tl;dr: A description of "The Wall" and how it affects a woman: declining looks, epiphany about her dating life and her new priorities, demographics, how men react to all this.

Body

There's this idea of "the wall" being some magic point of no return for all women where everything goes steadily downhill across the board and all women become ugly and undesirable from then on. This little revenge fantasy gets exacerbated by common complaints of women in their 30s not being considered "hot stuff" anymore (just read any opinion piece regarding dating written by a woman over 30, I dare you) and how superficial men are etc.

Plenty of redpill newbies assume that 30 is the magic mark where the SMP ultimately flips in men's favor because who would want a post-wall hag, amirite?! Well... no, it's not that easy. "The Wall" as such certainly has an impact on female dating, but it's more multi-layered than women just getting less pretty, it's also to a considerable extent self-inflicted by them.

1) Looks

Looks are arguably the most obvious consequence of hitting the wall. Now it's not as if the very day a woman turns 30 (or 32, or 27, or whatever someone's personal hard limit is), she suddenly becomes unfuckable. Far from it - a woman will be able to get the sexual attention of men above her league far longer than that (though the point where "above her league" starts of course will become lower with age). But the problem is that looks of women usually do decline during the years between someone's mid 20s and early 30s (which isn't even a decade), and for a lot of them, it's the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Sure, there are women who don't really change. Maybe they just have great genes and take great care of themselves and as a consequence age very slowly, maybe they are so outrageously attractive that them not looking the way they did 10-15 years earlier hardly makes a difference, maybe they were the opposite extreme (pretty unattractive to begin with and as a consequence had no looks to lose in the first place), maybe they actually managed to improve their looks because they had a poor style but then decided to start put some effort into grooming themselves (yeah, this happens to women as well).

However, the thing is: most average-looking women have the potential to at least look decent in their early 20s, provided they put effort into their appearance (the same applies to men too, by the way), and will be able to generate male attention accordingly. However, after that the physical decline starts which can also be compounded by other factors on top of that (work-related stress, the partying lifestyle starts to show, weight is put on easier once one hits late 20s etc.). In other words, for a significant number of women, the timespan mentioned above is exactly that point in their lives where their looks go from "cute" to "meh".

2) The Bio Clock and a change in priorities

Looks, however, are just the external indicator of someone's bio clock, with declining looks commonly coinciding with declining fertility. Now it's not as if women were idiots. Sure, some who have read too many "you go girl"-articles that claimed what an incredible cakewalk it is to get kids at the age of 40, but the average woman who wants kids should be sufficiently lucid to be aware of the fact that she can't postpone getting her bun in the oven forever. Or even if she doesn't, but just wants to settle down into a permanent relationship (assuming she doesn't have one), she should be aware that at some point living in the moment or having casual relationships doesn't cut it anymore.

Which means for a specific demographic (female, single, late 20s/early 30s, wants kids and/or a stable relationship), a change in priorities might occur - while before that point, attraction was of paramount importance that dwarved anything else, now reliability and willingness to commit become increasingly important. And here a woman who had a careless attitude towards dating before but now starts to put any suitors under heightened scrutiny may realize that the root of her abundance mentality - all these attractive guys communicating interest in her - was mostly virtual: most of these guys might have been willing to have sex with her, maybe even dating her more or less casually, but when it came to sticking to her, marrying her, having kids with her? That's an entirely different matter. So, in other words: on top of what she wanted before (hotness) comes not only stability (which was easy to compromise on as long as it wasn't crucial) but also commitment. And all this at the point in her life when her ability to get male attention is suffering.

3) The demographic shift

1) and 2) produce a demographic shift, which in turn compounds the issue for women. When they're young, they are desirable for men. Attractive men from all walks of life consider young women more attractive, if OKC is an indicator. A young woman aged 22 can cast a wide net, because not only are guys her age attracted to her and consider her relationship material, but so do plenty of older men as well: a guy aged 30 dating a woman in her early 20s is not exactly the norm, but far from being strange or terribly unusual. The inverse? Not so much. And besides, it doesn't even stop at 30, she can always go higher if she's inclined to do so. The guys her age on the other hand aren't as free when in either direction. Going lower than 17-18 is fishy (and in plenty of places illegal), trying to go higher than 24-25 will usually result in failure because most women don't date down age-wise on principle (or at least they say so).

Now around 30 her orientation shifts. Now she is in the place where her age peers (or at least the more desirable ones) can date comfortably outside of their own demographic while she probably won't go down (to men without status) nor will she be willing to go up (to men with baggage).

4) The male role

And if that wasn't enough, the reaction of the hitherto available men changes as well (if they're still on the market, which is a separate problem in itself when it comes to men who are both attractive and commitment-minded).

The first thing is: even guys who would generally be willing to commit to a specific woman might be put off by her new approach. It's one thing to meet a funny, light-hearted woman and get into an open-ended relationship with her, and it's entirely different to meet one who treats dating like a job interview and relationships like a timeline where she expects marriage by the end of year 1 and kids by the end of year 2. Where thing like getting to know each other and simply enjoying life without everything being serious business, and without her pressuring you every step of the way (for more commitment, for kids, for better provisioning, etc.) is a thing of the past. Like someone at the askmen-sub has said, refering to this problem: "women over 30 simply aren't fun to date".

On top of that her fertility also becomes an issue: if the guy wants at least 2 kids, but doesn't want them right off the bat (getting to know each other and all that), a 33 year old woman becomes a real gamble, one he might not want to risk. Ultimately, this means that guys her age who are desirable enough might decide to try their luck with women a few years younger instead to avoid all that hastle.

And the last thing is: male priorities change - because it's also guys who start to "know what they want". There's a specific demographic among my friends - guys who weren't players and weren't "having fun" in their 20s, but didn't fall into the desperation-induced "oh my God I have to marry the first woman who asks me too!!!111"-mode in their 30s either. Guys who would never have thought that they would be into the lothario-lifestyle because they considered themselves romanticw became a lot more output-oriented in their relationships with women after they gradually removed themselves from the bluepill narrative. Guys who would have been very willing to commit permanently even to a shitty deal decided to take a step back and play the game anew, only this time with them having an edge.


Basically, this is what The Wall means.

Not the decay that takes away all a woman's attractiveness or appeal in a short timespan. Not something that affects every woman negatively (some never "dated around" in the first place, but were always pretty realistic about their odds, others were fortunate and found the man of their life early on, some are actually comfortable being single etc.) - but for a certain group of women (who are coincidentally those who are looking for a relationship around the age of 30, which is the group TRP warns you about the most) it is a perfect storm that puts everything she was used to when dating and came to expect of it on its head. A point in her life when she realizes that assumptions she took pretty much for granted (that she'll be able to lock down an attractive man when she considered the time right) simply don't apply; that life isn't what it used to be (if it ever was) and that she starts being aware of it, no matter how much she resists.

And this is also why it affects the dating scene. Think of it: women have higher standards and feel less (intrinsic) pressure to mate than men. As a consequence, they're more likely to hold out for a better man as long as they think they can afford it (i.e. during their teens and 20s). Some women abstain from sex and relationships, others hope to bone their way into relationships (only to get dumped), others again fuck reasonably hot but otherwise not very datable guys if they feel the need. But all of these types have in common that they try to partner up with a guy who is overall more attractive than they actually can get.

Now of course not all women fail with that tactic, and it's also not as if all women behaved that way, but this situation certainly influences the SMP: Due to the fact that many women think they can afford to hedge her bets on dating up, a female is less likely to date a male who is the same percentile of overall attractiveness as she is than vice versa - even if he is absolutely willing to commit to her.

Because men on the other hand are far more willing to compromise in that regard; and if they have internalized the feminine imperative (i.e. most guys these days), they're looking for commited relationships out of their own free will. I.e. they don't use commitment as a bargaining chip, but are offering it to any woman they fancy without strings attached. However, even though the tide turns slowly over the years (as men gather relationship experience, they become gradually more comfortable with asking for more earlier on), the true gamechanger comes around aforementioned wall. Because once they reach that point, women start to actually desire commitment more than (reasonably desirable) men: they realize their biological clock is ticking, that they finally have to settle down before it's too late. However, due to the fact that they aren't alone, the tables are turned against them, probably for the first time: basically, every year you get a new age group of wall-hitters who have postponed settling down until it's too late (now we all know the NAWALT stories of how individual women started blossom only in their late 20s and where more desired when they should have hit the wall, but regardless of these outlier stories, women collectively are in a harder place around that age than they ever were before).

The men in the same age group who up until that point were mostly in an inferior position when it came to dating suddenly get the upper hand: not only do they have younger women who are potentially open to the idea of dating them, but also women of the same age (and also a few older ones) who are far more compliant and interested than they ever were before: it's at that point that male commitment truly becomes as valuable as TRP says it is; and a man may be able to poach a (matured, but still good-looking) woman in a higher percentile of attractiveness when he's willing to wife her up.

Lessons learned: Why the wall can be mean to women who dropped the ball for too long.