Throughout the month of September, we are taking out old posts, dusting them off and bringing them to you as an RPW refresher course. This week we are covering the broad strokes of RPW and this post in particular covers the difference between what men and women are attracted to in the opposite sex.

A question about "The 16 Commandments of Poon":

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/ cropped up on /r/PurplePillDebate and one of our regular denizens seemed a little appalled at them (understandable), so i started trying to think about how we reconcile an understanding that "men" are "like that" with the fact that men and women still seek to form relationships and at least try to be faithful to each other.

TRP makes claims to be based on evolutionary psychology, and it is--but it is also based on what is referred to in political philosophy as a "state of nature". A state of nature isn't a scientific description of human behavior, but a fundamental first premise regarding human nature from which the rest of the philosophy flows. an example many people have heard is Hobbes' dictum regarding humans living without government "the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

So, what is the nature of humans in the state of nature according to TRP.

Male ephebephiliac polygyny--A mouthful. Let's unpack it. If Men existed in a universe where fully formed, hot 16-18 year old girls with long, silky hair and .7 hip-waist ratios grew out of the ground without agency, wants, needs and desires of their own and without families to care for and protect them, men would kill each other to collect as many of them as possible--replacing them with new ones as the older ones cycled out.

Female hypergamy--If 6'2" 34 year old I-Banker millionaires grew out of the ground fully formed with no agency, wants, needs and desires of their own and no families to look after their interests--25 women would each chase and even consent to share the one that managed to make $1000001, while keeping a weather eye on any one who manages to make $1000002 as an option for jumping ship.

Why do these two statements sound both ludicrous and true at the same time?

Because humans recognize that we don't live in this world where the other people have no agency, wants, needs and desires of their own

That these two statements tell us something about human nature tells us nothing about the totality of human experience. In reality, we all have these kernels in the core of our sexuality, but on top of it we have a multitude of other factors. Our agency/ego, looks, temperament, personality type, class, culture, social status, age, education--all of these things accrete onto that raw kernel like layers of a pearl. This individuation on top of a base common nature by sex is what causes the "Sexual Marketplace". We do not in fact fall from trees as the Platonic form of what the opposite sex wishes it could attain, and we do not live in a world in which others have no agency, wants needs and desires.

We live in a world in which we have a dynamic place within a shifting, everchanging sexual marketplace. At any given time a man or woman might be on the rise, at the peak, or in the decline of their sexual market value with regard to the opposite sex. Our market value is based on how closely we conform to the other sex’s state of nature as possible within our bracket, and this is key. A 50 year old poor man may WANT a 17 year old hot girl (as per nature), but he generally realistically understands he isn’t going to get one and shoots for the most neotenous, slender, silky-haired youngest woman in his class, say, a 38 year old woman. A chubby, less than attractive 29 year old woman may WANT a 6’2” 34 year old millionaire I-banker, but if she’s realistic (another can of worms) she will likely shoot for what is in her class, a shorter man, a poorer man, a man with less options. This all accounts for why many people have a hostile reaction to many core TRP beliefs. They say “but look, fat, ugly people get together all the time and form couples”, as if to disprove the core sexual nature of Man. Of course they do, but solely because we are ALL as humans trapped in a world delimited by our OWN features and viable options, not because even the ugliest, least attractive person wouldn’t gladly take the MOST attractive possible person, the 10, if they could get it.

This discomforts people, it makes them feel bad about their place in the “Great Chain of Being” of the SMP. This is understandable. But feeling bad about the world doesn’t help you live in it. Recognizing the world for what it is and dealing graciously with your place in it, as well as putting significant effort into elevating your place to the best of your ability, does, and leads to greater overall happiness.