroit, Chicago, Memphis, New Orleans etc.? We’re really a lot closer than most imagine.

        10. Now, a small apartment in a shitty part of town with your x-box and online porn appears to be the new “entry package” for agreeing to participate in this great civilization of ours.

          This made me laugh, but you nailed it. The irony is that women are actually less happy today than they were 35 years ago. Women don’t even like feminism, they’re just brainwashed to believe they should like it. A society where the women are in charge is destined to fail.

        11. Feminism in Japan? Not sure to what extent it played a role, although no doubt certainly the West/U.S. imported consumerism, pop-culture idiocy and corporate drone life haven’t helped traditional family life there, no doubt.
          I figure alotta the “grass eaters” thing resulted from Japan’s economy tanking in the ’90s and Japanese males realizing slaving for corporations and women isn’t such a wonderful life when the rewards may not come as expected.

        12. I’d actually be interested in feminists (5th wave?) picking up on this, and actually teaching women to say no to the dick. Would be interesting at least.

        13. Almost. Remove the artificial life support under the guise of the EBT grid and you’re there. Think Haiti and you but the jackpot.

        14. i think there’s an article about teaching women to self-pleasure on this very blog that resulted in a lot of derision. guys think women can’t live without their dicks and get very upset when someone suggests they can.

        15. While it’s different, there are certainly feminist influences. Japanese women are all about the career. Fast forward to 27:30 in this documentary.

        16. What you don’t realize is that the girls are playing the same game. Demonstrate value or begone.

        17. Even if they built those things. They are still pathetic when they submit to
          their wives. And whimper and obey when their kitchen passes are revoked.
          But I have to agree that this will be changing with greater awareness due to information technology.

        18. If civilization collapses there won’t be any “games” left for women to play. The most ruthless and thuggish of warriors will simply take what they fancy as soon as they come of age. Perhaps you’d like to become Lord Humungus’ chained love interest for life, umm?
          Oh wait. I think that’s EXACTLY what they want.

        19. The BBC is biased, but that doesn’t mean women aren’t putting their careers ahead of families in Japan.

        20. I don’t know much about traditional Indian society, but traditional Chinese society believed that anyone could have a shot at becoming aristocracy if they gave it the old college try.
          If you found yourself in China during testing season, you could apply – regardless of your race, class, religion or citizenship.

        21. All it takes for a 5′ tall runt to become an Adonis, is him inventing a gun. And having the bloody sense to use it.
          Even the biggest school shooting “loser” out there get more fuckmails than he can handle once he’s famous.
          Women go for power. All other traits are subordinated that. Their preference for height, muscularity, social acumen and all the rest, are just attempts at short cutting the search for who has most power.

        22. If it doesn’t happen from within, it will happen from without. It’s not like Western dystopias are the only cultures competing for the planet’s resources.
          The feminists (and other -ists) will learn about evolutionary biology the same way the dinosaurs learned about climate change.

        23. Leftists want irrestrict freedom for themselves and those dubbed by them as the “oppressed” classes, while those dubbed “the oppressors” should be shackled in servitude to the oppressed for alleged past offenses. Thus, the duty of betas is to be parasited by women and alphas.

        24. Who decides what one’s limitations are? you really never know until you find it yourself. You make pigeonholing people against their will seem like such a great idea. It’s bs.

        25. They CAN’T live without dicks–because they’re attached to a wallet that gets filled 22% faster than theirs.

      2. ” Arrogant, impulsive, irrationally self-confident men will replace the quiet intellectuals whose achievements pushed the modern world forward.”
        Im interrested in why you think #1 is “better” genetically than #2..not saying it isnt so, but everyone seems to say that and I havent really got a good explanation on why. Good read btw.

        1. This is just my opinion, but a tribal mindset mixed with modern weaponry is not compatible. While I would like to think it would benefit us to abandon all this superfluous technology, I know it isn’t going to just go away. Valid point, though.

        2. I dont know if I explained it well, but why would #2 set of genes better better at surviving than #1 ? Isnt that whats it about. survival ? women would go after the genes best at that.
          What is best at surviving, the nerd who catches the bear with a trap or the alpha getting killed by the bear because he was tough ? I know women are more attracted to Alpha, but it cant be because their genes are better at surviving..

        3. For most of human history, the men more similar to archetype number one offered the women and her children a better chance of survival than the men more similar to archetype number two. That’s all there is to it, really.
          Men are usually selected based on traits that are adaptable according to the pressures of the time. In an environment as rapidly changing as ours though, the hardware that drives their selection process becomes dated much more quickly than it has historically. Therefore, the men women select are not objectively “better” than the men they don’t.
          But then again, you could make a similar argument about men. Is there a reason for us to select purely based on fertility cues in an environment where most children survive to adulthood? I’m not so sure we’re any less guilty of possessing obsolete hardware, in that sense. We just don’t have the same luxury of choice women do, nor, arguably, are our mating preferences as deleterious for the future of civilized society as women’s preferences.
          It’s a complicated question to ponder. But quite frankly, it’s neither here nor there. Evolution has no plan. Much like women, it simply does not care.

        4. No, it refers to women wishing to diversify their genetic stock among alphas. Hence the seven-year itch and the subsequent quest for new cock even if she originally did managed to lock down the prefect alpha specimen at first. It is another little-know part of the human female and of their reproductive cycle (sometimes even to the women themselves, beyond a growing instinctive urge to divorce when the “time is up”).
          Lovely creatures, aren’t they?

        5. Yes but, as in my example, even the nerd back in caveman times would be better at surviving, or at least as good, as the alpha.

        6. Yeah, but he also likely possessed many of the traits of male archetype number one. It’s not so black and white.

        7. Evolution is not always a progression for the better. All it takes is certain genes to be handed to a majority of the offspring. Cancer is not better for survival, but it does succeed at multiplying. The human species has many traits of a disease/virus for the environment (earth) we spread on. Pushing past a healthy equilibrium with our environment to the point where we are facing threats of extinction. For humans intelligence results in less offspring while agrressive/selfishness results in more offspring. The Alpha traits mentioned above are not better for survival they are better for impregnating women. I say that beta traits are better for survival in the sense that teamwork, lower aggression etc are better for the continued survival of society/groups. Hunter gatherer groups (which they always where) would fail if the amount of alpha traits gets too high. There would be a selection for beta AND some alpha traits. A person too alpha would endanger the stability of the group. I say that Alpha traits not conducive to group living have been on the rise ever since the boundaries of groups (100+ people) have faded. Selfish behaviour that would have killed off individuals or groups before is more easily carried by our enormous societies today through the blanket spread of its weight. At a certain point a group fails to be a group when the people in it become too individualistic. The concept of waiting in line only works because 99% of people stand in line waiting their turn. Haha look at those sheep waiting in line. The 1% who has the balls to skip to the front can do so only because the rest is carrying the negative effects of their selfish action. As more and more people skip to the front the system collapses. And almost no one will get their turn. Lines evolved the same way hunter gatherer groups would have evolved. Humans didn’t evolve to be individualistic but that’s what influential parts of SOCIETY not nature or our primitive dna is promoting.

        8. Evolution is not always a progression for the better. All it takes is certain genes to be handed to a majority of the offspring. Cancer is not better for survival, but it does succeed at multiplying. The human species has many traits of a disease/virus for the environment (earth) we spread on. Pushing past a healthy equilibrium with our environment to the point where we are facing threats of extinction. For humans intelligence results in less offspring while agrressive/selfishness results in more offspring. The Alpha traits mentioned above are not better for survival they are better for impregnating women. I say that beta traits are better for survival in the sense that teamwork, lower aggression etc are better for the continued survival of society/groups. Hunter gatherer groups (which they always where) would fail if the amount of alpha traits gets too high. There would be a selection for beta AND some alpha traits. A person too alpha would endanger the stability of the group. I say that Alpha traits not conducive to group living have been on the rise ever since the boundaries of groups (100+ people) have faded. Selfish behaviour that would have killed off individuals or groups before is more easily carried by our enormous societies today through the blanket spread of its weight. At a certain point a group fails to be a group when the people in it become too individualistic. The concept of waiting in line only works because 99% of people stand in line waiting their turn. Haha look at those sheep waiting in line. The 1% who has the balls to skip to the front can do so only because the rest is carrying the negative effects of their selfish action. As more and more people skip to the front the system collapses. And almost no one will get their turn. Lines evolved the same way hunter gatherer groups would have evolved. Humans didn’t evolve to be individualistic but that’s what influential parts of SOCIETY not nature or our primitive dna is promoting.

        9. But let’s not forget that even if a beta built a better bear trap, an alpha would soon show up and take it away from him. Private property laws are also to incentivize betas.

        10. the conversation between the two of you is interesting and basically boils down to the red pill maxim…
          Beta bucks alpha fucks.
          But just because beta bucks does not mean he is eradicated from the gene pool (I’m thinking “woman who gets off the cock carousel to have a family” when i say that). Likewise, just because alpha fucks, does not necessarily mean he sires loads of kids (I’m thinking the pill, condoms, abortion, when i say that)
          Tom you asked “which is better?” I’m not sure! We can have alphas who are intelligent, inventive and creative, and we can have alphas who enjoy being gang-bangers. We can have betas who are highly intelligent and resourceful but again we can have betas who are listless (you’ll usually find these dudes divorced or unmarried with low self esteem and perhaps issues with addiction or mental illness)
          So I think it’s not as simple as saying “men will descend into beasts”
          But forget about the men for a second. Lets look at the women:
          In evolutionary terms, ALL women are now sluts. More specifically they are now–thanks to the pill, changing social norms and financial independence– ALLOWED to be sluts. But that doesn’t necessarily mean evolution will favour sluttiness. Perhaps men will choose the more chaste sluts because of fears of cuckoldry, divorce rape and child support rape? But the sluttier sluts will open their legs more (and lets face it, they’re more fun anyway) so they’re probably gonna do pretty well in the evolutionary arena.
          So who’s gonna win?? Fuck knows, but allow me to make a few predictions: gene quality will probably diminish (if it’s not already diminishing) Slutty women will marry beta chumps (the kind who are good office drones but lack critical thinking skills) and have babies. So too will slutty women get knocked up by gang banger alphas. The offspring of these slutty women and alpha scumbags and/or beta office drones will keep doing the same. After a couple of generations, the gang banger scumbag trait may have been subdued somewhat by the office drone trait leaving perhaps “nice but dim guy’s” and “sluts”…..ALWAYS sluts.

        11. There was a concept called eugenics that was working quite well for a while. But the feminazis have declared it THOUGHTCRIME.

        12. Recent studies have shown that it is more like the 4 year itch instead of 7 years. The basis for this is the time it takes to get pregnant, carry to term, and then raise the kid to a point where it can be mostly independent (i.e. can shit in the toilet, feed itself, and walk on its own.) In a hunter gatherer society (what the present female mate selection criteria is based on) this pattern maximized the genetic diversity of her offspring, thereby maximizing the potential survival of her genes through future generations. And to the point of what type of man is best suited to survival today #1 or #2, it is immaterial. Women make mating selection based on their hunter gatherer amygdalae.

        13. The founders of feminism were absolute eugenics proponents. The current leaders still are, they just don’t talk about it. Look at the drive to reduce the male population to 10% of its current number; they are also gendercidal.

      3. give me a break. some of the theories on here are absolutely hilarious. you just MAKE SHIT UP and run and on about how women are eventually going to cause the downfall of civilization because they aren’t doing what you want them to do. which seems to be to lie down and open their legs for you on demand. oh, and then make you a sandwich, and let you get back to running the world.

        1. The sad part is women WILL lie down and open their legs for their men on demand, WILL make them a sandwhich, and make the primary income.. for a charming, good looking, masculine male who allows her to emotionally and professional grow but makes it completely certain from the beginning through dread game and other tools that she is always on notice. Don’t become so emotionally and financially attached to a woman that you can’t escape on 24 hours notice to your own pad.
          “Alpha fux/Beta Bux”
          The solution to a feminist world is to STOP being a damn Beta and get your alpha fux on already! Join the gym, bust your ass and replace that gut with a sixpack! Watch your wrinkles disappear as testosterone floods your system and your muscles fill in your excess skin.
          I sat in a blues bar in downtown cincinnati on a tuesday night and saw just how lively and sexual the 55 and up single crowd can be and trust me. They weren’t all fat ugly hags either. They were gorgeous, classy, single rich women who were fun to talk to. When I’m 80 I’ll look half my age and be in shape still and have women half my age rocking me off.. just like now at 38.

        2. You haven’t seen the men in my family. We age very slowly and live a long time. My great grandfather hit 100, my grand father is 86 and could pass for 60, my dad is 60 and could easily pass for mid to late 40’s. Maybe I won’t look half my age, but I won’t be a broken down old man.

      4. This is crazy all of it, there is no alpha and beta they are just different personality types and products of different traits. The modern feminist women you hate so much are going for more “feminine” men which translates to beta. Everyone has contributed to building society, not just one type of person.
        All you are doing is stereotyping other men and stereotyping women at the same time. Suppressing women is not a trait of a cooperative type man its what dominant types do.

  2. Nice story. Hypergamy is in a way restricted that successful men of today are simply not getting all of them pregnant or living in extremely polygamous relationships.
    So in effect almost all men finally get a woman as a mate – later and past her prime, but they get her. It basically affects population growth dramatically, destroys families and creates grand pussy-hunting grounds for successful Alpha Males.
    The program you describe pretty much was in real-life effect during the sexual revolution of the Bolsheviks in the 1920s. It is little known that Russia completely wiped out marriage and divorce laws and it had the following effect:
    1. Pretty Peasant girls were flooding the cities and living in dozens with some wealthy guys
    2. Peasant girls were getting pregnant by scores of Alpha cads in the rural areas
    3. Some men were marrying only some sturdy women for the harvest and instantly divorcing and getting a hot lass right afterwards.
    4. Unwanted pregnancies and orphans exploded.
    5. Hordes of men went completely without any woman and resorted either to crime or cut their lives short.
    This created so much economic and social chaos (coupled with the already known factors) that they had to scrap the “sexual revolution” and reversed marriage laws to the old order. Completely unrestrained female hypergamy destroys the fabric of society faster than any men could.

    1. It is little known that Russia completely wiped out marriage and divorce laws and it had the following effect:

      Not among the more historically learned here it is not. Our present-day “family” laws have been converted into a quasi carbon-copy of the original Russian model.

  3. “…to be blunt, women, when given too much freedom, cause society to become volatile and thus unsustainable.” Please think before you post things like this!
    It is never freedom, but the neutering of consequence that is dangerous. Do not ask that we limit people’s freedom, ask instead that we let them experience the consequences of their actions.
    Should a woman be free to divorce her husband? Yes.
    Should a woman be able to take half his children and half his wealth with her when she does? No.
    It is vital that we learn the difference between these two ways of thinking! One leads to the glory of the early United States, one to the despair of the late Soviet Union.

    1. “It is never freedom, but the neutering of consequence that is dangerous. Do not ask that we limit people’s freedom, ask instead that we let them experience the consequences of their actions.”
      Exactly right. I’m actually tired of hearing that women shouldn’t have the vote. Unless you live in Afghanistan or somewhere that’s a pretty irrelevant opinion to express, because women do have the vote and short of something earth-shattering that’s probably not going to change. Moreover women experiencing the consequences of their actions would probably be more earth-shattering than their losing the vote. That would be a real a revolution.
      My only criticism is that you should have started by saying “gentleman, I have a dream….”

      1. Women shouldn’t have the vote as the first thing they do with it is start beavering at the foundations of freedom you are talking about. In other words give them freedom and they’ll vote in a dictatorship where no one has rights and this is a predictable, repeatable outcome. You can have women voting OR you can freedom. You don’t get to pick both.

        1. you’re not wrong. Things have turned to shit since they got the vote, although I do recall a time when it was commonly said women tended to vote conservatively rather than for leftist / statist parties. The thing about democracy though is it is partly an illusion anyway. Is voting even the main thing? What of the powerful lobby groups, the financiers, the leftist media the federalist leftist bureaucrats (in EU etc), the secretive globalist cabals consisting of big money who seem to run the show. Women’s voting patterns are only a small part of the issues at hand to the extent that they vote for the forced choice policies in front of them, depending on how the media has led them by the nose.
          Saying women should not vote is irrelevant. If its wishful thinking it’s the opposite of red pill. If its a statement intended to have rhetorical effect then all it will do is risk de-legitimising those who advocate such an idea.
          Wider society, politics and media can’t handle truth

        2. You are correct that democracy itself is bullshit. Most people, both men and women, are not intelligent and educated, perhaps not even conscious enough to understand how they are being manipulated and what they vote for in the long run.
          If everyone can vote, it loses its meaning. Women having the vote is only harmful with a big government, where various groups use natural female fears and needs to get their sympathy. If women didn’t have a chance to vote for dictatorship it wouldn’t happen. I’d prefer a system where we don’t have to vote that much in the first place.

        3. I think we have very flawed democracy, that in the age of universal suffrage has sacrificed quality (education, responsibility) to quantity, where the least invested may through sheer numbers end up prevailing, while equally being led by the nose by the media etc. Does universal suffrage necessarily involve the inward collapse of the thing itself? Probably, but as a vulnerability to abuse. I think it is questionable whether the abuse we are witnessing has to do with the nature of suffrage itself (beyond vulnerabilities to common denominators) as opposed to the insidious ideologies that have so effectively undermined what could potentially be a much better if nonetheless flawed system. If the hard left is taking over the world with the patronage it seems of the elites themselves is that even a reflection of the democratic process? Who exactly voted the marxist EU bureaucrats into brussels, or gave away sovereign jurisdiction in the (EU) treaty of rome / maastricht? Which election gave a mandate for marxist categories to be mainstreamed within HR recruitment processes enabling marxist fellow travellers to march through the institutions etc?
          What we need is better democracy and to use democratic channels to challenge all of the above subversion of democracy. Its fine to point out the disastrous effects that may have followed from universal suffrage etc, but only by pursuing arguments compatible with the with the core consensus values can legitimacy be obtained.
          Democracy has been stolen by the elites, the marxists, and every other variety of fifth columnist, and nothing would piss them off more than if their critics and opponents were able to obtain the moral higher ground they absurdly claim for themselves. They are the opponents of democracy by the nature of their methods. Doesn’t it make sense to wrong-foot them?

        4. “Who exactly voted the marxist EU bureaucrats into brussels, or gave away sovereign jurisdiction in the (EU) treaty of rome / maastricht?”
          I would add in relation to my quote above, if you look at populist movements in UK / France etc it is precisely democratic grass root movements that are sick of mainstream parties doing exactly the same thing regardless of who they vote for that is the greatest current threat to the elites, bureaucrats and the left ideologues. The manosphere were part of this admittedly still somewhat lukewarm revolt against the political fix we have at the moment then instead of thousands there would be sympathetic millions. To reject democracy (even as it is) is potentially to miss a trick

        5. My ancestors, who INVENTED democracy, quickly became aware that it would inevitably collapse. Democracy is mob rule, period. Once 51 percent realize they can vote themselves the other 49 percent’s wealth, well, there it goes. Why do you think they are importing MILLIONS of idiot turd worlders, and paying the vibrant diversities to breed like cockroaches.
          Allowing women to be part of the mob just makes it worse. I am in sales, it is as easy as taking candy from a baby to influence women into doing what I want. In the old days they said, “Don’t pitch the bitch,” because it was the MAN who made the decisions. Nowadays, if I convince the bitch to buy my bullshit, the shlub husband will go along like a fucking loser.
          Originally in the USA only LAND OWNING TAX PAYERS could vote, in other words, those who had a dog in the fight. There were even WOMEN who owned land and paid taxes and were allowed to vote. How about that? Suffrage was just a trick to make it so ANY MORON could vote. Therein lies the problem.

        6. “My ancestors, who INVENTED democracy, quickly became aware that it would inevitably collapse.”
          Greeks? Brits?
          “Why do you think they are importing MILLIONS of idiot turd worlders”
          Because the left (& arguably particular elites with them) lobbied intensively to make this happen – no majority in any land (particularly ethnically homogenous) would vote for more / unrestricted immigration. After WWII & the holocaust it was easy to paint immigration restriction as racism
          Re. suffrage working better when those eligible to vote have an investment in the body politic and the qualities to make responsible decisions (e.g. education / critical skills etc) then yes of course. But what difference does it make. Its entirely academic, and to that extent the opposite of it either involves counter-factual wet-dreams and changing the course of human history by spinning the earth’s axis in the opposite direction or fantasising about a change that could only happen at some kind of point zero i.e. a form of catastrophism.
          It really isn’t a moral issue, or even a political issue, but simply a question of reality orientation. And as I said those who can’t bend their mind to the particular reality in play here miss the greatest trick in their particular arsenal: to seize the reins of the great dumb lumbering beast that is modern democracy.
          If you’re so good at selling cars – and I’m not suggesting otherwise – why not sell them a fucking car! Its all about persuasion isn’t it?

        7. You bring up an interesting point and I concur with same. Does voting even matter? I would say that today if you undid women’s suffrage it wouldn’t matter in the least. The system of voting as it stands today is entirely and completely rigged to get the people to choose one of two masters both of whom have been carefully screened to carry out the interests of banks and large corporations. No one who can’t be bought and stay bought survives the choosing the process.
          However historically if women were never granted the vote I would say that the process of turning our nation from one of relative freedom to the current system of full blown slavery/feudalism that we have today would have been significantly delayed. World-wide every tyrannical group, such as the Communists, always sought to include women as a primary voting party. This was not by accident. Emotionally driven, easily manipulated, and in the majority, women make the perfect ‘agents of social change’ to empower the state at the cost of individual liberty.
          When I was thinking about votes for women I wasn’t really considering the modern U.S. as this would be pointless. Right now it wouldn’t matter who you restricted votes or expanded votes too as the current system is hopelessly rigged. What I was envisioning was a future state and how it could maintain some semblance of freedom moving forward for a longer period at least. In that case having women vote would be one of the fastest avenues to destroy it just as what has happened to America (whose government is not salvageable)

        8. I agree with much of your analysis but I still think that any future society is likely to face similar issues of legitimacy as today and that these will be best addressed in terms of continuity rather than a radical departure into new territory or an attempt to return to a previous format of government.
          the fact is that both a weakness and strength of democracy is that people are easiest to govern when they govern themselves, because however deluded they may be, they become part of the system of government in place, and become invested in that system. At the moment women are leading the way in playing part-time community police officers of sorts, policing communities for the benefit of the progressive leftist state and for the purposes of short-term self-interest. But whatever their weaknesses, and inherent tendencies wouldn’t it be better to ‘tinker with the technology’ and use it to our advantage than to seek to ditch the whole system. If the moral is that women are easily led, then why not assume the leadership role? Isn’t that the whole point

        9. the “left” (& arguably “particular elites” with them) lobbied intensively to make this happen
          …and were able to do so because they first gave idiotic women the vote. After giving the idiot cunts the vote, it became logical to give EVERY idiot the vote with no qualification. Therein lies the problem. Now reasonable MEN are far outnumbered by idiots, and “lobbying” which is simply BRIBERY is allowed, therefore nothing will change.
          There was one guy a while ago who resolved all this, quickly and easily. Those “particular elites” induced all the idiots to go along with them in trying to exterminate him and his people.
          PS. Greek of course.

        10. Classical Greek democracy kept the women in the home and totally out of public discourse. They never gave women any power because they did not have their heads up their assess as we did.

      2. They do face consequences..a ruined life, bastard kids who hate her, living in a trailer park, no man wants to touch her anymore..
        Yea that happens to all of them..but they dont think about it when they are young. So they wont ever learn.

        1. I guess it depends on where you live. I see plenty of washed up wall victims being dutifully taken care of by thirsty men, some of them are quite well off financially as well.

        2. This is the key. Women are present oriented not future oriented. If they can get a useless doodad today, and charge it, they look at it as getting it for free, as they have no sense of having to pay for it later. Tell the average woman that riding the cock carousel today will hamper their ability to have satisfaction in marriage or will reduce their ability to get married in 15 years and they will laugh in your face. They will laugh not because they don’t believe you, but because they don’t care and can’t begin to understand why anyone would. What is good for now is good, period end of story. This is why men have been put in charge of women throughout history. It was not because men are evil oppressors but because women left in charge of their own lives made them into disasters.

        3. pretty much agree. The modern world has pretty much destroyed the incentive systems that encourage and reinforce decent behaviour, and ultimately that’s got to be our responsibility, but in the sense of shaping behaviour (through rewards – classical / operative conditioning etc) rather than expecting to get back the legal control we once had in a different age

      3. Giving women the vote means them voting to take away everyone’s freedom, and they will also vote to take away all consequences for women’s poor choices as well. They must be dominated.

        1. its analogous to jihadi groups (of which feminism could be said to be a secular variety) which want like to overthrow democracy but still enjoy its benefits. Done right terrorism (jihadi or feminist) is easy enough to contain through checks and balances. to take away the consequences of their actions yes, but they have help from unprecedentedly stupid clutch of ideologies

      4. Excellent comment. My article and the model presented was highly simplified. An academic publication would have looked much different, but thank you for the suggestion, and clarification.
        I wonder how that would apply here… i.e. Girl downloads Tinder. Girl meets Boy. Boy and Girl Fuck. Tinder automatically updates Girl’s Facebook status with the following: I just used Tinder and had a great time fucking Boy! In the past 2 weeks, I have met and fucked 13 Boys on Tinder. You should too! Download Tinder here… LOL
        Probably could be done with some crafty hacking. Alex Pentland is doing some crazy stuff at MIT which might relate:
        All you’d have to do is constantly Ping the IP addresses of the mobile phones of two users who met using Tinder and see if they ever appear at the “Home” locations of one of the two users, and then see if there is any specific location in the house where they seem to spend 30-40 minutes on a consistent basis. A lot can be inferred by using only meta data. Anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself but I do see your point.

      5. As long as women have the vote they will bloc vote to remove any and all consequences from their actions. All negative results will be blamed on men, and men will be asset raped and the funds transferred to women until men have nothing. It is the natural progression of any democracy that allows female suffrage. Women’s in group bias is just too strong. And BTW this trait of females is a feature not a bug.

        1. its in the nature of democracy that people will pursue what they see as their self-interest, including perhaps in a very short-termist and irresponsible way. Yes, women have done themselves proud in voting for welfare, punitive regimes against men’s rights etc, but one shouldn’t underestimate the degree to which socialism and other sponsors of progressivism may have skewed how people may see their self-interest. Feminism and progressivism has been pushed by the media, and the powers that be in ways that I don’t think can be attributed entirely to female voting patterns (i.e. in some kind of feedback loop of influence). The media is an unknown quantity here.
          In other words I still think the evidence so far is inconclusive given the other influences, although it doesn’t look particularly good

      1. true, but not every country with universal suffrage has no fault divorces with the incentive systems in place to encourage it. Divorce with natural consequences (i.e. without protection from state & a biased legal system) can be brutal (historically at least). The problem is with how divorce is facilitated not with suffrage – not that anything’s going to change any time soon

    2. You’ve hit it. Western legal systems reward women for divorce and punish men. That’s why the divorce rate is so high and society so shaky.

      1. It’s done by design. Those high up are doing this in order to weaken and destabilize us, and they are succeeding marvelously at it. If it weren’t for the army of deluded chumps mindlessly participating in their very own destruction, we could have had this thing by the balls well before it got to this point.
        But nooooo. Because… free pussy for all. Riiiight.

        1. Globalism has a hand in this too. When the women in some shithole country can get access to the world’s finest men, then what’s left for the local men? Races and ethnicities and cultures will vanish.

        2. Yes. See my blog I actually think the tradcon wing of the men’s movement is a black op to drive western men into ideological parity with Isis.

        3. Yep. I plan on marrying a village girl. I can’t handle the shitty women in Canada. Hopefully they’ll one day realize that they are all becoming whorish play-things for DJs and club promoters… perhaps when my generation hits menopause they’ll realize how they’ve harmed themselves and raise proper daughters… perhaps the change in dynamic will reverse and return to normal.
          But in all honesty, I think it’s a pipe dream. Enlightened men like you and I will leave in search of better things, for foreign women and our own Poosy Paradises, while the Betas and White Knights enslave themselves in parasitic relationships and spend all day on Oculus Rift as an escape from their hapless lives.

        4. No amount of manning up can save western culture; it is too far gone, and it doesn’t want to be saved. GTFO is the only solution for an aware man.

    3. Excellent point neal. We have to stop the paleface taliban from arising out of the men’s movement in the west. They’re nuts. And below we have corvinus, a vox day troglodyte lackey.

    1. Roosh stated on his trip to Croatia that their women were ‘poised for feminism’ which I’m interpreting as they are starting to turn to shit on a stick entitled bitches which I’m sure they are by now.

  4. So I recently applied game sort of unintentionally and clumsily for the first time the other night. My attraction to game comes from the intersection of my intellectual curiosity and my hungry dick. I’ve never really studied it though. Mostly, I just decided to act like a sex-hungry aggressive dick. I was a total asshole to this girl and just treated her like shit and made all these sexual advances without seeming desperate.
    We were supposed to date on a Thursday – our first after meeting online – but it was Wednesday and she was anxious to see me. We couldn’t date that night because of her school, but she wanted coffee. So we had coffee and when they turned the lights out I invited her home, then kissed her, then fucked her. She subtly begged a couple of times for roughness, so I slapped her, hit her, insulted her, threw her around, made her choke on my dick – I really should have made her let me put it in her butt, she probably would have loved that. I sweat on her and when it dripped back on my face I slapped her for sweating on me. She said it was okay because having my sweat on her was hot, and worth it. She made out with me all the way to the door. I did not cuddle with her at all after sex.
    Come the next day, she cancelled for some BS ambiguous health excuse. She rescheduled for Saturday. An hour before, she cancelled for her car not being available, even though I could easily pick her up. I texted her to ask if there was something she needed to tell me, since she seemed to be acting weird.
    Her response: “Okay, well never mind then, bye.”
    In a totally uncool way, because I had my science hat on, I pressed her, saying that I was actually interested in dating her not just sex and I just wanted to know what her feelings were and if there was a problem she should tell me and I apologized if that wasn’t the case.
    Her response: “Okay, bye.”
    So, I realized that like a little bitch what I want is an emotional connection with someone. But, women don’t really offer that choice do they? You get to be their alpha or their beta.
    Holy shit.
    Oh well, time to be a man and live a good life and save pussy for when I need it.

    1. Don’t reply to text messages. I tell girls if they want to talk to me, call me. It’s easier to game over the phone vs. text messages. And if they text me, I ignore them.

      1. That’s a good tip. Frankly though, I’m glad I don’t have to deal with this girl’s bs. She did me a favor, but I can also claim the nice guy card. It’s something I’m slowly weaning my conscience of.

        1. The thing is to keep the ball in your court. In everything. But making them think they are in control.
          Texting is just mind game shit. Fucking hate it. And girl’s are particularly good at texting games.

        2. Yeah, I admittedly suck at texting/game, but women are clearly better at it than us. It’s like a fucking new language which I can’t understand.

        3. My Med program has quite a few females.
          And they reveal a lot of their secrets. They wait 2-3 days before texting a guy they like. They keep their replies very ambiguous and they won’t accept a date if you ask them out AFTER wednesday for the weekend. I literally could write a book on their texting tricks.

        4. Placing stipulations on when they’re asked out is only reserved for men they aren’t all that interested in. The “right” guy gets an instant green light and red carpet treatment.

    2. Nothing wrong with what you did. You have every right to expect her to speak with you after you’ve had sex. She is the one who is weird.

    3. Online dating smart phone apps hyper accelerate the alpha / beta hump and dump dynamic. If they meet you there’s 50% chance they will kiss you. If they kiss you there’s 50% chance they will fuck you. If they fuck you there’s 50% chance they’re back online the next day messaging somebody else. You have to realize that a woman who rates 6 out of 10 on the hotness scale with a few flirty photos could be getting messaged from 10 guys a day, virtually unlimited social options.

      1. Oh, I fucked her, and really it’s about all I wanted from her. I just was open to there maybe being more. Her abrupt about-face from near obsession with me to nothing was accompanied by a very terse placing of the blame on me. She waited until I brought up her coldness, and I was fairly coy about it at first, before instantly blaming me for a sudden break. Good lord I wonder if they’re even aware.

        1. It’s a mistake we’ve all made at one time or another. You put out the alpha vibe and then, after you feel like she really likes you, you start talking about relationships. Classic mistake of guys who are new to the game. It’s common, I’ve even had it happen to me. The truth is, women don’t want to pair up with alphas because they know alphas have a lot of options. Alphas actually make POOR relationship partners. If you’re going to put out the alpha vibe you’ll get a lot of pussy, but you probably won’t get married or have very healthy relationships.
          Women and men both treat the opposite sex differently for short-term and long-term partners. That’s important. For men, short-term female partners are sexually promiscuous. Long-term sexual partners are faithful. For women, short-term male partners are dominant and assertive. Long-term sexual partners are more altruistic. In other words, short-term partners are alpha, long-term partners tend to be betas. The #1 issue for alphas is a healthy relationship, the #1 issue for betas is being cuckolded.
          In other words, you can’t half-ass “alpha.” It’s either all or nothing. If you go the alpha route, don’t expect a long-term relationship. Pump and dump, and that will keep her coming back, trying to win your approval. Cheat on her, the whole shebang. If you’re looking for a long-term relationship, then I would drop the alpha routine.

        2. Game is trolling women. Push her buttons and study her reactions. This society is producing the most emotionally dysfunctional women you can imagine. They act on what they feel and that changes every few days. If you dominated her in bed that night, you should have ignored her texts for about a week and then pop up with a text like “come over and choke on my dick again tonight” or something to keep your dominant frame. Do you really want a relationship with a girl that choked on your dick the first time you met anyway?
          Since taking the red pill, on countless occasions, usually on online dating, Ive said some of the wildest shit to women just to see how they respond and the results have been shocking. Stuff like “you look like youre alot of fun in bed” works almost all the time. It seems like a really corny line to me, but they eat it up.

        3. bullshit. myth. fiction. stop it.
          the myth that women – or men – want to LTR/marry someone different than the one they sexually desire needs to end. i’m tired of hearing this shit. oder of fucking operations: (1) desire (2) action. if no (1), then no (2), regardless if it’s just DTF or the whole fairytale marriage package. if no (1) -and- (2) is marriage, then a small tiny little red light should start blinking in your head. if you squint and look closely enough, on that same faded rusted-out panel, you might be able to make out ‘abandon ship’ scribbled in bloody letters.
          the only reason a succubus marries a man she doesn’t want to fuck is if she wants to drain him dry by taking his shit, taking his soul, taking everything, giving nothing back, and bailing when he’s at his worst and she actually has to put in effort (reads: giving back). is that the exception you’re trying to sell me? that girls LTR/marry betaknights and don’t fucking desire them is a strange version of the word ‘marriage’ you’re peddling. it’s almost as if you’re praising this outcome, praising doomed sexless soulless parasite scams that fail like clockwork, hailing the outcome, claiming that this is all a good thing. enough of this reality distortion short-bang-and-don’t-marry-but-oh-my-LTR’s-get-a-fairytale-ending. dual sexual strategy yes, haaaaappy endings for all no – least of all the women themselves, but that’s another part of the same disgusting broken record of fail. this is just more shit spewed from the harpy’s mouth to excuse their damnable behavior and convince you to foot the bill while getting no profit. beta-marriage.v1 in your head != marriage.v2 reality. LTR marriage != good. alpha fux = as good as it gets and might get married. beta-bux = sexless marriage divorce fail. are you getting this yet? is this sinking in? it doesn’t last, you loose massively, you don’t get sex, it’s not awesome, it’s shit. absolute shit. praise LTR’s again, try to sell it to me again, go ahead, do it again! see if you buy your own damn lies. if the girl doesn’t desire you, you loose more, not magically win. if the girl does desire you, you’ll get sex maybe. that the girl ‘wants’ to marry someone else – and probably will – isn’t a good thing for the unobservant sucker.
          aside from the scathing reality that i shouldn’t get married, the only reason why i’d even consider -not- marrying the girl is if she’s unmarriageable in the first place. still not going to wife someone i don’t want to fuck. and it’s almost the same for them, with the obvious glaring exclusion being, as beaten to death already, the reason -why- they marry in the first place: to take your shit with free reckless abandon. what the fuck is so hard to understand about this? i don’t care if you think your LTR darling -child- isn’t acting vile now, you’re just excusing the obvious signs ’cause you want femininity and sex and dream of fairy tales. but you’re not going to get it after you marry, it’s just that simple. her ‘marriage’, your ‘marriage’, actual ‘marriage’ – they may all be the same word, but they mean drastically different things. and you seem to think it’s ok to shift from one version to the other within the same damn sentence. protip: it isn’t. that’s bullshit. stop it.

        4. my diatribe thanks you for the compliment.
          now, we can mince words all you like, but i read your post, and the meaning you conveyed was consistent. the gist was girls LTR healthy relationships != alpha probably won’t get married, etc. which is dancing in the shadow of what i stated, and is fiction for the reasons stated. LTR is a relationship if your blinded by pussy. that you use relationship and marriage so closely, but ‘marriage’ bad so it goes with alpha, and ‘relationship’ good so it goes with LTR, is to have me take subtle thesaurus replacements seriously. are you claiming otherwise?

        5. Actually, I didn’t endorse any kind of relationship, nor did I say any were good or bad. The OP wrote that he got a girl with the jerkboy routine, but she lost interest after he started talking relationships. I told him to not pull the alpha (i.e. jerk) strategy if he’s looking for LTR, because women prioritize personality in LTRs, but not STRs. Not every guy on ROK wants to pump-and-dump until he’s 60. His life, his choice. What you do or don’t do with your life could not be of less concern to me, nor do I have anything to prove to you.

      2. On the online dating, I think it’s the perception of options that causes women to go bonkers. They do get 10+ messages a day and I get 1 a month. 1 out of about 30 messages I send get a reply. They rationalize away all non-alphas or fantasies. They all write that they want something serious, someone nice, but none of them want anything like that.

        1. I highly recommend that everyone here post a fake Craigslist ad at least once so you get a picture of the kind of attention you can get from hungry dudes on the hunt online. I used the data for a social psychology paper in class a few years ago. Literally got 300 replies in 24 hours posing as an attractive woman… and 1 reply in 1 week posing as myself. Had a plethora of experimental and control conditions but you get the point.

    4. Good story. U cant act like you are interested at all. I know that is hard for a normal man, but these girls are not normal, they are borderline insane.
      U need to go to another country for that other stuff, and in many places it will be received well.
      In the west, you have to act like something out of geordie shore (or whatever the name of that show is).
      Its just crazy. Its like they’ve collectively gone mad.

      1. Yeah, I actually was worried about hurting her feelings, because I established sympathy by listening to her go on about past heartaches. I easily could have maintained complete indifference, she offered little more beyond what she, uh, offered.

        1. Having only been online dating for about 1.5 years, I can say that’s a total pattern that almost all women run on you. Anticipate on first date. They want to “bond” with you by trashing their ex-boyfriend or ex-husband. I don’t know why but they do. If a man did that on a first date, trashed his ex that way, it would kill the date. But some reason women get away with it. Just try to steer the dialog in a different direction. Don’t let her ramble on in her reservoir of self pity bashing men, women draw a weird negative energy off that and it can’t help you as the next guy who she is going to bash.

        2. Again, yeah, you’re there for her needs, period. I think that’s what’s behind male sex drive, a unifying force to pay for the bullshit. In the end, she will never give back equally. That’s where the, ‘help meet’ concept comes in. You do the work, you carry the relationship emotionally and materially. She rubs your feet and makes sandwiches from time to time, if she’s good.
          What’s hilarious are the lower class women out there who take care of deadbeat guys. What’s that about?

    5. I’ve had similar experiences. A lot of women complaining about one or two guys who were “horrible” towards them and treated like an afterthought. But they all fucked him because they were “lonely” after all, while I never got offered anything all.
      Fuck women and fuck their lies. Cruelty and brutality are what women crave. The only times I’ve had any success with women is when I’ve aggressively pushed for something or when I’ve negged her relentlessly. The moment I’ve tried to show any human side, it’s goodbye. They make you a laughing stock.
      Fuck that, they behave like animals, let’s treat them like that.

    6. Women are not truly conscious, simply an automata. They’re a response machine, you program a series of inputs in and you get a programmed output. The patterns repeat every time without fail. Once you understand the patterns(yeah, it will make you feel physically ill) then you can either use it to your advantage or you can ignore it and therefore not fall for illusions and manipulation.

        1. I don’t know if I’d even call it game. I’ve just noticed behavioural patterns in women that are incredibly predictable. There’s little incongruity between them which basically equates to women being interchangable.

        2. I wish you weren’t correct but unfortunately you are. Any time I slack on following game rules and think ‘maybe this one’s not like the others’ I get a very harsh reminder.

    7. The perfect man to them for a LTR is an Alpha with a side of Beta. She was either too much damaged, saw you as a repeat of her ex or she simply changed her mind, because someone hot and interesting matched with her on tinder. You never know.
      With more time and rising Game level you can actually create what guys call Deep Conversion, where a woman is completely mesmerized by you. One night is often not enough to do that, but it truly depends on the right combination of Alpha with Beta behavior.

    8. She subtly begged a couple of times for roughness, so I slapped her, hit her, insulted her, threw her around, made her choke on my dick – I really should have made her let me put it in her butt, she probably would have loved that. I sweat on her and when it dripped back on my face I slapped her for sweating on me. She said it was okay because having my sweat on her was hot, and worth it. She made out with me all the way to the door. I did not cuddle with her at all after sex.

      1. Hahaha. Each escalation was met with ecstatic cries, besides her basically directly telling me that she loved it.
        Yeah, in my experience, women do like this unless they possess some kind of weird inhibition. Nothing wrong with moderate inhibitions. Anyway, this is the first time I really embraced what she wanted, because I was curious.
        I know, that was me, I was Clint. But like, she never backed down from wanting more. I admit that something deep within me knew what to do, but alas.

  5. In response to the actual analysis here, I think what we need are sex robots. Women can earn their keep by cooking and cleaning and not through the pretense of good sex.

  6. Very interesting. I would like to see more about this too, and include an explanation for the graphs.

  7. If you can see if you can add things like male birth control (the man object’s chances of rejecting a woman go down, but the relationship won’t result in an additional child object unless the attractiveness number of the woman object is close to the attractiveness number of the male object) and legalized prostitution (the more times a man object in your system has not been chosen by an adjacent female object his chances of rejecting a female object’s offer for a relationship go up).
    I am making the assumption from your “attempt to initiate relationship” line that the women also have a number and the man will reject the woman if her number is not within a certain range of his.

  8. an alpha computer nerd…..
    Don Martco, you must be the 5%…..
    and absolutely correct in your analysis.

    1. Nerds are alpha/beta at same ratio as everyone else. U think just because your a fireman or something you are suddenly alpha ?

      1. And what ratio is that? If the ratio of alpha to beta in the computer industry is like everyone else there would in practical terms be no alpha males.

        1. It really is mind over matter. If you work to become the Übermensch and sincerely believe it in your heart. That means sacrificing basically everything but you will achieve your goals.
          Most people just settle for mediocrity because it’s what they’ve been trained to believe that’s all they’re capable of.

  9. I just have to get away from here before it all crashes. I cant believe this society can live for much longer. A society with insane women cant live for long . Why are they insane ? They want to do what men do (and cant do it) and dont want to do what women do.

    1. They are self-destructing from the unrestrained choices they now have at their disposal. Their brains were simply not calibrated to function in such an environment of artificially-induced freedom, abundance, and quasi-complete lack of consequences for anything they do. Their innate programming has designed them to survive and care for their offspring in significantly harsher times ,where real choices needed to be made and their more destructive impulses were naturally kept in check by the world’s constant bitch slaps. Now, it has simply gone into absolute overdrive, and the massive hordes of clueless beta chumps are simply adding fuel to the fire instead of collectively pulling tight on the reins of the human female instinct.
      It will all burn. Better to move out to somewhere calmer from where to enjoy the “show”.

      1. Runaway selection spiraling out of control leads always to collapse.
        It’s a very simple dynamical system with obvious consequences. An evolutionarily-engrained preference for attaching oneself to agents with the highest “relative” social status combined with a world in which the capital stock grows continually = total consumption of that world’s capital stock when those preferences are left totally unchecked. Culture has evolved over the aeons precisely to keep these destructive forces from expressing themselves freely.
        In an ancestral environment, growth in the capital stock was minimal at best. Even for groups in which strict hierarchies were known to exist, the difference in wealth between a lowly guard and the Chieftain were not that great in real terms.
        Today, increasing returns to scale as well as rent-seeking behaviors by the 1% allow for massive inequality, and thus the unrestrained propagation of “preferential behaviors”, such as female mating choice in the presence of maximal social mobility.

  10. This reminds me of those Darwin’s World simulations they do in intro CS classes. We did another one where you have to pair up equal numbers of men and women based on their lists of preferred partners (basic list matching algo). The system was solvable if you used third or fourth ranked choices (settling). However, if you limited it to only their top choice it was impossible.

    1. Hence you got the Sex And the City syndrome, were women are still looking for “Mr Right” well into their 40ties.

    2. Thank you. I’m glad some people are getting it. I come from an econometrics background, but what you’re saying makes sense to me.
      A world in which first-order preferences are prioritized leads to an unsolvable equilibrium because women will always prefer men who possess “relatively” more status… The behavioral rule doesn’t depend on selecting some fixed constant for status or wealth, but rather a dynamic variable, one which constantly changes as the income distribution changes… which means that women will never attain their first choice because half of them probably share identical “first choices”… meaning you only get a solution when women realize they can’t all get want they want and as a consequence begin to “settle”.
      The difference is that status and wealth are Pareto-distributed and heavy-tailed while beauty and facial symmetry are normally distributed.

  11. This is essentially hurting women big time! You can’t have a side guy while waiting for the guy want to commit, because the guy you want to commit doesn’t have to – he has a side chick…. it’s a never ending circle! You can’t cheat the system. There will be lonely nights, boring nights, but cheap thrills will never bring the bacon home.

    1. So are you trying to say that people should not be looking for the most materialism/best looks but be looking for someone who would be honest, reliable, compassionate, loving, and committed for life – Sorry, but women are not like that – far too many will screw over a man for what they perceive they can get from another.

      1. So play by their rules. Stop being so honest, reliable and compassionate. Those are beta qualities unnecessary to achieve regular sex. They are necessary for raising children, but then children are no longer a necessary part of society, but merely an economic cost of vanity.

  12. I too would be interesting in seeing what other parameters and rules were used to determine agent behaviour, and particularly what the rules are for resource depletion and the whole interaction between the resource economy and the partner selection dynamics are (i.e. how do beta bucks actually affect partner choice here). Because the validity of any simulation such as this depends very much on how well the assumptions done in choice of input parameters and agent behaviour line up with reality. This is something I’m sure the author is aware of, but needs to be said for the sake of readers who are quick to jump to conclusions.

    1. I’ll start a post on the RooshV forums. My initial draft was much more complete, but I don’t think it would have stirred the kind of vitriolic (and hence interesting) conversation that ultimately prevailed. I prefer to start with small chunks and expand as warranted by interest.

  13. This article and simulation matches my thoughts on the subject. If You dont put a ceiling on woman`s wants and needs (using all sorts of tools like social pressure etc) She wont do that herself and Its very often necessary for “the greater good” of family, society. I think Its because overall women are less capable than men to make sacrifices and see the big picture on their own and They need men to guide them and in some way to tame their nature. Here`s an interesting article which shows what happens when women are left on their own

    1. How’d you find that article? Lots of funny stuff in there. Noticed there aren’t any comments to the article, like there usually is when women might be discussed unfavorably. And nobody was fired.

  14. simulation. My hypothesis? Simple: as I adjusted the freedom of women to choose their mating partners, they would rapidly and aggressively seek out the men with the greatest social status. I also hypothesized that this would come at the expense of long-run social utility.

    1. As much as I’d love to enjoy the decline, I think I’m ultimately going
      to move most of my assets to Croatia and marry a simple village girl
      because there’s a point in a man’s life where the benefits of a good,
      respectable wife far outweigh what you get from banging hot chicks as a
      bachelor for 50+ years. Anyway, men cheat all the time in Croatia.

  15. ” I have begun to bring less attractive girls to my beach and fucking them (occasionally), and allowing them to smoke cigarettes from my third floor balcony for all to see, so that the hotter girls get the picture that they are absolutely unimportant in my eyes. I have lots of money and land,….”
    Just playing devil’s advocate,but perhaps by doing so you are simply demonstrating to the 9’s that you can’t do any better?
    And just a friendly piece of advice: flaunting that you have money and real estate is a bit uncouth.

    1. Flaunting that you have money and real estate is uncouth? Every woman you “date” is silently mentally profiling you for your provider potential. Do you rent or own, do you drive a sport luxury car or truck, do you wear $400 shoes, etc. Who is uncouth?

    2. Meh, the 3-story apartment unit sitting 30 ft. from the beach seems to negate all doubts about my social value.

  16. Let’s be real for a moment. Our band of brothers isn’t going to lead a revolution. Some of us are really bitter about how things are. The better thing to do is to adapt and use the system to our advantage. Weeping for a long gone era is useless. Enjoy the decline.

  17. Here’s my “solution” to this problem.
    1) Polygyny
    Limit the expense to beta male providers, and limit the burn when she moves on. Women would fuck all the alphas they want, but they might be more selective about birth control. They would need more betas than alphas in their litter to afford it. Men of course, beyond seasonal fatherly duties and the small payments, would have no obligation to their ‘wife’. They could go fuck whatever they wanted. The social norm would be for no man to have more than one wife at a time. So, when your last kid is raised and you’re done paying, you could theoretically get a new wife. I think economic incentives would permit this sort of family arrangement.
    2) Genetic Match Services
    Since the only point of marriage is child rearing, at this point, then women might want to be selective about which males they rationally pick (while wearing their no-tingles careerist hats). Gene matching services would provide both women and men a way to make the right choice. High-value men would be defined in a civilizationally-positive way. There’s a certain kind of alpha behavior that goes well with beta values, that sort of Captain Kirk confidence. Perhaps there would be ways to select for that.
    In general, I don’t favor eugenics or transhumanism. However, in the context of individual reproductive choice, I think a little scientific forethought is worthwhile. Thus, while I don’t think there should be any societal institution that mandates any kind of preferred genetics, making positive genetic choices part of the everyday process of reproduction seems like a necessarily evil.
    In this arrangement, we can have modern promiscuity minus the welfare state, with a little bit of insurance regarding the integrity of future generations.
    We need better birth control. I favor IUDs. I like the thought of a giant middle finger in there pointed at her eggs as they try to eat my sperm. All women should just get them. When they are ready to make the very deliberate choice to have kids, it’s a small matter to get the thing removed.

    1. They already have gene matching services. Its called the sperm bank. The most popular “profile” is a man who is: white, 6.2, strong jaw line, attorney, plays guitar and likes cats. Similar behavior to online dating, that women use like shopping on amazon, with a no questions asked return policy if they guy doesn’t meet their expectations after 2nd date sex.

  18. This is retarded. You just can’t plug shit into mathematical simulations without realizing that these are MAJOR simplifications.
    By the way, we’re at the very beginning shift into the post-industrial world and the primary inputs in the post-industrial world is human capital, which takes time to develop. It’s much more natural for a society in the post-industrial world to have lower fertility rates because children only serve an economic cost. I actually think we’re headed into a world where we’re gonna work 25-30 hour work weeks and people only work from 25 (at the earliest)-60. Human capital cannot be destroyed without killing people, so this idea that a society’s resources will be destroyed by this behavior is retarded. Any society that goes through post-industrialization will experience depopulation.
    For the record, the mating strategy women use (using suckers to pay for children while being impregnated by others) is seen in other animals in the wild–particularly birds.

        1. Surely you jest. “Human capital cannot be destroyed without killing people, so this idea
          that a society’s resources will be destroyed by this behavior is
          retarded”…in what way is reducing fertility different than killing LOTS of people?
          For the record, the mating strategy women use (using suckers to pay for
          children while being impregnated by others) is seen in other animals in
          the wild–particularly birds.
          This is NOT seen in the wild other than the cuckoo.

    1. BS! My job can never be done by a machine, or with just part time labor. Future lies in any industry that moves or stores people, products, money or ideas. Any industry not associated with that premise will be automated. But those automated systems will always need maintenance techs. Those on the left side of the.intelligence and social bell curves will simply have to be happy scrubbing toilets, cutting lawns and cooking food for those who can adapt.. and not for much money either.

      1. When did I say everything was done by machines? I said the primary inputs in our economic system is human capital (as opposed to fixed capital in the industrial world). Please read what I said and bother to understand it before calling it BS.

        1. But human capital suffers the same supply and demand laws as all commodities do.
          Human capital is a commodity to bought, sold and traded at lowest price point possible, just like anything else. Those with little human capital will be just as poor and work long hours just as they do today.

        2. I agree with you, but human capital can only be developed over time. This entire site is about self-improvement and investing in yourself, which is equivalent to accumulating human capital.
          My point is that human capital is much easier to accumulate for an average person than fixed capital, but it takes time. You can say I wanna improve myself or better myself or invest in my skillsets and capabilities to make myself an appreciating asset, but it takes time. Also remember that everyone who accumulates human capital has to do so separately and individually in a different manner. It’s not like fixed capital inputs where you just get some 15 year old kid to operate some machinery. A random 15 year old kid’s completely useless in the economic world we’re entering. That’s my point.
          For example, has a 25 year old man in today’s society maximized his power and capacity to produce? Of course not. In the agricultural, and even industrial world, most people would’ve maxed out their ability to produce by the age of 25-30. It’s a different scenario in the post-industrial world. What I’m saying is that the economic circumstances of a post-industrial economy imply lower fertility rates because it takes time to accumulate. What matters isn’t the amount of people you have; it’s the quality of people you have. Having 10 children in today’s world is economic suicide.

  19. I have no clue what this clown got his degree in but it can’t have been mathematics, computer science or engineering as there are so much holes in his thinking you could drive a truck through.
    “…practice things like clitoral circumcision, concealment of the body, betrothal, and a whole host of other customs which prevent poor behaviors.”
    Barbaric much?
    You act like women are cattle and yet at the same time you act like they somehow can outsmart and manipulate even the dumbest of men.
    The problems with society stem from economic systems that HINDER freedom…especially free markets combined with an irrational desire to provide for everyone. That plus the divisiveness of culturism and religion.
    I swear most of the men on here would blame women if they stubbed their toe. “Fucking stubbed my toe because the whore was distracting me with her cleavage.”

      1. Did you even read the link you attached to your comment? There isn’t a syllable about free markets or privatization.
        George Soros is on their board of advisors…lol.
        The only issues we have ever had with regard to free markets in the US in the last 150 years have been related to government intervention. There are two ways to try to level the playing field…free market forces and government intervention…gee…let me think which one of those is most like to get fucked up!!!
        What do you propose as an alternative economic system since you apparently seem to be an authority on the matter? Robin Hood economics? Steal from the rich and give to the poor? Because we all know how well that has worked out in the past.

        1. If you bothered to open the 24 page PDF attached to the bottom of the abstract, you’d see where I’m coming from. And George Soros has been changing his mind lately.

        2. Do you have a degree in anything? None of what you are saying makes sense. You are still saying the government should steal from the rich and give to the poor. There ALSO isn’t syllable about free markets or privatization in the 18 page PDF btw. It talks about economic equilibrium and dynamic economies. OK? What does that have to do with what you are saying?
          The taxation system if fundamentally flawed since about 70% of the taxes collected are pissed away by the government that is supposed to reallocate those resources. Increasing taxes is never the answer. If you increase taxes on corporations those corporations (and the jobs they provide) will simply to to more company friendly countries.
          The point of the 18-page article is that the systems are incredibly complex and dynamic and your solution couldn’t be less complex or dynamic…let alone ineffective.
          I mean really? Let’s put more money into the hands of our corrupt and incompetent government as a solution to our economic problems.

    1. If you don’t hinder economic freedom somewhat you have slaves and child labor, and in the sexual marketplace, mass female collusion via hypergamy. And unrestrained hypergamy, as has been pointed out by many people more observant than yourself, leads to societal collapse.
      Women are not angels just because you have some on your cock.
      And the muslims are harsh on their women due to the harsh desert conditions they live in. Because, as you *should* know, unrestrained female behavior leads to societal collapse.
      Women are herd-minded and are very good at manipulating men, even smart men who don’t know game. Duh.
      You can do better, Dawson. This is child’s play.

      1. You really don’t understand economics at all. Slavery is NOT a side effect of free markets. Slavey is a side effect of a repressive government.
        The US is not (yet) a repressive government and (for the most part) doesn’t take away a person’s rights without cause. In our government slavery is not possible with free markets.
        In an repressive government slavery can happen and often does. Step 1, individual rights and freedom
        Step 2, free markets
        And since “…unrestrained hypergamy, as has been pointed out by many people more observant than yourself, leads to societal collapse” I would love for you or one of these careful observers you reference to point to a single society where collapse has occurred as a result of unrestrained female hypergamy. If you cannot do so it isn’t called observation but conjecture…and one based on no facts.
        Come on Ruckus…you can do better.

  20. I really hate all this “oh the world will come to an end because women aren’t chaste enough” theory. It is BS cooked up by betas to deal with the pain of a changing world where they simply aren’t valued.
    I’m damn glad for female sexual freedom. I could care less about “civilization” as a whole and it cracks me up that some in the manosphere sincerely believe that they can just “check out” of society and it will fail.
    Everyone is replaceable, especially beta males.

    1. maybe at this point a distinction needs to be made between liberty and license. You can affirm the former while still looking squarely at the consequences of the latter. Arguably one might say that license curtails liberty itself. The only freedom those sexually free women may in fact have is the freedom to be slaves to their own worst instincts. Let them have freedom. Let them also, as another commenter wisely suggest, take responsibility for that freedom in terms of the consequences that must follow

      1. With women earning the primary incomes, men with excess charm and deficits in money will find sugar mamas to take care of them in abundance.
        Little known fact, Porthos of the Three musketeers married an attractive widow twice his age to achieve access to her fortune, which he.invested in property and got rich. It was considered then perfectly acceptable for a fine gentleman of limited means to do so.
        For men with the proper game at least. A lifestyle of ease can be achieved quite easily in the post modern world. Upper class women have never taken better care of themselves. It’s only working class chicks that get fat and have lots of.bastard spawn. Upper class women demand a lot, but treat valued boyfriends like gold.
        For the pudgy, bespectacled “everyman” with no game? Pray for sex bots and the.occasional ship in the night with a drunk fatty.

        1. “A lifestyle of ease can be achieved quite easily in the post modern world”
          you have a will to adapt to changed circumstances, and survival and prospering will always be about making any such necessary adaptations, but I also sense something fatalistic in your post. No doubt we should make the best of any situation, but what you describe are the rich pickings to be had in reduced circumstances. In fact you’re pretty much describing a matriarchy in which resourceful lone wolves can still do well. Interesting observations about upper class girls but otherwise not very ‘engagé’.

        2. Look man, I didn’t tell all the young men in this nation to stop earning degrees. 60% of college graduates are women. Even if this trend reversed tomorrow it is already too late. We are looking at least one full generation where most women will eventually out earn most men. Simply because most women will have the degrees.
          Men need to discover some other gender roles besides “protector and provider”.
          Men need to get over notions of chivalry and women as the “fairer sex”.

    2. I haven’t heard anyone say the world will end.
      I have heard people here explain that they have fears for society when family life and social bonds are weakened. The evidence from history would suggest that it is very sensible fear to have.
      Take away the benefits of society and humans are capable of terrible things. You might mock it but take a trip to Detroit today and see what a generation of fatherless families gives you. Compare it to photos from 50 years ago. Society, laws, family life; these things can give so much.
      All the things you take for granted, right down to the computer in front of you and the internet, the harnessing of electricity before we even get onto to art and philosophy was created in advanced societies and in virtually all cases by white men. For their society to undermine itself is a concern of every right thinking person.
      Clearly the way women behave today is not conducive to advanced civilization. They will increasingly be raising children without father figures, without discipline and without discipline there is little serious learning. The divorce rates for women with multiple sexual partners is sky high; for women who remained virgins until marriage the divorce rate is very low.
      So which is better for society and children growing up? An unmarried mother who is a slut but “liberated” and “empowered”? Or a stable loving family with discipline? Everyone knows the answer if honest with himself.
      As for the idea that only betas complain, haha, nice try. That is exactly what betas such as you say. I’ve heard it so many times; “A strong man will accept that a woman has had lots of one night stands and will marry her”. Bullshit. A real man expects and strives for the best and will enjoy the good side of promiscuity in the west, the casual sex, but refuse to marry a slut.

      1. BS. I’m no feminist. But what i’m seeing here reeks of communism. A buncha guys who feel an unregulated, uncontrolled sexual free market is denying them their fair share of female companionship.
        It’s sexual communism, and an affront to anyone who believes in free markets.
        Hell even the same arguments as commies only the commodity is female companionship instead of wealth.
        If you can’t compete for sex in a completely open and free sexual market, that is a problem with the product you are selling. Not.the.consumer

        1. Sexual communism is what allowed the Greeks to fight off a massive slave and mercenary army from Persia for centuries.
          I think one solution would be to introduce new accounting classes which take into better consideration taxes on goods from firms which are subject largely to constant or slightly decreasing returns to scale, i.e. timber, wood, textiles, etc. vs. those which are characterized by predominantly increasing returns, i.e. software, transportation networks, printing, publishing, etc.

          As for the hypergamy, a tax won’t work. The best we can do is jack up the slut-shaming.

        2. Hypergamy is only a problem for low status males who have let their relationships stagnate. The men who get married and turn into pudgy, stoop shouldered,balding and bespectacled “everymen” rather than keeping in shape, remaining highly socially active and his sig other remaining a valued partner in his social activities.
          The man who gets home on friday and rather than saying “get that sexy red dress I bought you a few weeks ago on, we’re going to” instead turns on ESPN and demands dinner.
          Screw that guy, he deserves hypergamy.

        3. Yup. If you are a high value man you have nothing to fear from women. You will always be on the right side of the supply and demand curve.
          If you have a shit career because you didn’t apply yourself when you are younger and have crappy career prospects, you are screwed. NOT just because you can’t get and keep a woman but because your life sucks because you can’t control your financial situation and afford to do the things that YOU want to do.
          I simply can’t wrap my mind around all the comments on here that make women sound like both evil geniuses hell bent on the subjugation of men and also moronic sluts that can’t find their ass with two hands and a flashlight. They can’t be both. They are actually neither.

        4. The only “crap jobs” are the ones you hate getting up in the morning for. This is post modern America. A man does not need a big fancy 6 figure income unless he intends to go full bore children, house, etc.
          A post modern man must develop what women already have in abundance, social intelligence and charm. The answer to The Feminine Mystique is to develop a Masculine Mystique of our own that compensates for the.wrenching social changes. Of having your gender roles ripped out from under you.

        5. I would argue that any job where you lack control and autonomy is a “crap job.” So are jobs where your compensation doesn’t dovetail with your risk (police officer) or value added (school teacher).
          And they aren’t mutually exclusive. One doesn’t have to have a particular type of job to develop social intelligence and charm. Those are skills needed in all aspects of life.
          There is a lot wrong with a HUGE portion of the US voters…and it isn’t just women.

      1. Machines… that is who will do.the hard manual labor. Machines… production will be increasingly automated until widget manufacturing is all done by machines. Human manual labor is already becoming obselete in western society.

    3. Your mistake is thinking that you as a man have sexual freedom as women are now permitted to have. You do not. One regretted night in a hotel where she screamed “Yes yes yes!” all night becomes rape in the haze of a hangover and guess what, welcome to her sexual freedom. You, on the other hand, have no such option. And the courts will never, ever side with you against any “her” out there, unless she’s caught on film sacrificing children on an altar to Baal, and even then you don’t have any better than even odds.

      1. I agree with you on the legal aspects of modern sexual assault and marriage law. I don’t like it any more than you do. I’m not out voting for feminist friendly pols here.
        You want to live in fear of being struck by lightning then hide on the porch. I’m determined to keep living. I’m not kid who needs to fear a kangaroo court brought about by an immature girl or a greedy hooker.

  21. How can you explain, then, the level of social development in Scandinavian countries, where feminism reached its peak? You thinking can be true maybe to third world countries as rich and powerful men strive to keep the rest of the population poor.

    1. Societies though change gradually and in complicated ways.
      Scandinavian countries are generally coasting these days on the success of previous times when they were a very settled and safe place, with abundant resources, a good work ethic and men very firmly in charge.
      You are right that today the men there are among the most pathetic and pussy-whipped you will ever see. Amazing they were once Vikings, today they are often completely submissive feminists. I have some personal experience, living in Stockholm and Malmo for short periods. The young hot girls there are now always looking for foreign men and half of them have slept with muslim immigrants in one night stands – those women will never make good mothers. However the broken and weak Scandinavian men have swallowed the blue pill and so often are there to pick up the pieces of a 35 year old woman and provide for her or even just pay taxes for the state to care for her. She will have had several abortions when young and has no idea how to be a good wife.
      Malmo in particular has pushed multi-culturalism and feminism further than most and it is now heading straight for third world status with rape and crime at record numbers.
      In the future it will be hard to accurately judge exactly what damage was caused by feminism, what by liberalism and what by immigration. But whatever the precise balance of these causes, in 50 years Malmo will be a complete shit hole.

    1. Well, the model was simplified for purposes of clarifying the main hypothesis, which is that unrestrained sexual freedom leads to over-consumption of resources as men slave to satisfy female sexual preferences. The total stock of wealth is fixed (limited by the patches on the
      screen). There is no capital re-investment, so total wealth doesn’t
      grow; it just regrows in neighboring patches after being consumed. I’m assuming that what happens is that as you increase Hypergamy (the extent to which females can navigate their vicinity via, say, technology, for men with the most status), men begin to consume resources at a faster rate just to stay in the game, which induces reproduction (agents reproduce at a definite wealth threshold in the presence of a female). The males inherit some of the wealth of their fathers, which basically means that the reproduction rates of “Betas” grow out of proportion to those of the “Alpha’s” (whom are arbitrarily defined as those in the top 20% of the income bracket).
      There are many, many ways to extend this model… but as Robert Solow once said “All theory depends on assumptions which are not quite true. That is what
      makes it theory. The art of successful theorizing is to make the
      inevitable simplifying assumptions in such a way that the final results
      are not very sensitive.”
      It appears far more people were interested in the simulation than I first thought they’d be, so I may have to post the code now and expand on some of the details.

      1. You are drastically oversimplifying reality. Your simulation must account for an innumerable amount of factors in society that are not well-known. Men are not idiots that will blow away all of their resources on women nor do they reproduce if they have a specific amount of wealth. Please post your code. The real world is much different from your simulation’s results as shown by countries such as Sweden.

  22. Most of what is considered “alpha behavior” today is not only
    antithetical to feminism, but to society as a whole. Great men of note
    realized that not only was individual success paramount, but greatness
    was achieved by achievements that uplifted ALL. The problem with the
    “red pill” and MGTOW movement is that overall its just a bunch of silly
    little boys using psychology to get laid and instead of trying to
    reverse the societal problems we face, they only want to ride society
    down to oblivion getting the small sexual gratifications they want in the process. Sadly, the timeless truths of “red pill” are lost in this notion of selfishness, sexual gratification, and non-cooperation of society’s common good as a whole. In short, the many so-called “alphas” don’t possess the intellect or leadership required to call themselves such.

    1. Have no idea what you are trying to convey – you start by implying that against feminism is against society as a whole – Gynocentrism is a root cause of societies problems of which it can be argued that feminism and mgtow are symptoms – feminism puts women above all else and Mgtow is sick and tired of the beating down of men by the social/legal system and remove themselves from marriage/children. For societies common good perhaps it would be best to put women as full equals in rights and RESPONSIBILITES – No more free ride on the taxpayers dollar. Politicians need to realize that pandering to women has or soon will destroy everything they take for granted – Society will reset even if it is at a great cost in lives – If you have solutions that are better then they need to be brought forward and examined.

    2. Sure, and the founding fathers of the USA should’ve just tried to make rule under Great Britain more tolerable by “lifting each other up.” There’s a difference between a movement and a revolution.

    1. These are computer models, but they’re terribly unrealistic. He didn’t even say anything about any rules to model wealth distribution in society. Please remember that computer models are written by a human, and what is encoded in them is a reflection of what the human in question thinks. For example, video games are computer models of the game environment. They simulate situations, but they are rarely accurate about the events that occur in them. Computer simulations are just models that are subject to the author’s beliefs, nothing more. They work great for topics that with well-known rules such as physics, but this person is using this for a topic without hard facts backing up every interaction that occurs. Furthermore, the author is extremely biased. Computer models are imperfect, and this is a great example of this.

      1. You are of course correct in your general criticisms of social computer models. I think the utility comes when your world-view and that of the modeler match. If you agree on most of the assumptions, then the model can “think through” behaviors and consequences for you.
        But then, “garbage in; garbage out” is still the warning.

  23. A store that sells new husbands has opened in New York City , where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates:
    You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increase as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!
    So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband. On the first floor the sign on the door reads:
    Floor 1 – These men Have Jobs. She is intrigued, but continues to the second floor, where the sign reads:
    Floor 2 – These men Have Jobs and Love Kids. ‘That’s nice,’ she thinks, ‘but I want more.’ So she continues upward. The third floor sign reads:
    Floor 3 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking. ‘Wow,’ she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going. She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads:
    Floor 4 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework. ‘Oh, mercy me!’ she exclaims, ‘I can hardly stand it!’
    Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads:
    Floor 5 – These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak. She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor, where the sign reads:
    Floor 6 – You are visitor 31,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.
    To avoid gender bias charges, the store’s owner opened a New Wives store just across the street.
    The first floor has wives that love sex.
    The second floor has wives that love sex and have money and like beer.
    The third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors have never been visited.

  24. I liked the article and the simulation don’t get me wrong but did you just say you fuck uglier women and show them off to somehow lower the value of ‘ephemeral’ hotter girls who may or not be looking at your balcony window?
    Thats the definition of cutting your nose to spite your face

  25. When women have more resources in their hands they won’t need to select men with resources, instead they will go for what they find attractive. How high up in the male hierarchy he is wont matter, tastes will get more varied than.
    Also control of women has not contributed to a better civilization, many of the countries which suppress women heavily are full of war, look at the middle east. The nordic nations which have better rights for women are more peaceful and advanced and women there do go for men who have what may be termed a beta nature. The tribal regions of africa which circumcise women are still living how they always lived, no progressive civilization there.
    Humans may not be naturally monogamous. Giving up the wish to control other peoples behaviour and not living around the drive to reproduce and compete are the way to a better civilization, not control of others. When everyone aims to live like that they will find the other things fall into place, people want to be together and have a diverse range of tastes. At present culture creates stereotypical ideals of men and women and it leads to over idealization of traits not everyone has, so it increases competition for those select few people and everyone buys products and aims to be like them.

  26. This website is actually deeply disturbing. There’s no science behind anything you’ve said and yet your followers are latching on to it like mindless drones. You have literally categorized “females,” as you call them, into a wolf-pack alpha beta system that has no fucking standing with primates or humans. Skewing facts- though I hardly see any facts here- toward your own bias to promote your own agenda is propaganda, and for someone as intelligent and sophisticated as you claim to be, I find it odd that you have to rely on propaganda and mob mentality to get anyone to respect your opinions.

  27. You needed a computer to figure this out? Jeez your an idiot. I’m poor as fuck and even I know women slavishly sell their souls for cash.

  28. This computer “simulation” is grossly misleading. Your “model” of reality is terrible because you only shared a single rule about how women pick mates and a single parameter about their abilities to pick. From just those two rules, you make the egregious conclusion that “In a world where hypergamy is high, the society’s resources are almost completely annihilated.” Please tell me how you were able to reach such a conclusion with a rule and a parameter that did not describe resources at all. Additionally, you shared graphs about population size, but you told nothing about what you added to your “model” to predict this. I would be delighted to see what additional rules and parameters you used to model the complex series of interactions that constitute human society. Go ahead and publish everything you did to reach this conclusion. I’m sure that we’ll see how great they are. These conditions create a simulation based not in reality, but in your crazy delusional beliefs.. In contrast, birth rates actually decline as the status of women in society rises to equality (1). Many societies that treat women poorly actually have far less resources than what we have such as countries in Africa. Losses of resources in American society come not from male allocations of wealth to “choosy” women, but instead from things like housing bubbles. You should be ashamed of twisting the field of computer science into pseudoscientific garbage to support your sexist opinions. If this is so great, and it reveals the truth about women’s rights, then go publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I hope this comment leaves with with some cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you will attempt to rationalize your results and continue to hold your delusional beliefs. Perhaps you will delete this comment because you can’t handle criticism. Perhaps you will realize that you beliefs are delusional and you adopt better ideas, but I doubt that this will happen. Next time you try to criticize women’s rights using “science,” actually come up with a conclusion related to your methodology. To the readers of this comment: you wonder why several women will not date you, and you conclude that it is the fault of women in general, and that men are being undermined. Well, if you increased your sample size from one man to a random selection of many more men (This website is definitely not a random sampling), your results would indicate that they dislike you specifically. Maybe this is because you espouse ridiculous beliefs about females and you have ridiculous expectations for them. Don’t complain about it, or dare I say, “bitch about it,” as you accuse women of doing to men, and instead discard these stupid beliefs. Not only will women not think that you are highly likely to rape them, but you will also actually have a chance of being thought of as decent. Goodbye everyone, and I hope that this post makes you reconsider your positions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *