Morals and Ethics - Who should set them - Men or Women?

This may be the most controversial topic I've yet addressed:

Who is better suited to set ethics - men or women? The following video states my position:



I believe that women depend on men to set firm ethical boundaries.

I was playing a card game with two women just the other night. It was a new game to me. They found it simply delightful that I didn't know the rules, and took advantage of that fact at every turn. They also changed the rules occasionally.

Most men would not do this - it goes against masculine instincts of fair play. Even the most brutal male sports like Mixed Martial Arts have rules. Mike Tyson was vilified for biting the ear off his opponent in boxing. Even in all out war, including gang wars and the Mafia there are codes of honor and rules.

The women I was with were not "bad" or "evil" women. They were typical. They are both long term friends of mine. You can probably think of similar examples in your own life, and the literature is full of examples of this sort of female behavior.

Look at what happens in divorces and child custody cases.

Women do not have a set of absolute ethics the way men do. Their ethics are relative, and subject to their emotional moods. For instance, women frequently try to "steal" boyfriends and even husbands from each other. Seducers know this and use this fact to their advantage - for instance, putting a married woman in the proper emotional state will allow a skilled seducer to have sex with her (If you do not believe this, you have not studied seduction or done enough field work).
Emotionally determined ethics are what allow this to take place.
"If it feels right, it's OK"
We see this at work also in the way women seek men who have women with them in social settings. To get a guy who already has a girlfriend is emotionally compelling for most heterosexual women. It validates their attractiveness.
Most men on the other hand will not seduce the wife or girlfriend of a close friend, no matter how attractive or seductive she is out of a sense of honor and fair play. Other men's women from outside their social circle might be seen as fair game, but most men still have a very tough time going after "taken" women. One of the most common excuses I hear from guys in the field for refusing to approach a woman is that "She probably has a boyfriend"
Men assume that women have the same set of ethical boundaries regarding sex as they do, but by and large, they do not.

What sort of society would we have if MEN did not establish and set ethical boundaries? - a good one, a bad one, neutral, simply different, or would it be the same?

The seduction community is "amoral" and advocates no ethics, and I find this extremely troubling.

Ethics go to the core identity and beliefs that males have about themselves, and their interactions with women. It has huge implications for everything from individual sarges to family structures on up to entire societies.

Feminism claims that we would have a perfect, utopian society if women were in charge of ethics. There would be no war, and a loving, non-competitive social structures.

...I'm not so sure....

Note that I am not promoting any particular ethical position. I'm simply pointing out that either men will set up ethical structures, or in their absence, women will.

What will the consequences be if men don't do it?

More debate about ethics and the seduction community

Below is a response to a client email taking me to task for promoting Acceptance, Compassion, Empathy, and Detachment on one of the seduction communitiy's message boards.

In it, I ask my client a series of questions about his values:

Me:
> 1) Are you ashamed that you study Pick-up and Seduction? Do you keep it
> secret? Does your family know about it? Your friends? The women you are
> close to?


Client:
not really, but i don't consider myself a pick-up artist. i
definitely share with people that i study human interaction, which is
more accurate as i've been reading about psychology and sociology
since i was a kid and majored in psychology in college, and mASF is
one small recent part of that. i've talked to everyne from chicks to
friends to my mom (who's a devout catholic, and actually agrees with
most everything i've said regarding meeting and interacting with
girls, i just leave out the sex when talking to her. she thinks modern
men are weak and is relieved to know that i don't think that way).

Me:
So sex is shameful? Why? Can you talk to your father openly about it? My mother is catholic, and we talk about sex....not explicitly of course, but we don't shy away from the topic - she knows about my lifestyle and ideas regarding women...I am not ashamed of anything I do socially, or the fact that I am sexual.

Client
but i do feel there's something inherantly lame in a person calling
themselves a pick-up artist.

Me:
Lol...yes

Client:
that shows that they define themselves
by their ability to pick up chicks, which is lame to a lot of people
because it's so outcome dependent, and dependent on CHICKS no less.
that's lame.

Me:
yup. Same with lables like "gay" and and "Bi" and "Fem" and "Emo" - things I'm currently being called on the boards....all while I lead a vibrant and open social and sex life with women...

Client:
just like salesmen are regarded by many as inherantly
lame. i define myself as an artist, .... whether or not i have a chick
around means absolutely nothing to my self worth or self definition.

Me:
You have DETACHMENT. Women generaly dislike men who are needy or clingy. They respect men with ambition and a sense of purpose and direction in thier lives.

Me:
> 2) If you are ashamed, ask yourself why....what is shameful about the
> community and what it teaches?
>
> 3) Ask yourself how and if my approach differes, if you do indeed sense that
> something is "not quite right" about the whole seduction community and it's
> approach to socialization.

Client:
i like the idea of "check your ethics at the door and let's figure
this shit out." that is pure science and how progress is made. are
some of the guys off? of course. you want ethics though? go to
church! the LAST thing dudes need on mASF is another holier than thou
motherfucker PREACHING ETHICS to them while they're trying to learn
how to get laid, esp when the rules of the board clearly state "no
ethics." dude the greeks figured out its best to check your ethics
1000s of years ago.

Me:
You just brought up ethics, not me. But since you did....

=)

Client:
also, you're "sensing" something "isn't right." that's chick shit
dude. women's intuition.


Me
"Chick shit"? another perjorative label....I love women, and don't consider what they do "shit" - eapecially thier cognitive starategies and emotional make-up. It may occassionaly be disfunctional or counter productive to happieness and well being, but then men have disfunctional cognitive strategies and beliefs too.

Do you think you are perfectly rational?

Men have no intuition? Intuition should not be trusted? You never have "gut" feelings? You don't take them into consideration when making decisions?

I believe the human mind is like a monkey (conciousness) riding an elephant (the unconcious). If the elphant really wants to go somewhere, it's going, and the monkey is just along for the ride.

Look at the stock market - that's run by MEN. You think it's RATIONAL?

Football, mountain climbing, mixed martial arts.

What about MUSIC?...lol....

Men are just as emotional as women, we delude ourselves into thinking we are not. Denial of our emotional make-up is weakness. It is the source of much unhappieness and pain and disfunction.

Client:
....acting on feelings. most of mASF is based
on raw scientific research without judgment.

Me:
"raw scientific research"?

c'mon...what we do at best rises to level of amature social anthropology. There are no formal studies, no control groups, and no peer reviewed journals.

True scientists would laugh at our methods - what we do is guided much more by intuition, hunches, feeling, and sensing than by cold hard logic. It must be - human beings are fluid and unpredictable creatures.

Client:
it even follows the
scientific method in having an idea, putting together a procedure that
tests it, putting that procedure to action in the field, and
summarizing the results. after being tested successful several times
in the field by different dudes, it becomes theory. thats what dudes
come to mASF for. not ethics. .

Me:
Eventualy all social, medical, and even physical science must confront ethics.

Ever hear of the hypocratic oath? Why do doctors make a vow to "First, do no harm"?

It goes back 2500 years to the Greeks.

Client:
now you ask yourself, why do you need to be mr. ethics on the mASF
board? what are YOU trying to prove? have you slipped into defining
yourself as a pick-up GURU and now need your angle? are ethics REALLY
the only place you're able to bring something new to the community?
could it be theres a hole there because EVERYONE ELSE CHECKS THEIR
ETHICS AT THE DOOR as is stated in the rules?

Me:
What are rules? Who made them? Why were they made? Are we allowed to question rules?

The very lack of ethics in the community constitutes an ethic. I'm simply questioning the form the ethics of community take, and thier utility for promoting happiness.

What is your meta purpose in studying seduction?

The guys I coach think that "getting pussy" is going to solve all thier problems and make them happy. Guess what?

It wont, at least not in and of itself. They are deluded in the same way lottery winners think money will solve all thier problems. The truth is sobering - but it's where I start with my clients, because what I promote is well being - sex is a part of that, but it is not sufficient to create it.

Nothing external is.

The thing is, once you reach a state of inner well being, sex will happen naturally and organically for you. You will no longer need "game" or status or any other external trappings. This is what I mean by Acceptance - you must have self acceptance before you can offer acceptance to others. It's actually selfish in that sense in that it operateson the principal of reciprocal altruism.

Client:
you know what happens when you color everything with ethics? you
become like every other religious fool that becomes absolutely
impossible to discuss and debate with. try having a rational
discussion about pro-life/pro-choice with a religious person. you
can't. you go to science, they go to ethics (the bible), and the
debate can't even begin! guess what? that's YOU right now on masf!

Me:
What interests me as that none of the masterminds have a cogent response to the points I'm making about historic seducers - both positive ones like Gahndi, and negative ones like Manson.

What exactly is the difference between them? They all use the same tactics like hypnosis, frame control, and dominance to impose thier will on others - to get others to follow them and do thier bidding.

What is the difference

Think about it....

Acceptance

Acceptance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Acceptance usually refers to cases where a person experiences a situation or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit. The term is used in spirituality, in Eastern religious concepts such as Buddhist mindfulness, and in human psychology. Religions and psychological treatments often suggest the path of acceptance when a situation is both disliked and unchangeable, or when change may be possible only at great cost or risk. Acceptance may imply only a lack of outward, behavioral attempts at possible change, but the word is also used more specifically for a felt or hypothesized cognitive or emotional state. Thus someone may decide to take no action against a situation and yet be said to have not accepted it.


Types:

Acceptance typically contains the concept of approval, it is important to note that in the psychospiritual use of the term infers non-judgmental Acceptance is contrasted with resistance, but that term has strong political and psychoanalytic connotations not applicable in many contexts. By groups and by individuals, acceptance can be of various events and conditions in the world; individuals may also accept elements of their own thoughts, feelings, and personal histories. For example, psychotherapeutic treatment of a person with depression or anxiety could involve fostering acceptance either for whatever personal circumstances may give rise to those feelings or for the feelings themselves. (Psychotherapy could also involve lessening an individual's acceptance of various situations.)

Notions of acceptance are prominent in many faiths and meditation practices. For example, Buddhism's first noble truth, "All life is suffering", invites people to accept that suffering is a natural part of life. The term "Kabbalah" means literally acceptance. Minority groups in society often describe their goal as "acceptance", wherein the majority will not challenge the minority's full participation in society. A majority may be said (at best) to "tolerate" minorities when it confines their participation to certain aspects of society. Acceptance is the fifth stage of the Kübler-Ross model (commonly known as the "stages of dying").

The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous describles the importance of acceptance in the treatment of alcoholism. It states that acceptance can be used to resolve situations where a person feels disturbed by a "person, place, thing or situation -- some fact of my life -- [which is] unacceptable to me". It claims that an alcoholic person cannot find serenity until that person accepts that "nothing happens in God's world by mistake" and that the condition of alcoholism must be accepted as a given.[1]

The realitionship between aggression, dominance, and penis size

I've been promoting the idea of interacting with others socially from an accepting, compassionate, empathetic standpoint for a couple of months now on

www.fastseduction.com

This has lead to a firestorm of controversy - especially from guys who advocate what's refer ed to as "Alpha Male" sexual selection theory.

This thoery states that "females only respond sexually to men who dominate social interactions with both other men (this is called "amogging" in the community - "Alpha Male, Other Guy") and with women.

They compare themselves to alpha male gorillas who fight off all the other males in a group, and build harems of female gorillas to breed with.

They have a point. We share around 96% of thier DNA structure as well as a common ancestor:

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."

They also say that men can build harems just like apes through dominant/agressive social behavior. So what are we to make of the fact that male gorillas have extremely small penises?

From Miller's "The Mating Mind"

"If we were a species in which males dominated the sexual system, we would have 1" penises like dominant gorillas" (Pg.236)

I therefore posit that human males who display excessive agressive or dominant behavior towards other males and females are endowed with very small penises.

Baddogs Law: There is an inverse/proportional relationship between social dominance and agression and penis size in human males.

The vairables can be defined thusly:

Let P= The product of penis lenth * girth

Let D= Agressive / Dominant behavior on the part of the human male on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing no agressive or dominant tendencies, and 10 being perfectly dominant and agressive.

Then we can state the relationship mathmatically as:

P=1/D

The resulting number is what I'll call the XXX Factor. The smaller the number, the shorter and skinnier the penis.

As an example, Martin Luther King would have a social agression and domninance value of 1

So according to Baddog's law, MLK had an XXX factor of 1, or an absolutely gargantuan penis due to his gentle spirit....he could probably have had sex with women in other zip codes...

Similarly, A guy like Charlie Manson (he was quite a player!) would have an XXX factor of .1 - ten times smaller than a guy like say, Ghandi. Now, just like dominant male gorillas, our friend Charlie got lots of girls:



Note that both Manson and MLK were ladies men...

This law seems to be borne out by pornography - John Holmes and Ron Jeremy, both males with freakishly large penises, are both reputed to be / have been very gentle, friendly, accepting males. Hundreds of women attended John Holmes funeral.

Note that women consistently report that "size matters". Not only that, they are always looking for physical behavioral cues that indicate a man's penis size. Everything from shoe size to middle finger length are posited in popular culture as indicative of this important metric.

More research needs to be done on this important topic.

For instance, is the relationship direct as I have posited, or is it exponential, fibbonachian, Fractal, or regulated by some other proportional progression?

Can males increase penis size by decreasing dominant / agressive behavior?

Are there similar inverse relationships between penis size and the size of a man's car, or the loudness of his exhaust system? His car stereo? The size of his muscles?

The cost of his pinky ring?

(Grabs popcorn....)

Handling Social Rejection

This topic comes up a lot in the personal e-mails I recieve -

Guys ask, "how can avoid rejection" or "I'm afraid of rejection" It's one of the biggest fears guys have - "what if she doesn't like me?". The pressure is on males to approach and lead interactions, and this can lead to paralysing fear.

The solution to fear of rejection is simple - go out and get "rejected".

A lot.

It's no big deal. I got "rejected" by a woman today - I offered her one of my trademark smiley face stickers, and she rejected it - right in front of a good friend of mine.

He said "Dude - that was EMBARASSING ....."

I said, "Yea, I know...silly girl ... she must be having bad day - she could have gotten a SMILEY FACE STICKER from me!"

Who knows....maybe her pet Anaconda choked death on her pet Chihuawawa that morning, and they are both dead. Seriously....I've come across all sorts of crazy things. Dont take it personally.

Again....rejection is all about your belifes. I actually feel sorry for the women who don't want to engage me - they are truly missing out on some fun. For god's sake, I'm BADDOG! One of the most fun, interesting guys in the world! They blew a chance to have a life changing interaction with ME.

Some women simply don't qualify for your time and attention....don't get hurt or angry at this - accept it, then move on to another girl immediately, right in front of her if at all possible....

....That's detachment. It will work wonders for your mindset if you practice it consistently.

Your beliefs are what matter if you wish to lead social interactions.

October Seminar Location

Here is a map to the seminar:


View Larger Map

I've rented a nice conference room....it should be a lot of fun - hope to see you there..

=)

Ethics and Dating

The philosophy of Acceptance, Compassion, Empathy, and Detachment has been causing a lot of trouble on mASF, the worlds oldest "Seduction" website:

http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=86638&fid=173

Without ethics, we become psychopaths, and mASF just a training ground:

At the risk of being labled and "emo, fem, ivory tower, pious, intellectual" I'll cite mainstream psychology:

From http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html

The Hare PCL-R contains two parts, a semi-structured interview and a review of the subject's file records and history. During the evaluation, the clinician scores 20 items that measure central elements of the psychopathic character. The items cover the nature of the subject's interpersonal relationships; his or her affective or emotional involvement; responses to other people and to situations; evidence of social deviance; and lifestyle. The material thus covers two key aspects that help define the psychopath: selfish and unfeeling victimization of other people, and an unstable and antisocial lifestyle.

The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:

glib and superficial charm

grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self

need for stimulation

pathological lying

cunning and manipulativeness

lack of remorse or guilt

shallow affect(superficial emotional responsiveness)

callousness and lack of empathy

parasitic lifestyle

poor behavioral controls

sexual promiscuity

early behavior problems

lack of realistic long-term goals

impulsivity

irresponsibility

failure to accept responsibility for own actions

many short-term marital relationships

juvenile delinquency

revocation of conditional release

criminal versatility

The interview portion of the evaluation covers the subject's background, including such items as work and educational history; marital and family status; and criminal background. Because psychopaths lie frequently and easily, the information they provide must be confirmed by a review of the documents in the subject's case history.

Results
When properly completed by a qualified professional, the PCL-R provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject matches the "perfect" score that a classic or prototypical psychopath would rate. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on how well it applies to the subject being tested. A prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders score around 22.


Think about it..... I'd say about half of those traits are strongly associated with mainstream sedcution tactics, things like

"Glib superficial charm" (routines)

grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self (Alpha Male Theory)

need for stimulation (Self explanatory)

pathological lying (Fake DHV stories, Patterns, etc)

cunning and manipulativeness (See above)

shallow affect(superficial emotional responsiveness)

callousness and lack of empathy (My personal favorite)

parasitic lifestyle (Player Supreme's glorification of financial exploitation of women - leeching off of them, having them support you - basic pimp / MAC lifestyle)

sexual promiscuity (The community raises this to a virtue - it's not the quality, it the QUANTITY)

many short-term marital relationships (This one is borderline - many PUAs reject mariage entirely)

I think we can all agree that Hitler was a psycho. He had no empathy for others, no compassion, and no acceptance. He was a bad guy - an extreme example of what a lack of those things leads to. He seduced an entire nation.

The seduction community was founded by guys who were in my opinion either psychopathic or at least borderline psychopathic personalities. They were geniuses at observing social interactions, then bending those interactions to meet thier own selfish desires. The advent of the internet allowed them to engage in "parallel processing" Psychopaths linking together, testing and sharing ideas across the world.

Read "The Game" and you see two of them clash in real life....

There is valuable, powerful information in this community, but it needs to be tempered with the sort of values I'm talking about. Without them, we become monsters.

With them....well, let's just say I'm getting everything I ever imagined I could get from the women in my life, and more....

The thing is, I give back to them as much or more....

Lessons in Social Calibration

Me:



The Competition:



GUESS WHO WINS?

As some of you know, one of my hobbies is Autoracing. It's a great way to get an adrenaline rush, and also requires a mix of intuitive and intelectual skills to perfect.

In my first season racing, I was awarded "Rookie of the Year" by my local club - one of the most winning groups in the nation, with several legendary National Class Champions in it's ranks. I see a lot of paralells between developing my skills as an Amature racing champion and a guy who's skilled in the social arts. Both took time, hard work, comitment and discipline.

The lesson I'd like to draw today comes from the numerous posts on my racing discussion forum from new guys asking "what are the best tires for my car" or "what are the best brake pads" or exhaust system, or fuel injectors, shocks, etc, etc, etc....

This is similar to the question I get on the social sites and via e-mail about "what is the best method for meeting women?" and "what should I say to a woman when I first meet her?"

Well, as with racing equipment, the truth might surprize you.

The "best" tires are the ones that give the most feedback and grip. The best brake pads are the ones that are easiest to modulate at the limit without lock-up. But when you are starting out, none of that matters until you "fix the nut behind the wheel":

Guys will spend thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars on high end sports cars and modifications, but NOTHING on real world practice and training. The only way to get good at autoracing is GO OUT AND RACE. Go to racing schools - and learn from guys that are at the top of thier game.

(You won't get good playing GT4 either...just like on-line dating is NOT true socializing)

I was like the others - I spent thousands on my car before taking a driving school. The modifications cut maybe 1 second from my lap times.

The school? 5 seconds, and it only cost me a couple of hundred dollars.

Likewise, if you can spend time with someone who is well calibrated socially, your improvement will be much more rapid than if you try to figure it out yourself. I used to let National Champions drive my car to see what it was capable of. After riding with them, my lap times would improve dramatically, because my self limiting beliefs would be challenged:

"I didn't know my car could do THAT!!!" I'd say, then promptly go out and match or even beat the times they had set.

So when socializing in mixed groups,It's important to calibrate to the people, the venue, and the particular circumstances you find yourself in - and not worry too much about the particular topic you introduce or method you employ.

...put another way, it's not what you say, it's HOW you say it. Pay attention to the feedback the people are giving you - the same way a racer adjusts to the particular car and race conditions.

The best guys adapt to changing conditions with ease, and are able to read situations quickly and intuitively - this is analgous to brake and throttle modulation in racing - you must develop a feel for the balance of the car and it's acceleration, weight transfer, and braking characterists if you ever hope to drive it quickly around a course.

(Yes - we race in the rain!)

To prove this to beginers when I teach auto racing, I'll often hop in thier cars, cars that they claim are "horrible" and turn in lap times 10 seconds faster than them in a sport where Championships are often decided by 1000ths of a second.

It's not the car that's the problem, its the driver.

Likewise, guys will complain to me in social settings that they are not rich, or good looking, are too old, or that there are too many guys in the venue for them to suceessfull socialize with the women there.

(Guess which car was faster in the rain - This 300hp Subaru WRX STI AWD):

.....Or my little 160 HP Honda Civic SI - FWD?

(I was faster this day...and I can prove it!)

Well, I'm 44, 5'9", balding, and have uneven front teeth from some bad bridgework. I'm not especially good looking:

So when I'm with a guy who is negative like this, I'll prove to him that the only thing that REALLY matters is your ATTITUDE in social settings. Mine is one of playfullness, openess, and accepatance of everyone. This sets the venue on fire, and as I ineract positively with people, my social proof grows, and soon, me and my group become the center of fun.

Below is another competitor who I used to beat on occassion - and he was a hair's breath away from a National Championship a few years back....

So stop worrying about finding that "one perfect routine". Just get out and start talking to people - men and women, and paying attention to how they react to you and the larger social setting. Focus on fun and leading the interaction with just a hint of sexual subtext, and you will have no trouble dating even the most beautiful women, no matter what you look like, how old you are, or what you own.

Oh, and just so you know, I regularly beat that red Camaro above in the local "Outlaw" class with my Civic SI. So don't ever think it's about your looks - it's about your SKILL.

Developing good social skills is like supercharging your car - you will SMOKE the so called competition when it comes to dating.

(...and Hawk HPS are my favorite autocross brake pads for the Honda Civic....)

=)

October Preliminary Seminar course outline

Here is my seminar course outline. Click in the upper right corner for a large view. Please feel free to share this file with anyone you think might benefit from it. Also, if you are planning on attending, post any suggestions as comments below.

Thanks!

Social Arts Lecture Outlines 001 - Upload a Document to Scribd

First Seminar spot is listed!

The first spot is up for auction - it's a 3 day auction, so act fast to reserve a spot.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250306946396

10% of the proceeds will be donated to the Mathew Shepard Foundation, since it was a major part of the inspiration for aced:

http://www.matthewshepard.org

Good luck, and thanks for looking

To all the people that Hate Acceptance, Compassion, Empathy, and Detachment

=P

Sexual Selection - How to be Attractive to Women

I just finished Scott Ridley's "The Red Queen," and I've been reading Geoffrey Miller's excellent "The Mating Mind" this week - Here are my conclusions regarding human female mate choice as it relates to human male sexual display:

1) Why men think things like Rolexes and BMWs are attractive to women
2) Why they are ultimately NOT as attractive to women.
3) Why intangible things are the most reliable "ornaments" for reproductive fitness -

Intelligence, generosity, humor and kindness - aced in short

Let's take these one by one, and put them in the context of human mating drives:
First, if we accept that humans are moderately promiscuous (not completely monogamous) animals, then other species like birds and apes show mate selection tactics that are driven by female choice.

This is because females invest much more in sexual encounters than males in species where there is not perfect monogamy. Albatrosses are perfectly monogamous, and the male makes significant investment in child rearing because of this. Sage grouse males are promiscuous, one male may mate with 30 or more female at a "lek" ( ritualized mating gathering, much like a human nightclub) where male birds gather to display their sexual fitness. Without going into the genetic theories, suffice it say that females benefit greatly by only mating with the MOST extravagant male, who has the best plumage and grooming. This is because such an extravagant, wasteful display ( the plumage dramatically DECREASES the males odds of survival) sub-communicate genetic fitness to the female bird - robust health, freedom from disease and parasites. Her offspring will thus inherit this fitness.

The more wasteful the display, the better the fitness - Peacocks are an extreme example of this. None of this is news to the Seduction Community - Mystery coined the term "peacocking" many years ago to describe how dressing to attract attention will inevitably increase a human male's chances of finding a mate in a night-club or bar.

What Mystery and others have neglected are the mechanisms by which Peacocking works, and also what limits it. Peacocking is not fundamentally about attracting attention - it is about sub-communicating genetic fitness. A ridiculous hat or outfit will attract attention, but then the female will TEST the male. If the male folds, she will be disappointed, or perhaps get an ego boost, but he will get nothing. So what is the female REALLY testing for?

Let's back up a bit and discuss attraction. Attraction seems to be the focus of most courtship behavior, especially male to female attraction. But wishing to be attractive is PASSIVE. It implies that the attractive person can just sit back and choose who to mate with. When men focus on being attractive, they are being passive. Problem is, passive men are NOT attractive to most females! Oh, the irony....the very act of trying to be attractive sows the seeds of unattractiveness. This is the male courtship paradox.

Our consumer driven society exploits this paradox, a paradox driven by the false premise that attraction from female to male is needed in the initial stages of courtship. It is not (more on that later) Mass culture reinforces this myth of attraction by showing pictures of buff, good-looking celebrity males with buff, good-looking celebrity females. The assumption is that beauty marries beauty, but in fact celebrities marry celebrities the same way royals marry royals - it's a class thing. Celebrities tend to be rich and good looking, so people draw the wrong conclusions about cause and effect....Correlation is not causation.

But occasionally, a glitch in the matrix appears -

Billy Joel marries Christy Brinkley:

or Rick Okasic marries Paulina Porizkova:

Well, what is going on here? Why do these supermodels, who could marry literally ANY of the hottest male models settle for TROLLS like these guys? These guys do not have "game" either.

Something else is at work....

Let's look at sexual selection and ornamentation through the lens of Evolutionary psychology and biology. In particular, the fact that animals, males in particular seem to evolve sexual ornaments that are both wasteful and costly. Females on the other hand evolve ways to detect fake ornaments. It is like an arms race - men trying to project an image of greater genetic fitness and women trying to detect fraudulent posturing. I know this sounds cynical, but nature is brutal. A female's genes have a vested interest in mixing with the best genes they can find. So do male genes.

This is the fundamental problem with using external peacocking strategies - they are doomed to failure because they can be exaggerated and/or faked. Go ahead - spend $5000 on a Rolex. With so many guys wearing FAKE Rolexes, the woman will not be impressed. Buy that BMW - all it means is that you have good credit...and if it's more than a year or two old, maybe you got it used. Maybe it's a rental. You are trying to show off wealth in a vulgar way that can be easily faked. These displays are costly and wasteful ONLY if they are real. Therefore, they are indicators of fitness only to the degree the female buys into their authenticity.
Diamond rings, flowers, expensive dinners, vacations, etc.etc., etc... can all be bought on credit - or easily faked.

Ever wonder why women obsess over whether the diamond is "real"?
A cubic Zirconium sparkles just as brightly, but costs just a fraction of a flawless diamond. It's because the diamond is WASTEFULL and USELESS that it has VALUE in courtship. If a man can afford to waste money on such a frivolous thing, he must be fit genetically, and the fact that he has given such a costly, wasteful thing to her means he is committed to helping her raise children - he is generous and trustworthy.

But wait you say... what about Rick and Billy above? How did they, with their awful, horrible, monstrous looks out-compete male actors and models with much better looks, and similar or even greater amounts of money?

HMMMMMMM????? HOW?????? I mean WTF, Right?

Ahhhh...Evolutionary thinking regarding the development of the human brain offers a way forward:

Ridley and Miller propose a striking suggestion- That human consciousness, art, science, and basically all creativity are the result of sexual rather than environmental pressure. Stated another way, Survival of the fittest is bullshit - what counts is sexiness. The human mind is thus the product of sexual rather than natural selection, due to an accidental preference of ancient females for clever males. If this is true, the implications are staggering. Rolexes denote "fitness" with regard to environmental pressure. The wearer has achieved a certain rank or status, in his environment (modern culture) and the timepiece reflect this.

Problem is, it can be easily faked.

Guess what CANT be faked?

Intelligence. Creativity. Humor. Kindness. Acceptance. Compassion. Empathy. Detachment...

lol...

So you see, females sexually select based on traits that are RELIABLE indicators of sexiness, because these traits are COSTLY and WASTEFULL. Monkeys do just fine in jungles with their puny little monkey brains - put any modern man up in a tree in a rain forest, and he will be screwed - big brain and all.

Put a monkey in a city, and I'll bet he does pretty well - just ask the Mayor of Deli, the Capital of India:

http://tinyurl.com/4mdffx

Oh, wait, you can't, because he is DEAD... The monkeys killed him.... =(

Humans do not need big brains for SURVIVAL - they evolved big brains for sexual selection as indicators of genetic fitness - at least this is Miller's claim.

Well, what does this have to do with Billy and Rick, or all the smart, lonely guys in the world? How did those horrible Ugs outcompete the buff, good-looking competition?

The question itself has a flawed premise - that females respond to physical beauty in the same way that males do. This is WRONG. Human females select for intelligence, creativity kindness, leadership, etc (not all females of course - just most). Physical attributes of "beauty", even "attractiveness" itself are irrelevant - she has a different set of biological imperatives than males, who seek to mate with as many women as possible of the highest fertility and fitness. Her fitness indicators are not the same as his, and thus she responds to different things.
So Rick and Billy get to marry supermodels because they are both in the right social caste, AND most importantly, are much more TALENTED and INTERESTING than the rich, pretty boy, brain dead actors and models that fill the supermodel's world.

This is fundamentally the mechanism by which Community tactics operate - it is NOT the tactics themselves that create "attraction" in the female, it is the way that skillful employment of them communicates that the user has a big, sexy brain. The fact that a man can learn this is even sexier! - what an expensive, wasteful endeavor! .....Years of study and field work...All to seduce a ME! He must LOVE women..... and he must be REALLY fit, and smart, confident, and tenacious to have mastered such a complex thing as human courtship and mating.
Cocky/funny, Speed Seduction, Mystery Method, etc, etc, etc are just ways of showing the woman how clever you are (sexual display). Add in Acceptance, Compassion, Empathy, and Detachment, and you will win her heart completely. Remember - women also select for moral and emotional leadership in males. Give her aced, and she will stick around for much more than a one night stand.

So get out there you geeks, and show off that sexy brain of yours to the women! Forget about the Rolex, the Gym, and the BMW....any idiot can do THAT. Make women happy, and good things will happen....I promise.

=)