[Bill]

The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.

Is this model right? If yes what does it mean for our game?


hookingupsmart.com/2011/08/02/relationshipstrategies/the-sexual-revolution-and-you/

[TheMan]

(01-19-2012 02:15 AM)Bill Wrote:  

The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.

Is this model right? If yes what does it mean for our game?


hookingupsmart.com/2011/08/02/relationshipstrategies/the-sexual-revolution-and-you/

Step 1: Learn Game (this makes you attractive to women).
Step 2: Profit!

As a good looking (8-9) exotic(?) guy who previously had no game.
I can personally vouch for the game knowledge that: Physical looks mean less to women than men. AND that being well groomed and having good game means waaaaaay more. Period.

So your above statement IS true but you should add the caveat that the "attractive men" that benefit are not necessarily those of us that won the gene lottery. But those of us that took the time to learn game.

[Gmac]

The sexual revolution of the late 60s to 80s? Huh? The revolution ended a while ago brotha. Take everything Susan says with a grain of salt.

[soup]

The extremes win, moderates loose.

[gringochileno]

(01-20-2012 05:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

The extremes win, moderates loose.

This is Roissy's biggest insight in my opinion. The principal consequence of the sexual revolution and women's economic empowerment is that patterns of female mate selection returned to their pre-civilization state. Allowing female hypergamy to run rampant means that the very highest-value males get a virtual monopoly on high-quality pussy. There's no incentive for girls to do anything other than follow their evolved biological imperatives and fuck the most alpha guy they can get.

Alpha males win, unattractive feminists win because they can fuck guys who would never commit to them without consequence, beta males lose, and arguably attractive girls lose because they miss their window of opportunity to snag a high-value partner while they're riding the cock carousel, and by the time the culture tells them it's time to "settle down" it's too late and they're past their point of peak attractiveness and jaded from years of being pumped and dumped.

[Gmac]

(01-20-2012 06:54 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 05:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

The extremes win, moderates loose.

This is Roissy's biggest insight in my opinion. The principal consequence of the sexual revolution and women's economic empowerment is that patterns of female mate selection returned to their pre-civilization state. Allowing female hypergamy to run rampant means that the very highest-value males get a virtual monopoly on high-quality pussy. There's no incentive for girls to do anything other than follow their evolved biological imperatives and fuck the most alpha guy they can get.

Alpha males win, unattractive feminists win because they can fuck guys who would never commit to them without consequence, beta males lose, and arguably attractive girls lose because they miss their window of opportunity to snag a high-value partner while they're riding the cock carousel, and by the time the culture tells them it's time to "settle down" it's too late and they're past their point of peak attractiveness and jaded from years of being pumped and dumped.

So really, the only winners are the alpha males. Unattractive feminists still end up without them, and settling for a beta is still a loss even if he's a true breadwinner.

[Skyhigh]

(01-22-2012 10:10 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 06:54 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 05:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

The extremes win, moderates loose.

This is Roissy's biggest insight in my opinion. The principal consequence of the sexual revolution and women's economic empowerment is that patterns of female mate selection returned to their pre-civilization state. Allowing female hypergamy to run rampant means that the very highest-value males get a virtual monopoly on high-quality pussy. There's no incentive for girls to do anything other than follow their evolved biological imperatives and fuck the most alpha guy they can get.

Alpha males win, unattractive feminists win because they can fuck guys who would never commit to them without consequence, beta males lose, and arguably attractive girls lose because they miss their window of opportunity to snag a high-value partner while they're riding the cock carousel, and by the time the culture tells them it's time to "settle down" it's too late and they're past their point of peak attractiveness and jaded from years of being pumped and dumped.

So really, the only winners are the alpha males. Unattractive feminists still end up without them, and settling for a beta is still a loss even if he's a true breadwinner.

I don't see it that way. Nowadays a 5-7 has a chance with an alpha if she plays her cards right. She didn't have that opportunity in 1955.

I find it hard to say that real attractive girls lose because they have their pick of the litter and can extract as many resources from the guy as they want. They get constant ego boosting and WK that they didn't receive 50 years ago.

[Gmac]

(01-25-2012 03:38 PM)Skyhigh Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 10:10 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 06:54 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 05:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

The extremes win, moderates loose.

This is Roissy's biggest insight in my opinion. The principal consequence of the sexual revolution and women's economic empowerment is that patterns of female mate selection returned to their pre-civilization state. Allowing female hypergamy to run rampant means that the very highest-value males get a virtual monopoly on high-quality pussy. There's no incentive for girls to do anything other than follow their evolved biological imperatives and fuck the most alpha guy they can get.

Alpha males win, unattractive feminists win because they can fuck guys who would never commit to them without consequence, beta males lose, and arguably attractive girls lose because they miss their window of opportunity to snag a high-value partner while they're riding the cock carousel, and by the time the culture tells them it's time to "settle down" it's too late and they're past their point of peak attractiveness and jaded from years of being pumped and dumped.

So really, the only winners are the alpha males. Unattractive feminists still end up without them, and settling for a beta is still a loss even if he's a true breadwinner.

I don't see it that way. Nowadays a 5-7 has a chance with an alpha if she plays her cards right. She didn't have that opportunity in 1955.

I find it hard to say that real attractive girls lose because they have their pick of the litter and can extract as many resources from the guy as they want. They get constant ego boosting and WK that they didn't receive 50 years ago.

The alpha will still cheat with a 5-7, especially once her body/looks start to fade. That is the difference. A hotter woman has a longer shelf life and has bigger deterrents to cheating.

[Samseau]

(01-25-2012 03:38 PM)Skyhigh Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 10:10 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 06:54 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 05:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

The extremes win, moderates loose.

This is Roissy's biggest insight in my opinion. The principal consequence of the sexual revolution and women's economic empowerment is that patterns of female mate selection returned to their pre-civilization state. Allowing female hypergamy to run rampant means that the very highest-value males get a virtual monopoly on high-quality pussy. There's no incentive for girls to do anything other than follow their evolved biological imperatives and fuck the most alpha guy they can get.

Alpha males win, unattractive feminists win because they can fuck guys who would never commit to them without consequence, beta males lose, and arguably attractive girls lose because they miss their window of opportunity to snag a high-value partner while they're riding the cock carousel, and by the time the culture tells them it's time to "settle down" it's too late and they're past their point of peak attractiveness and jaded from years of being pumped and dumped.

So really, the only winners are the alpha males. Unattractive feminists still end up without them, and settling for a beta is still a loss even if he's a true breadwinner.

I don't see it that way. Nowadays a 5-7 has a chance with an alpha if she plays her cards right. She didn't have that opportunity in 1955.

Hold the phone man. Alpha males were always whoring it up no matter what age period you lived in.

I had a conversation with a man who is 72 years old. He told me his father was a multi-millionaire in 1955 (that's like being a billionaire today), and had wives and children all up and down the east coast.

Alpha males always win. The same goes for alpha females. They are nature's favorites.

The old ways of marriage definitely leveled the playing field between betas and alphas.

But this is actually a shitty deal for the beta males. They'll be stuck with aging sacks of woman, while alphas will be banging lots of different young ones regardless of their marital status. The institution of marriage never stopped people from cheating. Alphas always got more than their fair share.


Imagine if you were an alpha male when the customs of marriage first became developed. You'd tell the beta males, "Marriage is great. Marriage is a good way for us all," just to placate betas into thinking the alphas weren't going to steal their wives/daughters whenever they felt like it.

For alphas, who get the lion's share of pussy no matter what, marriage gave a way for other men to take care of their offspring. The betas thought they were getting a good deal, when in fact alphas were using them. Marriage was the original "social safety net".


Which system was more fair to beta males? The system of marriage, whereby men were sold a marriage in the name of social stability, or today's free-love world, where beta males get nothing and still have to pay taxes?

We think the old system of marriage was better for betas, but it's probably not true.

The old system of marriage was worse than the current sexual system we have today, because at least today beta males have their freedom. Before, once married, the beta was chained to his wife and any illegitimate offspring she might have had. And regardless of the beta reproducing, he was still stuck with an aging battleax.

Obviously, not all betas had terrible fates in the days of marriage. Many got hot wives and had many children with them. They still had to put up with the ugliness of the woman in her old age, but at least they had a strong family to make up for it.

But think of all the marriages that have ended in divorce since the 1970's. In the old days, divorce was prohibited or unfeasible. What happened is that if you got married to a total bitch, you were stuck with her for life. That's a fate worse than death.


So, to answer the question "who benefits from the sexual revolution", I'd say most, if not all, men do. Just because betas don't live anything like alphas shouldn't distract us to the reality of life for betas of past: total drudgery. Halving your rights and doubling your duties.

A lot of betas whine that the sexual revolution is unfair to them, but they are like children who refuse to let go of Mommy's apron strings. Faced with the prospect of being responsible for his genetic destiny, the beta male is terrified. They cower in fear before their freedom and sexual agency, insecure from the threat of failure. They want to return to the old system, where they were guaranteed at least something, even if it was a shit sandwich. But they do not understand they were at a high risk of slavery in the old system.

And yet, look at how many men still get married in today's world. It seems like everyone is stuck in the old system. Betas still prefer the soft slavery of marriage even if it means being skinned alive.

[Neo]

(01-26-2012 01:52 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

A lot of betas whine that the sexual revolution is unfair to them, but they are like children who refuse to let go of Mommy's apron strings. Faced with the prospect of being responsible for his genetic destiny, the beta male is terrified. They cower in fear before their freedom and sexual agency, insecure from the threat of failure. They want to return to the old system, where they were guaranteed at least something, even if it was a shit sandwich. But they do not understand they were at a high risk of slavery in the old system.

Excellent breakdown. This want for something in the old system is still deeply held by a lot of guys, and it's close to impossible to break them from it. I continually attempt to introduce Roosh's blog and these great forum posts here to certain guys I know. A lot of them are engaged, or even worse, engaged for the second time and they aren't even 30 years old. I'm trying to help because I know in 10 years when their (already) overweight wife takes their balls they will be slaves.

Despite the spread of game, the lifestyle and opinions that we hold are very completely not the norm. In my experience I have been seen as a threat to my friends relationships, and their girlfriends have specifically told friends of mine not to hang out with me anymore because 'He just goes around and just bangs girls.'

[ccurtis189]

(01-19-2012 02:15 AM)Bill Wrote:  

The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.

Is this model right? If yes what does it mean for our game?


hookingupsmart.com/2011/08/02/relationshipstrategies/the-sexual-revolution-and-you/

Well, a handful of unattractive or at least less attractive men might benefit too because once these attractive women realize the attractive men won't settle then they end up dating down.

[gringochileno]

(01-26-2012 01:52 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-25-2012 03:38 PM)Skyhigh Wrote:  

(01-22-2012 10:10 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 06:54 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(01-20-2012 05:46 AM)soup Wrote:  

The extremes win, moderates loose.

This is Roissy's biggest insight in my opinion. The principal consequence of the sexual revolution and women's economic empowerment is that patterns of female mate selection returned to their pre-civilization state. Allowing female hypergamy to run rampant means that the very highest-value males get a virtual monopoly on high-quality pussy. There's no incentive for girls to do anything other than follow their evolved biological imperatives and fuck the most alpha guy they can get.

Alpha males win, unattractive feminists win because they can fuck guys who would never commit to them without consequence, beta males lose, and arguably attractive girls lose because they miss their window of opportunity to snag a high-value partner while they're riding the cock carousel, and by the time the culture tells them it's time to "settle down" it's too late and they're past their point of peak attractiveness and jaded from years of being pumped and dumped.

So really, the only winners are the alpha males. Unattractive feminists still end up without them, and settling for a beta is still a loss even if he's a true breadwinner.

I don't see it that way. Nowadays a 5-7 has a chance with an alpha if she plays her cards right. She didn't have that opportunity in 1955.

Hold the phone man. Alpha males were always whoring it up no matter what age period you lived in.

I had a conversation with a man who is 72 years old. He told me his father was a multi-millionaire in 1955 (that's like being a billionaire today), and had wives and children all up and down the east coast.

Alpha males always win. The same goes for alpha females. They are nature's favorites.

The old ways of marriage definitely leveled the playing field between betas and alphas.

But this is actually a shitty deal for the beta males. They'll be stuck with aging sacks of woman, while alphas will be banging lots of different young ones regardless of their marital status. The institution of marriage never stopped people from cheating. Alphas always got more than their fair share.


Imagine if you were an alpha male when the customs of marriage first became developed. You'd tell the beta males, "Marriage is great. Marriage is a good way for us all," just to placate betas into thinking the alphas weren't going to steal their wives/daughters whenever they felt like it.

For alphas, who get the lion's share of pussy no matter what, marriage gave a way for other men to take care of their offspring. The betas thought they were getting a good deal, when in fact alphas were using them. Marriage was the original "social safety net".


Which system was more fair to beta males? The system of marriage, whereby men were sold a marriage in the name of social stability, or today's free-love world, where beta males get nothing and still have to pay taxes?

We think the old system of marriage was better for betas, but it's probably not true.

The old system of marriage was worse than the current sexual system we have today, because at least today beta males have their freedom. Before, once married, the beta was chained to his wife and any illegitimate offspring she might have had. And regardless of the beta reproducing, he was still stuck with an aging battleax.

Obviously, not all betas had terrible fates in the days of marriage. Many got hot wives and had many children with them. They still had to put up with the ugliness of the woman in her old age, but at least they had a strong family to make up for it.

But think of all the marriages that have ended in divorce since the 1970's. In the old days, divorce was prohibited or unfeasible. What happened is that if you got married to a total bitch, you were stuck with her for life. That's a fate worse than death.


So, to answer the question "who benefits from the sexual revolution", I'd say most, if not all, men do. Just because betas don't live anything like alphas shouldn't distract us to the reality of life for betas of past: total drudgery. Halving your rights and doubling your duties.

A lot of betas whine that the sexual revolution is unfair to them, but they are like children who refuse to let go of Mommy's apron strings. Faced with the prospect of being responsible for his genetic destiny, the beta male is terrified. They cower in fear before their freedom and sexual agency, insecure from the threat of failure. They want to return to the old system, where they were guaranteed at least something, even if it was a shit sandwich. But they do not understand they were at a high risk of slavery in the old system.

And yet, look at how many men still get married in today's world. It seems like everyone is stuck in the old system. Betas still prefer the soft slavery of marriage even if it means being skinned alive.

You make a very intriguing analysis. A few thoughts:

1. It has always been better to be an alpha male than a beta male. The current setup exacerbates this fact.

2. Divorce may be beneficial to betas because it allows them to avoid being irrevocably tied to a woman who turns out to be an awful bitch, but this has to be balanced against the fact that modern divorce laws have placed married men at extreme risk of unfairly losing a large portion of their livelihood. Not to mention that even before no-fault divorce I believe separation was still relatively easy to pull off (where you would still be legally married but wouldn't be living with your spouse). I could be mistaken about that.

3. Betas who are looking for relationships are arguably harmed the most in the post-feminist sexual market because unrestricted hypergamy has made women less apt to settle for someone at or below their sexual market value than ever before. Women's increasing financial independence also takes the teeth out of what used to be the beta male's greatest bargaining chip, the ability to provide for a woman and raise her children.

4. The average desirability of women in countries that have had feminist movements is steadily trending down due to increased acceptance of sluttiness (leading women to be more jaded and have higher notch counts from being pumped and dumped in their earlier years) and the growth of the obesity epidemic, while males' average SMV has largely held constant (or at least decreased more slowly). This further contributes to your typical beta male's being able to get a less attractive partner than he could under the previous social order.

5. In light of these facts, the only rational things for a man to do in Western society is learn game and become a player, or move to a country where the ability to be a provider is still rewarded.

[Skyhigh]

The only women who lost out are the ones who are commitment and marriage minded. They find out now that the men they desire will not commit to them. Back then they were fine not having sex for a while and only letting the sluts fuck early. But now with so many sluts, the commitment girls greater bargaining chip (Vagina) is much less valuable and she risks losing out if she doesn't play the game. It's kinda like prisoner's dilemma where the only logical solution is to play the game.

[Hades]

Yeah, the fairly hot women who say stuff like "Where have all the good men gone?" and refuse to pull super devoted beta-dudes out of their "friend-zone pool" have only themselves to blame.

[ccurtis189]

(02-01-2012 04:04 PM)Hades Wrote:  

Yeah, the fairly hot women who say stuff like "Where have all the good men gone?" and refuse to pull super devoted beta-dudes out of their "friend-zone pool" have only themselves to blame.

Basiclly, the men who they desire to be good, have pretty much no incentive at all to be good.

[solo]

(02-02-2012 10:41 AM)ccurtis189 Wrote:  

(02-01-2012 04:04 PM)Hades Wrote:  

Yeah, the fairly hot women who say stuff like "Where have all the good men gone?" and refuse to pull super devoted beta-dudes out of their "friend-zone pool" have only themselves to blame.

Basiclly, the men who they desire to be good, have pretty much no incentive at all to be good.

Of course, when you point out this to girls, they deny it. They'll even tell you how much they like you because you're a nice guy and how they would like to date you etc. I've had this happen several times while I still didn't see things completely clearly, despite that I had long since realised that nice guys don't get girls.

I'm talking about Western girls.

Just KNOWING game theory (not even applying it) gives you such an upperhand just through identifying, analysing and understanding girls (especially Western, ADD career type of girls that I've come to disdain for so many reasons). It's a great feeling.

[Basil Ransom]

Given the state of American women, I'm not sure even the best of men are the winners here.

Foreign countries are a different story though.