Disclaimer: This is a long post about an evolutionary theory. It does not contain any new actionable advice, any novel reports from the field, or a TLDR. It is about a different way of looking at women biologically, and what this perspective has to say about why things are the way they are. I believe a deeper understanding of women is relevant to bedding them though, if only indirectly, and it is impossible to predict the actionable insights that may be gained in the future by applying different evolutionary models to gender relations.

I am also not necessarily trying to claim that this is the only, or even a major, contributing factor to all the trends and traits I am implicating it in. The point of this post is simply to explain the idea and get it out there so more brains can crunch on it.

I have tried to do my due diligence to see if this theory has been proposed before, and did not find anything. I would be interested to read anything relating to the topic, so if any of you know of something let me know. And I apologize in advance if this is an old idea that has already been explored.

That said, if you are still interested, please come along with me on this journey of speculative broscience.

​

---​

​

A few nights ago, I was at the bar with a friend of mine who just got out of a relationship. He is pretty blue pill, but is still quite good socially and fun to hang with, so I've been trying to wingman for him and give him a good example as I practice my game.

We have been regulars at this place on and off for years and have good social capital there, such that we are recognized and most everyone loves us. I feel very AMOG in the environment, and with my new physique and red pill awareness I attract women to us easily.

Anyway, on this particular evening we were talking to this group of five women outside. I remember I made a joke that insulted their intelligence, after which we were immediately invited to accompany them to another bar. We agreed, and all walked the short distance to the next venue.

Now, I've been married since before I took the pill, so my only personal exposure to preselection effects after taking it has been the effect of dread on my wife (I think of dread as a subcategory of preselection), and the vague feeling I get that women are actually slightly more flirtatious while I am wearing my wedding ring. On this night though, the true power of preselection was exposed to me - we walked into that bar with five women behind us and were instant stars with the rest of them. So many women were suddenly interested in watching me suck at shooting pool; it was truly surreal.

Later, on my way home, I was smoking some bud and thinking about that moment when we entered the second bar, when I had the idea that prompted this post.

​

---​

​

Imagine our evolutionary ancestors struggling for survival. Initially, raw physical strength would have been the most important trait for survival, and so women developed a taste for muscular men. Females are the selectors with less genetic variation, while men are the genetic experiments that they choose from, and over time the propensity for making good choices is burned into female DNA by natural selection. Muscles were a good indicator of survival ability, so women came to like muscles.

As we became more intelligent and social as a species, the ability to be psychologically strong and socially dominant gradually became more important to our survival than even physical strength. However, there is no easily assessed phenotypic proxy for social dominance - it can only be gauged through many observations of actual social interaction, and can also be faked, so testing for this trait is very time consuming and energy expensive. Over time, the women who were best at evaluating this trait in males were selected for, as the children of more socially dominant men were more likely pass on their genes.

Concurrently, the time and effort required to nurture a baby human to something resembling self-sufficiency was also increasing with our intelligence and socialness. Children were more likely to survive if they had both parents around during this time of their lives, and so a period of attachment between mother and father was selected for, which increased in duration as the time required to raise children did.

Now we have a situation where women are becoming master detectors of cues of social dominance, and they are also intermittently becoming attached to a particular man for a good period of time. Through this process men have actually developed a secondary sexual trait that indicates social fitness - their women.

Nature loves a shortcut, and testing for social dominance is so expensive and scattershot that now there is evolutionary pressure for women to skip out on doing the testing themselves. Over time evolution selects for the women who save resources by using preselection as a proxy for social fitness when possible.

​

---​

​

This was the realization I came to on that walk. I was imagining us entering that bar from the perspective of a woman who was already there - in we walk with five women in their colorful finery, light glinting off of their jewelry, arrayed behind us like the tail feathers of a peacock...

Much has been made in the manosphere about women evolving to be excellent detectors of social dominance, but what I think has been overlooked is that due to this there is also massive evolutionary pressure for them to be excellent fitness indicators for the men they attach themselves to.

How could evolution improve women's ability to act as fitness indicators?

​

  • Make them prettier and easy to notice

This explains why humans are a very rare example of a species where the female selector of mates is also the "pretty" sex. And why women want to adorn themselves and be as pretty as possible. And why they crave attention so desperately. Their propensity for an attractive appearance evolved in part because it makes them more effective fitness indicators. Perhaps this is also why women find other women beautiful, wear make up to impress other women, and are more likely to be bisexual or aroused by their own gender - female companions are a secondary sex characteristic of men, so women are attracted to themselves.

​

  • Make them a more reliable proxy

Women are so susceptible to being dominated because submitting to dominance increases their signal to noise ratio as social fitness indicators. This also drives women to get better and better at testing men. And it likely partially drives hypergamy as well - a woman who settles for a lesser man, or who fails to branch swing to a better option, is not as good of a fitness indicator. This helps explains how women developed such high standards.

​

  • Make them crave attachment

Why are women so sad on their own? Why do they want longer term commitments? A woman who is not attached to a man is not providing any male fitness information to other women. Even a woman you have never met before will attach herself to you if she perceives you as alpha enough; she will almost always still expect you to open in order to prove your social fitness, but she will come stand next to you and serve as a genetic beacon to other women.

​

  • Make them trust each other

This is one reason for their gullibility and in group bias - they've evolved to trust each other's opinions. #BelieveWomen

​

  • Make them more expensive

This is the funniest and most interesting consequence to me. Why are women so demanding of time, attention, and physical and psychological resources? Why do they try to break you down, hamstring you, or fatten you up? Why is a peacock's tail so unwieldy and extravagant? Because a male that can support such a resource sink and still be awesome, must be very awesome indeed.

Women were always expensive if you wanted to get functional children out of the deal, but this has snowballed into a situation where evolution has molded them over time to want more and provide less. What is a better fitness indicator than a black hole that forever tries to take all your resources?

​

The dynamic likely also has an impact on male traits. One that comes immediately to mind is men's extreme jealousy and possessiveness. When our girl goes off with another guy, we are not only potentially losing access to mating opportunities with her, but our chances of attracting other women are also reduced.

​​​​

---​

​

Because of humans' slow development and great dependence on social skills, evolution has managed to abstract a major fitness indicator of males onto females. This hack has allowed humans to obtain the evolutionary benefits of a good male fitness indicator, while still allowing male evolution to continue in a direction toward pure functionality.

It is also a way that our species can sort of have its cake and eat it too. A traditional fitness indicator like a peacock's tail, while providing a net benefit, is really a waste of resources. It is an expensive way to transmit a small amount of information. For us, even if we dump a ton of resources into surrounding ourselves with beautiful women, at least the women get to use those resources to help themselves and their children.

Our evolutionary history, and current cultural clusterfuck, can be reconceptualized as a Fisherian runaway scenario in which women are exercising their preference for male ornamentation - while simultaneously acting as the ornament!

We've used the evolutionary benefits conferred by women's choosiness to create complex social organizations and specialize, giving us more access to resources, and more opportunities to appear alpha by being a big fish in a small pond.

And still our tails clamor at us, "Give us more! Make us more valuable, more beautiful, such that we can delight in ourselves ever further!" But we are now reaching the limits of our ability to generate excess wealth, and our smaller social organizations are crumbling or merging. Culture and technology are making a larger portion of the population socially useless. Our feathers have grown comically long and fat, and the contrivances we have used to prop them up and allow them to get to this point are falling apart at the same time that quality males for them to decorate are becoming more rare.

How it will all play out is anyone's guess, but it seems that at some point in our evolutionary history, women went off to find themselves. As usual though, what they actually found were alpha men - hiding inside of our DNA the whole time.