A lot of people, after reading my thoughts on cultural appropriation, have asked me to write about my thoughts on feminism, men’s rights activism, height/weight/skin color discrimination in dating, and just about the sexes in general. I often see myself as computer among humans, I have a very cynical, analytical mind, I only see things as they are in their realest form, down to the numbers, not as they are made to look like, or as they are designed to be, so I believe I have a unique take on this situation.
Let me start with the social movements: feminism, pick-up artists, yessallwomen, men’s rights, men going their own way, and red-pillers. For any one of these movements, many people have told me I should feel certain ways about them, I should be supportive, furious, for, against… you name it.
I’ve been thinking about each for a while and what I always come back to is a content indifference. The reason for this is that assuming the majority of the population is heterosexual, which in our world is the definite case, there can be no “battle of the sexes,” as it were. It is impossible.
Let me explain: Suppose there is a closed environment with 100 men and 100 women, all heterosexual to make things simple, and each person is different. Assume that there is a universal definition of attractiveness for men and women. By definition, there is one most-attractive male and one most-attractive female in the room, and then one slightly less attractive, and another slightly less… until the least attractive of each sex. Assume everyone in the room can see, and knows everything about everyone else in the room. Each man must pair with 1 woman, and vise-versa. In this hypothetical, there is only one outcome: the most attractive male and female choose each other to pair with, then the second most attractive male and female choose each other, and so on down the list until all the pairs are made. From this small scale example, we can deduce that in an ultra-simplistic view, it is not male vs. female, but it is each male vs each other male, and each female vs each other female.
To make is a slightly more closer to real life example, we can define and specify some things: What makes a person “attractive”, when one is not just referring to raw physical beauty? Looks come into it, but personality does as well. If person A and person B have 100% similar looks, while person A has a better personality, then person A will be more attractive, obviously. In the same respect, if person A and person B have the exact same personality, while person A has better looks, then person A is more attractive. The questions start to arise when person A has a better personality, but person B has better looks.
To help us, we can assign numerical values to sub traits of attractiveness. Say person A has 10/10 personality, with 8/10 looks. Person B has 10/10 looks, with 6/10 personality. In this case, person A has 18/20 total attractiveness, compared to person B with 16/20 total attractiveness, making A the more attractive.
Of course we run into the problem of over-simplification again. First, there is no straight spectrum of personality that every person fits on and can be defined as “better” or “worse” than someone else. Personality consists of an infinite number of sub traits that can each be at different levels. An 8/10 personality can be composed of the average of its positive traits, such as an 8/10 conversation skill, a 9/10 generosity level, a 6/10 humor and a 9/10 capacity for kindness.
Second, personal preferences come into account. I like to think of these as multipliers applied to the score of the average preference for a trait. Say the average female decides that on a mate, eye color A is 6/10 attractive, eye color B is 8/10 attractive, and eye color C is 10/10 attractive. But for the female “Sally”, eye color C is less attractive because it reminds her of a bad experience, and eye color B happens to be her favorite color so she is more inclined towards it. In Sally’s case, a multiplier of 0.5 may be applied to eye color C, and a multiplier of 1.2 may be applied to eye color B. So for sally, eye color A is still 6/10, but eye color B is 9.6/10, making it the most desirable trait, and eye color C is 5/10, making it the least desirable.
Third, we have the problem of non-omnipotence. In the earlier example, everyone in our 100 male to 100 female room paired-off perfectly only because we were able to assume that everyone in the room could “see”, or know about, everyone else in the room. This is far from reality. There is not enough time in a life to meet everyone in the world. There are also many barriers preventing us from potentially meeting the mate on our “parallel” level of attractiveness, such as language, geography, social class, walk of life, etc. So we change our example in the room so that each person can “see” five random people, and tries to pair with the highest rated person of the five they can see. So, say a 50/100 of sex A, “Bob”, can see a 100/100 of sex B “Mary”, a 60/100 of sex B “Patricia”, a 40/100 of sex B “Barbara”, a 20/100 of sex B “Liz”, and a 10/100 of sex B “Linda”; the 50/100 sex A (Bob) will first attempt to pair with the 100/100 sex B (Mary), but assume that the greatest rated sex A that can be seen by that 100/100 sex B (Mary) is a 90/100 sex A “Ted”. The 100/100 sex B (Mary) will pair with the 90/100 sex A (Ted), eliminating the option of pairing with the 100/100 sex B (Mary) from the possibilities for pairs with the 50/100 sex A (Bob). So the 50/100 sex A (Bob) now attempts to pair with the next best that it can see, the 60/100 sex B (Patricia). The top rated sex A that can be seen by the 60/100 sex B (Patricia) is the 50/100 sex A (Bob). Since they are both each other’s top-rated seen possibility, they become a pair. In this scenario, the people at the top would have the first pick for their pair, and then the next to top people would have their pick (barring any already chosen by the people above them), and so on until the very bottom people choose. In the worst-case scenario, a person that is the most attractive of their group, meaning 100/100, would randomly select the bottom five people of the opposite group to see. With the 100/100 of course picking the highest of those five that they can see, we would end up with a 100/100 matched with a 5/100, a 95/100 unit discrepancy. By the same logic the worst case for a person directly in the middle, a 50/100 attractive person, could at worst face a 45 unit discrepancy. In the optimal scenario, each person would have landed on the person parallel to them as one of the five “randoms” that they could see, i.e. a 100 sees the parallel 100, a 99 sees the parallel 99… and a 1 sees the parallel 1. In the optimal scenario, the pair results are identical as the results that were made when everyone could see everyone. I assume that in the average scenario, a person at either extreme of the spectrum, (that being 100/100 or 1/100), seeing five random people could expect that their pair will end up with about a 20 unit discrepancy, perhaps converging to half of that discrepancy the closer one goes towards the middle. It would certainly make a really interesting simulation to create.
So having gone through all of that logic in my head, I concluded three things: that a person is as desirable as the average of every desirable trait they have, minus the average of ever undesirable trait they have, that a person will, (barring worst-case scenarios), end up with someone of similar desirability to themselves, and that since we are competing with our own sex for the most desirable of the other sex that we can see, a battle of the sexes can not exist.
Now that I have introduced the way I see relationships and their logic, let me get to the original point: the different social movements. I often see these movements, MGTOWs, redpills, feminists, SJWs, telling either sex what they should and should not do especially regarding dating.
I’ve seen all kinds of things:
“Women, stop shaving your armpits for men and stand up for yourself”
“Guys always be judging a girl on how she looks when y’all are wearing ugly-ass cargo shorts”
“If you’re girl gives you lip give her a slap across the face”
“Articles of clothing that guys actually hate”
“Manlets under 7 ft. how does it feel that you’ll never get a girl?”
“Don’t open doors for women, they don’t deserve it”
“Make your boyfriend sit down to pee or he’ll never respect you”
“Landwhales can never be beautiful”
“Why are guys on this ugly man-bun phase”
“Girls, leggings are not pants, they look trashy and you’ll never get a respectable man like that”
“Cuddling with a skinny guy is like cuddling with a skeleton, a guy with meat is like a teddy bear”
“All ladies have daddy-issues and if you want to get them you have to insult them”
“If your man doesn’t buy you diamonds ditch him for someone who will treat you like the princess you are”
“If your woman doesn’t split the bill on a date ditch her freeloading butt”
“If a guy does not propose to you he’s trying to play you”
“If a girl wants to get married she’s trying to trap you”
There are so many different sources telling us what we should do, how we should look, act, and relate to each other. I can see how some of it can seem infuriating, but I only find it humorous. Let me explain: As I previously concluded, the dating market is a lot like the free market, ruled by supply and demand. It is not alive, it is a force of nature, and therefore it does not, and can not, care about what someone thinks it “should” be. You cannot declare that a grocery bagger is worth more than a brain surgeon, and then have it so grocery bagger makes more money. A black market will open and one way or another, the brain surgeon will be compensated for their market-determined worth.
You cannot decide that men or women should wear this, do that, or act like this to get a desirable partner, because if it were true, it would be that way already. Similarly, you cannot persuade someone to be attracted to or seek out people who dress or act a certain way, because if you could, they would already be seeking those people out.
You cannot state that “real men like” curvy girls, thin girls, flat girls, voluptuous girls, or say that women seek tall guys, or short guys, or brown-haired guys and have it have any effect whatsoever on the demand for those types, or the quality of the mates that seek them.
You cannot persuade women that they should date a black man or Latin man or Caucasian man, or convince a man that is is best to marry a Muslim woman or a Christian woman or a Hindu woman, because if it were true, the dating market would have already adjusted for it, and we would see each member of that group pairing with mates considerably higher than their all-other-things-equal counterparts in other groups; the very fact that that is not already the case, is proof that the claim is untrue.
You cannot tell all men to stop opening doors for women, or tell all women to stop shaving their armpits for men, based on some “battle of the sexes” ideology. Sure, if you could convince an entire sex to do, or to stop doing, something, then all-other-things-equal, the pairs in our real world dating simulation would be exactly the same; but it is impossible. Why? The same reason that a grocery bagger can’t demand $100 an hour while there are 10 people waiting outside that would take his job for his current $10 an hour. Remember when I said that one seeks the highest-rated attractive mate that they see? There will always be at least one member of the sex that goes that extra mile, takes the extra step behind everyone else’s back, crosses the “picket line”, and climbs the attractiveness scale just a few points, pushing each person they are now more attractive than downward ever so slightly. These few people that have been “passed up” by person P who was originally below them, are now comparatively slightly less attractive will find that on average the mates they tend to be paired with are slightly less attractive, and it will be no secret that it is due to their new lifestyle choice, so they will revert back to their old habit, also “crossing the picket line” as it were, and it will eventually create a ripple effect, eventually reaching every member of the sex.
It is so much more evident in the era of internet too. Males and females alike can scream and holler about how ugly they think “duckface” pictures are, but if duckface pictures get the most male attention, girls will copy and emulate them. People are really good at analyzing each other, and the dating market, even if they don’t know they are. If cargo shorts really do detract point off of a males attractiveness score, males will subconsciously notice that other males in their social groups who are not wearing the shorts are on average receiving interest from females that are higher on the attractiveness scale than their all-other-things-equal male peers. People often express their disgust with Ugg boots, but if females who wore the boots were only receiving interest from males who were on average even the slightest bit disproportionately lower on the attractiveness scale than themselves, I am very confident that they would notice and the trend would die immediately.
The market is a force of nature, it does not lie, it can not lie, and we are very good at reading it, even when we don’t know we are.
The thing I take the greatest pleasure in seeing about this subject is the people who decide that the quality of the entire opposite sex is lacking.
“Why do I always date assholes?”
“Why are all girls sluts nowadays?”
“Where have all the good men gone?”
“All the girls in this town are trashy bitches.”
“All the boys at my school are fuckboys!”
Remember that in the simulation, each person P sought out the mate M with the highest attractiveness score, which was compiled from the sum of their looks, personality, and every other aspect of them as a person. That means that when people make blanket statements complaining about the quality of the opposite sex, there is only 1 of 2 possibilities: either a near worst-case scenario happened in the random selection of all the mates that you can “see”, i.e. a 100/100 person of sex A only randomly selecting 1/100, 2/100, 3/100, 4/100, and 5/100 people of sex B to see, (which is extremely unlikely), or, (much more likely), you are seeing the member of the opposite sex that are generally parallel to your own level, and you have greatly overestimated your own value.
Similarly, this is why I am always bemused by those to claim to have cure-alls. Many of us have been in, or seen this situation play out: Person A starts a conversation complaining about their lack of success in finding partners, and person B will, in a very matter-of-factual tone, assure person A that the reason they are often finding sub-par partners, or none at all, is because they are, (or aren’t), acting in way A, and/or dressing way B, and/or styling their hair way C, and/or using courtship technique D.
i.e. “To get tons of ladies, all you have to do is…”
“The reason you always end up with assholes is…”
I find that pretty much every self-important, self-proclaimed expert has one of these “cure all” elixirs, as I call them. The reason it is impossible for a cure-all to exist, and why the airhead of your group couldn’t hold the secret of it, is that previously-mentioned market. Once a trait has success in acquiring the attention of more, and greater quality suitors of the opposite sex, the trait immediately spreads like wildfire, becomes the new norm, and the market corrects itself.
If it were true that a man could subconsciously manipulate a woman into being attracted to him by some arbitrary combination, like flaring his nostrils, wearing a purple, popped-collar polo, angling his hands toward his crotch, and leaning eight degrees forward while talking, it would saturate the population so much that it would become the standard way of acting, dressing, and having a conversation, and eventually lose all of its original effect.
Something else I’ve noticed is what I call “arbitrary exclusions” (AEs). We’ve seen these in every shape and form:
“When a guy under x feet talks to me I just laugh.”
“I would never date a girl that makes more money than me.”
“The only guys I date are of race x, no exceptions.”
“I don’t care who she is, if she’s over x lbs she’s not girlfriend material.”
These are reminiscent of, but different in key ways than what I call “personal preference multipliers” (PPMs), in such that instead of weighing on the value of a single trait, and that trait adjusting one’s final attractiveness score accordingly, an arbitrary exception will qualify/disqualify a broad swath of people without taking into account just how good of a mate they are.
That is, to say “I would never date a selfish jerk,” would not be an AE, because the quality of selfishness is near-universally considered to be a negative trait, and the greater capacity one has for it, the lower down the rating scale they tend to be.
It is also not an AE to say something like “I prefer people of x ethnicity,” or “my least favorite hair color is x,” or “in terms of height, my ideal partner would be x compared to me.” This is simply recognizing that if given the option of two people who are relatively equal on the scale, say a 50/100 and a 51/100, the ultimate choice would likely be based off of which had the most, (and greatest magnitude of), PPMs from the viewer.
An AE must be something that is found across the spectrum, so if one were to pull out each potential mate M targeted by the AE, the group formed by these people would have pretty much even distribution along the attractiveness scale. Most likely, it will be something that a person has little to no direct control over, and something that most people would not think to consider as a must-have or must-not-have when perusing potential mates.
A good example would be, “I would never date a man whose shoe-size is an odd number, that’s unlucky,” or “I only date girls who are Sagittarius, they know how to have sex the best.” In examples like these, the user of the AE is virtually shooting themselves in the foot by removing a large number of potential mates from their pool of suitors. Since we remember that each person attempts to pair with the highest-rated person they can “see”, in the best case scenario, the mate that the user of the AE is supposed to pair with qualifies, therefore the pair is as it would have been if the AE didn’t exist. The worst-case scenario is that the mate who is supposed to be paired with the AE-user does not qualify, and the AE-user then seeks the next highest, which does not qualify as well, nor the next, nor the next, until either none of the mates that the user can see qualifies, or the very lowest ranked one does. The user is then forced to either humble themselves and give up their AE, or be left with only a very undesirable choice of mate. In the latter case, the undesirable mate actually benefits from the use of AE, because one or more more-desirable mates has been “passed up” before them, and therefore they are now paired with a more desirable mate than they would have normally been.
The severity of this effect increases by how much of the total population is affected by the AE. So if person P were to only consider dating people who had eye color x, which exists in 20% of the population, and, as before, they can see five random people in a room of 100, of the five, on average only one will have eye color x, leaving only one potential match. If eye color x exists randomly along the attractiveness spectrum, there is a 1/5 chance that the potential match is the greatest rated of the five that can be seen, and therefore there is a 4/5 chance that person P will have to “settle” for someone less attractive in order to fulfill their AE requirement.
This line of logic is why I never get flustered or riled up when I hear someone using AEs, there are only two possibilities, either the AE doesn’t actually matter in the end, or it mostly negatively affects its own user, it is impossible for it to benefit the user.
Lastly, I want to go over my analysis of dating apps like OKCupid or Tinder. I recently read an article decrying Tinder, stating that since it gave men more options, it made them less committed to trying to woo any one single female. The article demonized it as an obvious bad thing, but I went through the logic in my head and concluded that it can only be a good thing, let me explain:
In the earlier simulation, when everyone could see everyone, there was a 1:1 pairing; the best paired with the best, the worst paired with the worst, and everyone in the middle paired parallel to their own value. This was the most efficient scenario with the greatest total utility. The worst case would happen if each person could only see one other person, creating a potential discrepancy in pairings as high as 99. In a middle-case, where each person P could see 50 mates, the worst case discrepancy would be 50, with the average being only about 2. The more mates M that a person P can see, the more accurate the pairings become, and the lower the discrepancy.
To put this into real life settings, in the past, one would have to go into the world to look for potential mates, and there were a lot of barriers. One would have to physically come across another to “see” them, which might happen at school, work, church, or a bar, but it would be entirely possible that you would happen to never cross paths with a potential mate M, someone perfectly parallel to yourself, that lives in your own town, simply because you were always at different places at different times. On top of that, the time it took to actually “see” potential mates was an investment. You had to find out what someone was like by conversing with them. With apps like Tinder, you can “see”, (read: know about), 50 mates in the time that it would have normally taken to see 1 mate, and in similar capacities of knowledge about the person.
To become aware of more potential mates only serves to make pairings more accurate, more optimal. For someone to say that being able to see and choose between more potential mates more quickly is a bad thing, only reads to me that this person was benefiting from the non-omnipotence of the former system; that is, they were the greatest rated one of the few potential mates that a mate who was of a higher caliber than themselves could see, and therefore was able to acquire a partner of a higher standard than their self, something that would not have been plausible if the partner would have been able to see a greater number of mates.
So what I end up taking from all my thoughts: technology changing the way we date is necessarily a good thing, anyone who has advice on how to get more or better mates is necessarily full of shit, to exclude potential mates based on more than a preference can only be neutral at best and detrimental to one’s self at worst, anyone weak minded enough to strictly follow how a social movement tells them to act toward the opposite sex will get their just-deserts, there is no such thing as an entire sex being better or worse than how they were in the past, there can never be a struggle of power between the sexes, if one finds that all the potential mates they see are of low quality there’s a 99% chance that they are severely over-valuing their self, and most of all: everyone tends to get what they deserve, so there is no reason to stress about one’s romantic future.