A woman’s propensity to sluttery requires a favorable context before she can fully realize her puss-parting potential. Reader welcomerain introduces the sexual market concept of “slut velocity”:
I think the issue here is that we estimated [these women’s cock counts] based on cocksas velocity in identical environments, not absolute cocksas in their individual cocksaspheres.. The middle skank’s greenly steaming, mephitic slimehole is still attracting desperate losers, and she’s cleared the runway to accommodate them. The Puerto Rican may be willing to maintain velocity, but I’m guessing she gets even fewer takers than the white chick if they were in similar cocksas markets.
That number is what I think we read into their looks. Yes, accumulation of past cocksas affects their current soul-deadness and therefore willingness to be the port in every storm, but I think what CH was assessing was slut-velocity in equal markets. I know I was.
LOL. In slut humor there is great truth. Yes, I based my judgment on an assumption that the women were operating within identical cockas markets, but that assumption is of limited usefulness. Too theoretical, needs refinement with real world variables, such as the fact that white cockas are gonna pass right over black vagllzlz, even if the white vagllzlz is older, wrinklier, and looser. But in a black cockas environment, Peurto Rican chick can easily amass 150+ cockas because black cockas are less discriminating.
Look at the photos of these five women of varying sexual experience.
Based on their physiognomies and expressions, can you guess which ones are chaste and which ones have all-access passes to the cock carousel? One of these women, incredibly, has permitted 150 cocks to rotor through her tunnel of love. (Which means more like 300 cocks, given the female self-report rule to double every crotch notch she admits to having accumulated.)
I’ll take my shot. From left to right:
Avaricious has-been slut (the 150-cock count winner)
I base my evaluations on these indicators:
Left-most blonde woman in blue dress has that classic “over-happy” look that cock-addicted women put on to conceal emotional torment. She looks wound up. If you use your hand to cover up the lower half of her face, you can’t miss the aggression and anger in her eyes. And notice how she holds her hands; clasped and cupping her vagina area. With women, this is a subconscious revelation that her vagina is the center of her existence and she offers it up tenderly to the fertility gods, like she’s releasing a piece dove.
Second-from-left woman is black and fat. Hate to say it but those are two major slut tells. However, she has a soft, friendly face, marked by a natural sincere smile and open raised eyebrows. She might be a sassy ho or one of those rare down-home ladies who likes to snuggle and dream of starting a family. My guess is that she’s sluttier than average, but not by much. (She may also not have had many opportunities to collect cocks, because men will pass over fatties if thinner alternatives are available.)
The middle cougar in the red dress is my choice for Slut of the Group (SLOG). 150 cocks looks about right for her, based on her age, short hair, ruby red lipstick, slightly crazy eyes, and deeply cut dress displaying what’s left of the bounce and fullness of her cleavage. And if you look closely, you’ll see she has a masculine digit ratio. DTF! (but suppleness is running out, so act fast.)
The Puerto Rican chick second-from-right is, again, black, and all the data we have on the matter shows that black women are as a rule sluttier than women of other races. The neck tilt is a classic female submission gesture, presenting to the male for ravishment. But coy women with low Ns do this too, so it’s not definitive. However, her bangles indicate that she’s adventurous once you get her in the bedroom. And her manjaw is impressive, cutting a sharp precipice from chin to ear. Verdict: AY YI YI SLUT. (100+ cocks)
Redhead at the far right is the chaste girl. Modest dress, unassuming stance, little make-up or jewelry, and from what I can see no fingernail polish (or very faint understated polish). But the only features you really need to look at to tell she’s no slut are her eyes and smile, both of which exude a natural, unforced warmth. Her eyes especially betray an inner calmness and deep satisfaction. This is a woman with a one cock gaze of love.
Have you readers taken your Chateau-educated guess? Good. Cross-check your results with the actual slut numbers from the story about these women.
Let’s see how I did.
Blondie: 102 cocks
MARKETING consultant Hattie Isaacson, 38, from Watford, says her number put some men off, but not husband Paul. [ed: beta]
She says: “I first had sex when I was 16 and it was the start of a good few years of doing it regularly.
“When I was young and single I liked to play the field and have sex whenever I could.
“My active sex life did mean I picked up chlamydia five times. I was on the pill so I didn’t always use a condom, which was silly.
“I had friends with benefits for years and I slept with a lot of interesting people when I went travelling when I was 22. I’ve kept a log of every man I’ve ever slept with so I don’t forget any.
Eat, pray, slut for the pyrrhic win. One has to wonder about the mental health and fidelity risk of a woman who kept a log of all the logs she holed (so she “doesn’t forget any”). Her husband has to be either a supreme beta or a gives-no-fucks alpha with pieces on the side.
I’ll give my slut guess a “HIT” for this woman.
Blackie: 3 cocks
“The final guy I slept with is the father of my son.
“I knew him at school too and we’d always had a connection but never acted on it.
“I was 20, and the first time we slept together I got pregnant. It wasn’t planned so it caused a few problems and I am currently single.
“I’m proud that I’ve only slept with three people — most people my age have slept with far more.”
Three cocks is low for any woman in our Houellebecqian Western sexual market dystopia, but it’s particularly low for a black woman. She’s definitely defied sterotypes (if she’s telling the truth).
I vacillated coming to a slut judgment (sludgment?) about her, but ultimately was too harsh. I’ll give myself a “MISS”.
Cougar: 35 cocks
“Bringing up four children doesn’t leave much time for sex so for over a decade my sex life was virtually nil.
“I never cheated on my husband, but by the time we got divorced we were not having much sex.
“We got divorced when I was 33, and when I eventually started meeting new men, I loved feeling free again and was able to indulge myself for a while.
“I really enjoy male company and see nothing wrong with having an active sex life if you are safe doing it.
How much has abortion, condoms, the Pill, and penicillin altered the sexual market? Rhetorical.
“In many ways I am making up for lost time.
Women who say this are super easy. You’ll go to pound town on the first date.
“In fact, I would be happy to get my number up to over 50, I have no problem with that.
“Most men don’t ask me how many people I’ve slept with, but if they do I always tell them the truth and I’ve yet to have a bad response.
She dates needy betas with limited mate options.
“It has been a bit of a turn-on for some because they know I know what I’m doing, and I’m also not clingy afterwards.”
Sluts love to hamsterize their cock gobbling as a victory for experience over bedroom ineptitude, but the truth is that sex isn’t complicated. Leg spreading isn’t rocket science.
Ok, I was off on this woman, but to be fair, 35 cocks is still a lot of cock, and she admits she would’ve racked up a much higher cock count had she not had four children early in life, and then asserts that she would happily love to crest 50 cocks.
Nevertheless, she’s not the number one slut.
My score: MISS (on a temporal bias technicality)
Puerto Rican: 150 cocks
ALESHA, 30, and son Justin, four, live in Stockwell, South London.
Single mom. Get ready for a no muss, no fuss easy lay.
She says: “I lost my virginity aged 16 to a guy at school. Like most of my friends’ first experiences it was awkward, but a relief too.
“At 17, when I started going clubbing, I’d meet and sleep with a man most nights. Men are usually quite easy to persuade into having sex.
If you aren’t 200 pounds or look like Hillary Clinton.
“I wouldn’t say I was addicted, I just saw sleeping with someone as part of a night out. By 20 I’d slept with over 100 men.
“I don’t regret my encounters. I just had a high sex drive. At times I felt like a predator. I do think my number is pretty high but I see nothing wrong with it.
I called 100+ cocks for this woman, so I’m giving myself the HIT. And it sounds like at age 30 she’s not ready to slow down, so she could quickly hit 150, 200, or more cocks.
Redhead: 1 cock
FULL-TIME mum Lara Eventide, 35, lives in Uxbridge, Middlesex, with her husband of 11 years, Chad.
They have a son aged seven and a 20-month-old daughter.
Lara says: “I was in my mid-teens when I met Chad at high school. We were just friends for four months then, one summer night, we revealed our love for each other.
High school romances are often the deepest, strongest, and longest-lasting loves a woman will ever feel. Not all end happily, but all leave a permanent imprint on a woman’s psyche.
“We started dating just days after I finished school in 1999. I had kissed five boys before but Chad was the only one I fell head over heels for and he has been the only man I have ever shared any sexual experiences with.
“We first had sex shortly after starting dating. We were both 17 and it was really special.
I have counseled that it’s always better to have sex sooner rather than later, because the best long-term relationships start with a foundation of uncontrollable passion. The key, if you want to avoid getting hitched to a slut OR a prude, is to see evidence in those first delirious dates of your woman working hard to contain her sexual ardor for you if she doesn’t want to give her sex away too quickly.
My score: HIT
I got three hits and two misses, but my misses were not totally off the reservation. This score reflects my real world experience; I have pretty good slutdar, and have never completely whiffed by mistaking a hardcore slut for a chaste, magical White girl. All men should be able to identify sluts, because knowledge is power. The moar you know…
A tragicomic coda: Maybe as little as sixty years ago only the 1 cock redhead would be considered by the general public a chaste woman of good repute and marriage worthiness. Even 3 cocks would have been deemed the work of the devil. Now, of course, no one bats an eye if a woman rolls into marriage with a long trail of cock memories shadowing her. If anything, a trad-chad who objects to dating or marrying a modren woman with a triple digit cock count is shamed for perpetuating oppressive patriarchal double standards.
Sluts do not come “in all shapes and sizes”; they fall into archetypes that are noticeable to even the untrained beta goober eye. This post briefly profiles the stereotypical slut appearance and behavior, with the caveat that these observations by yours truly are broad (heh) generalizations. Plenty of exceptions to the rules exist, and this is so because nature has deemed it beneficial to bestow women a valuable coin of the reproduction realm: skill in the art of deception, of others and herself.
For instance, despite my general impression that ultra-feminine girls are less slutty than mannish girls, there are certainly very dainty, coquettish, eternal ingenues who play men like a fiddle for their resources and pack on a surprising amount of cockage over the years as man-eaters in pixie’s clothing. So the wary (or opportunistic) man reading this post would be wise to use it as a loose (heh) guide rather than a precise schematic.
FYI, “cock count” is a lovingly scientifical term to describe how many sex partners a woman has had in her life to date.
Why do masculinized, liberal women have higher cock counts? My theory — one that will no doubt be validated by SCIENCE! in a few months’ time — is that the key variable isn’t the intensity of female horniness but rather the presence of female disinhibition. Masculine women, like men, skew toward risk-taking and have fewer inhibitions than feminine women. They are less coy about their wants and (probably) less regretful about fulfilling those wants (at least during the immediate aftermath of their hookups). And liberal women, like liberals generally, have a stronger novelty-seeking compulsion and higher disgust thresholds, which together mean they aren’t as prone to existential crises about noncommittal casual sex as are conservative women.
I don’t see that feminine, conservative women are any less horny than masculine, liberal women, but they are certainly less inclined to act on their horniness with the perfunctory freewheeling attitude that your garden variety slutty urban SWPL chick brings to the bedroom.
Men can do one of two things with this darkly dank information: help them identify which women will go all the way right away… or which women would make good LTR girlfriend or wife material. The two goals are mutually exclusive in the whole (allowing for overlap at the margins).
Be careful with this knowledge. There’s no free munch. Long-term, low cock count women are a much better bet for relationship stability (and hence, for paternity certainty and divorce theft avoidance). But those low cock count women come with a price: lower sexual drive. If you like to bang, and bang a lot, you may become unhappy with a chaste low N girl who’d rather dream of babies and gossip with her girlfriends than ride you through the night into the morning. One mitigating advantage men with aggressively high horny levels have at their disposal, should relationship stability be their primary concern, is that, as a reader has reminded, on average men have a higher sex drive than women anyhow, and it’s “better to ‘work [a low cock count woman’s libido] up’ (probable) than to ‘tame [a slut’s vivacity] down’ (not possible)”.
Men care more about any particular woman’s cock count in proportion to the length of time they want to spend with that woman. A woman’s cock count cutoff for a man is highly dependent on his intentions with her. ONS? No cutoff. Fun fling? A cock count higher than twenty will gross a man out (even if he won’t admit it). Marriage? Any number over ten will seriously make a man question his decision to nuptially shackle himself. Ideally, most (non-black) men would love to marry a woman who’s a virgin, or more liberally (given current sexual market realities) who has accumulated no more than three cocks in her lifetime.
One of the illest feelings in the world for a man is to find out post-cock ergo cocker that the woman he loves and committed himself to has a sexual history that would rival Genghis Khan’s. This feeling will percolate no matter how much his woman loves him presently or swears her fidelity to him in future; these are primal attractions and repulsions that modern society with its platitude carpet bombing and gogrrl glorification and emasculation affirmations will never banish from the hindmind of man. That’s why it’s so critically important that alpha males teach beta male buddies, and shitlord dads teach pre-brainwashed sons, how to identify sluts and exploit them for pleasure biding or avoid them for patriarchy building.
Krystal Ball, a “trickle down media whore“, was on MyGyn Kylly’s show last night to menstruate about Trump’s private “pussygrab” locker room talk and how it’s insulting to men (yeah right…maybe to her limp noodle of a husband).
That last pic is great. There’s Krystal Ball getting groped by the tart in the plaid skirt and having her vagina selfied. This is a woman who deserves to be “championed” and “revered”, right Cuckryan?
Lemme clue in any white knight betacucks who may be reading and wondering if ALL LIBERAL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT.
Short answer: yes.
I’ve been to probably close to a thousand of these urban SWPL shitlib parties over the years, coast to coast and north to south, just like the one Krystal is at in those pics (except with more friends), and shitlib women are a sloot parade waiting for their marching orders. The hypocrisy of the typical urban slut is boundless, and effortless. They’ll feign OUTRAGE in the morning over some bawdy grabbadocio from a man whom the Politburo media has deemed the next Hitler, then that very same night spread their pussy lips for a selfie stick and suck down nose dildos.
These shitlib sluts have no shame, no integrity, and no self-awareness. It’s womanish herd mentality all the way down.
Every Amendment after the 10th was a mistake. They all have to go back. America wouldn’t be circling the drain today if the Constitutional tinkering had stopped at the Bill of Rights.
This won’t surprise anyone. Krystal Ball’s house eunuch husband:
What a fucking load of low T! Nice lean-in and desperation elbow clawing, once and future cuckold. Yeah no wonder she thinks men are “insulted” by Trump’s masculine banter. Her husband probably menstruated on the spot!
More pics of shitlib slut Krystal Ball. Here she is whoring for Israel. (All these personal details seem to go together, ya know?)
And here she’s virtue signaling hard for her black lover.
Ok, I don’t know for certain that she mudsharked with this dude, but I’d bet good money on it. Look at her face. That’s a slut eye-thousand black cock stare combo for the ages!
Tangentially related: On Lew Rockwell’s site, a great article about the RNC-DNC collusion.
Btw, this whole pussygrab story is such bullshit on stilts. I thought shitlibs were big fans of “context” and “nuance”? Point of fact: Trump didn’t say he grabs pussy without consent. He said women will “let you grab pussy” if you’re rich and famous. Which is goddamned motherfucking true. But women don’t want to face their sexual nature so starkly revealed. Freaks in the sheets, hypocritical schoolmarms on the streets.
Answer: Marry a younger, hotter, tighter babe. You’ll never want to leave her. (“the best thing about high school girls….i get older and they all stay the same age”)
Less succinctly, a blogger by the handle Free Northerner put together a fact sheet compiled from CDC data to help men reduce the chance they’ll get ground up in the remorseless gears of the divorce industrial complex.
Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.
A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.
A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky*. Do not marry a slut.
I don’t disagree with any of Free Northerner’s prescriptions for a divorce-free life, (except that the best defense is eternal bachelorhood). The data are clear, insofar as the data go.
The problem is that the data mask a deeper undercurrent that primarily influences divorce risk: spouse options.
Recall the infamous CH maxim:
Options = Instability.
A wife who feels like she can do better, or who has numerous suitors of equal or higher SMV than her husband, is a divorce-via-infidelity-and-boredom waiting to happen.
Similarly, a husband with lots of sexual market options will be greatly tempted to stray, or even abandon his wife, if his bang options on the extramarital market are better than his authorized intramarital outlet. The main difference between the two scenarios is that a husband with options is less likely to nuke his marriage than a wife with options, the husband preferring instead by the harem-building nature of his maleness to maintain marital appearances and a loyal wife at home while satisfying his carnal urges with side pieces.
Female sluttiness (measured by premarital cock count) and female education are the two biggest factors governing divorce risk for men, and both factors are emergent properties of the CH Options Theory of Divorce Odds.
Female sluttiness may not immediately strike the reader as necessarily an indication of female options, but it is in both direct and roundabout ways. First, remind yourself that the majority of women in the middle of the SMV belle curve have as a condition of their sex far more *sexual* options than do men. A 7 can spread her legs and have a thousand men lined up to take her to pound town. A male 7 has no such surfeit of options; he has to work for the few he gets. Even a male 10 unzipping in a roomful of horny broads won’t have as many willing participants as a female 7 would have unzipping at a closeted homosexual National Review loveboat cruise.
Given this inherent biological difference in the sexes, female sluttiness is therefore best understood as the interaction between a woman’s SMV and her sociosexuality (i.e., her willingness and urge to fuck around for the pleasure of it).
So, a woman has to have sufficiently high SMV to have the options to screw around AND she has to have a (probably inherited) disposition to want to avail herself of those options. The former — sufficient SMV — is the direct relation to the Options Theory, while the latter — aggressive sociosexuality — is the roundabout indication that a woman has options.
In short, if a sufficiently attractive woman is eager to fuck around, by definition she has options. I know it sounds like a tautology, but great truths are sometimes revealed by tautology. And the validity of the tautology is apparent by the nontransitiveness of it. If we try to apply it to men, it fails. A man of average SMV who is eager to fuck around does not necessarily have options. Unlike women, a man’s eagerness to wantonly fuck does not increase his available options as it would do for a woman.
The education variable — the other crucial risk factor for divorce — is really a proxy for female age at first marriage. The more education a woman obtains, the older she’ll be when she (finally) abandons the alpha fux highstyle for the beta bux homestyle. As we Crimson Pillers know, advancing age decreases women’s sexual market options exponentially. If female education lowers a man’s risk of divorce, it’s less to do with the woman’s erudition or grasp of the intricacies of patriarchal hegemony, or even her IQ and related impulse control. It’s mostly to do with the fact that overeducated women are older when they marry and thus have fewer men chasing after them, which certainly contributes to these age 28+ women magically discovering devoted marital bliss and avoiding justifications for divorce.
It won’t show up in the statistics, but based on my observation, there is also a relative aspect to the divorce risk. For example, the statistics indicate that a woman with 15 prior sexual partners has a divorce risk of 70 percent, but how that applies to the specific marriage will vary greatly between the man who has had one prior sexual partner and the man who has had 100.
For the former, the knowledge that his wife has been with 15 other men is likely devastating. For the latter, that sounds like the summer after graduating from college and is of no concern to him. And given the way in which hypergamy works, it probably shouldn’t be, as it’s almost certain that she will, rightly, worry far more about his faithfulness than he does about hers. Rank and relativity are not easily accounted for, but they do matter.
Vox is right to figure that a woman married to a high notch count cad has more to worry about regarding his fidelity than he has regarding her fidelity. Where I disagree is his assertion that men who’ve bedded lots of women wouldn’t be disgusted with a slutty wife prospect with the same intensity that a relatively inexperienced man would be disgusted. In my meanderings through the tingle trenches, I’ve found the opposite to be true: womanizers who’ve sexed lots of ladies are MORE put off by a serious LTR prospect who has herself a history littered with discarded lovers.
Why? It sounds like a double standard. More precisely, it’s a different standard, and it exists because men who do well with women have the alpha jerkboy leverage to demand chastity from the women they intend to wife up, (said female chastity being much more relevant to a man’s Darwinian success owing to the fact that slutty women are bigger cuckold threats in a state of nature unoccluded by the distorting effects of birth control and abortion). And pushin’ come to cushion, almost all men will, if the option is available, prefer a wife with less sexual history baggage than the modren norm.
Ironically, Vox would be onto something if he had swapped the men in his example. It’s much more likely that a weak, sexually inexperienced beta male with few options would tolerate (happily or insincerely) a wife prospect with a double digit telegonic cock count. And in fact that’s pretty much what I see happening in real life: weak betas marrying older, former sluts who may still have a little gas left in their dilated crevasse for a rode hard trip.
*Free Northerner writes, “if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky”. I concur. The under-20 virgin objectively has more mate options based on her resting SMV, but like I wrote above a woman’s options are a function not just of her SMV but also of her willingness to indulge the sexual attention that her SMV brings her.
If you’re a man looking for wife, always bet on inexperienced youth over slutty maturity. More men may eye up your virginal blossom, but the wilting slut is more apt to allow interlopers to take a surreptitious sniff of her musky overripe aroma.
Sluts pay a price for their sluttery. The price isn’t always immediately or conspicuously evident, (which allows women to plausibly claim that their sluttery isn’t hurting them right now), but it is paid eventually.
Case in point: Alicia “Miss Piggy” Machado, the Venezuelan and former Miss Universe woman of color and weight who was exploited by thecunt as a cudgel against Trump, but who later was discovered to have a closet full of so many skeletons that it’s all the media could do to cover-up for Machado and keep breathing air into thecunt’s attempted Trump-targeting “killshot“.
The broadcast showed Acaso on top of her, with Machado whispering in Spanish about his manhood.
“Oh your d***, my love, what a tasty d***! Your d*** is divine,'” she moans while they romp.
All fun and games, except at the time Machado was engaged to Phillies baseball star Bobby Abreu, who quickly canceled the engagement after clips of her ride on the cock carousel went online.
Abreu made the smart choice — after all, sluts are more likely than chaste girls to cheat in marriage — and this anecdote is very telling of the price that sluts, even beautiful sluts, will pay. Men viscerally know, even if they can’t articulate their feelings, that sluts are both an expedited fun time and a long, slow descent into betrayal should one make the mistake of committing to a slut.
Evolution has seen fit to give men the skill of identifying and exploiting sluts for sexual pleasure without commitment. This is a behavioral trait that evolved from the necessity of paternity assurance to a man’s reproductive fitness. Marrying a slut and getting cuckolded by her later is the equivalent of never finding a woman to bear your children. It’s metadeath.
And so men are naturally leery of investing too much in sluts….even sexy sluts who are former Miss Universes. Now a beta schlub may have promptly “forgiven” and “supported” Machado after her cheating whore sex tape leaked because beta schlubs don’t have many sexual market options; they have to put up with a lot of female shit if they want access, however limited and unenthusiastically reciprocated, to prime pussy.
But an alpha male of Abreu’s stature (and as a pro baseball player he is that despite his unhandsome face) has plenty of options among sexy women. When Narco Kingpin Baby Momma Machado cheated on him, these options allowed him to easily and quickly cut her out of his life.
What does this matter to sluts? It matters this way: Most women want the best quality man they can get. Women who slut it up hurt their chances of getting that high quality man. A slut can assuage her ego by shacking up with a dickless betaboy willing to put up with her sordid past and skanky lifestyle, but deep in her heart she’ll know she lost out on a better man because better men want nothing to do with her kind beyond a perfunctory pump and dump.
The mythologizing into existence of a “slut-shaming culture”, like its “rape culture” cousin, may in fact be the political manifestation of a suppressed desire by women for a change in the dating market that reduces the necessity for signaling prompt sexual availability, (and related to the latter, a suppressed desire to be ravished by dominant sexy men). This hidden motivation goes to the nature of a woman’s romantic goals, which isn’t to serve as the town sperm receptacle but to leverage her body and youth for one high value man who forswears all other women for her alone.
Interestingly, the opacity and social disconnection of the anonymous urban sexual market conspires against women’s ability to achieve their prime directive by incentivizing sluttery as a relatively sustainable, if Sisyphean, long-term strategy. An atomized, class-stratified, mass scale society loses the natural checks and balances of extended or close family, childhood friends, and neighbors to shame a woman away from the slut life. The dedicated slut can swim these sexually liberated, sperm-saturated waters for a long time, because anonymity and hyper-individualism cloak her sexual history from beta males less experienced at identifying the behavioral and attitudinal tics of the slutty girl.
But it’s a self-defeating sexual market “advantage” that women can expect to enjoy in post-America. In the end, sluttiness outs. The beta male discovers this in divorce; the alpha male through the pre-release of an unauthorized sex tape or gleaned from a wisdom gained in the dating trenches. Even a Miss Universe found out the hard way what she would lose when her sluttiness was insufficiently shamed.
The sexual market is the one market to rule them all.
That’s a classic Chateau maxim. But reader Daffyduck thinks there may be evidence of a Current Year contradiction of the maxim.
My question to the proprietors is this: if the sexual market is the primary market, why do so many women (the vast majority of women where I live in the UK), do everything they can to lower their SMV? Tattoos, obesity, single mummery – all so ubiquitous now it’s close to impossible to find a woman that doesn’t have some dire self induced SMV cratering characteristic. Thank you.
On the face of it, this does strike one as a refutation of the primacy of the sexual market. But digging a little deeper into the mechanics of mate acquisition in postmodern Western societies, we find that the maxim holds as true as ever.
It’s a fact that obesity lowers every single fat chick’s SMV, often dramatically. 99.9% of men would choose a slender babe over a fat chick if they had the option to do so. (78.4% of black men)
Tattoos generally ding female SMV, although this self-induced body modification has mixed results depending on the woman sporting them. On hot babes, tattoos that don’t occupy much skinscape have a neutral to occasionally positive effect on their SMV. And don’t neglect the handicap principle, which postulates that prime nubility girls get tattoos as a way to advertise they have excess SMV to spare (The “Look at me, I’m so hot I can afford to defile my body and you’ll still love me” whore’s brag.)
Single mommery lowers female marital market value (similarly, their long-term relationship worth). As with tattoos on hot babes, single mommery won’t detract much from a woman’s SMV, but it will severely penalize a woman’s value as a long-term partner.
So as we can see, of the three SMV-altering inputs, only obesity reliably craters a woman’s SMV. Tattoos and single mommery are best avoided, but if a woman has a super tight bang-able body, most men won’t let a butterfly tat or a screaming sprog stop them (at least for the night. heh).
Here’s where we get to the grist explaining the source of Daffyduck’s confusion: Sexual markets are vulnerable to changes in the incentives for paternal investment. (Paternal investment itself is a crucial aspect of the sexual market.) As women become more economically self-sufficient and sexually liberated their mate acquisition algorithm begins to emphasize the targeting of men for sexual and romantic validation and to undervalue men who would make dependable resource providers.
Likewise, men who are less interested in commitment and family formation would seek out women primarily for sexual thrills rather than their maternal instinct or faithfulness.
If this is the operative sexual market, then tattoos and single mommery would not only have little effect on women’s SMVs, they may very well raise their SMVs by advertising a greater willingness to go all the way right away, (and to not make much of a fuss when she’s dumped post-chaste).
Now ask yourself, where do you see women with lots of garish tattoos and bastard spawn? The lower classes. And where do you see less dependable fly-by-night men? The lower classes. In the upper classes single mommery is still rare and tattoos, though more common than they once were, are tastefully inconspicuous. Obesity, too, is rarer among upper class women.
So it’s in the lower classes (now gradually expanding into the working and middle classes) where the sexual market has responded to the changing incentives and women have resorted to more “slut signaling” accoutrements like tattoos, skimpy trashy clothes, and yes even bastard spawn (a single mom is a slutty mom).
In the upper classes, paternal investment is still important, so we see less of this among the women who have kept to the traditional SMV norms of their sex: slenderness, clear skin, and childlessness.
Ok, you ask, if tats and single mommery are slut cues to men on the make, what about obesity? No man wants to boff a blob if he has a choice.
Female obesity does present a difficulty for the theory of sexual market primacy….until we realize that very very few women voluntarily choose to be fat (unlike the many who choose to get tats or bear the devil bastards of one night stands). Most fat women want to be thinner, so they know, whether they admit it to anyone or drown their egos in a vat of fat acceptance platitudes, that fatness kills their SMV dead.
Larger societal and chemical forces have conspired in modern societies to accelerate and amplify the gaining of many pounds of fat. Unless you’re careful and actively avoid sugars, grazing and processed foods (all of which increased exponentially sometime in the mid-20th century) then you will likely get fatter than your ideal peak performance weight. (Reminder: For women, peak SMV performance is a 17-23 BMI, 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio, and an age that is roughly half the age of gogrrl feminists looking to conceive their first and only autistic child.)
The relatively recent explosion (heh) of obesity among Westerners suggests that the existence of all these female fatties is not a refutation of sexual market primacy theory, but is rather evidence of a rapidly changing input variable that is causing immense (heh) volatility in the sexual market, as men respond by “dropping out” to amuse themselves with acceptable substitutes that are better than sleeping with a fat chick: porn, controlled substances, video games, and now even gainful unemployment.
So if you notice a lot of tattoos, obesity, and single mommery in the sexual market, you can deduce the following dynamics are in play:
Men have less leverage and fewer mate options (due to sex ratio skew or female emancipation from needing to rely on men to provide for them).
Women have utterly given up trying to find a husband and have settled for finding a cock notch or a sperm donor.
Sluts are ascendant.
Men are dropping out and tuning into substitutes for female companionship.
Enormous upstream social forces are streaming down and wreaking havoc on the normal functioning of the sexual market.
None of the above redact the primacy of the sexual market. They are instead first responder symptoms of a sexual market in dire flux. In the final analysis, SMV remains king of human society, and any secondary markets (economic, social, political) that exert downstream pressures on the sexual market will eventually be reconfigured, even corrupted, by the unstoppable feedback loops unleashed by a primal sexual market convulsing from rapid transformation of the individual players and the higher order systems those players design.