Male Mating Strategies

Below is an old post of mine about male mating strategies and what attracts women in different cultures:


No, women are not attracted to bad boys by default.  Women are agnostic about male behavior.  They are simply attracted to those men who represent the best evolutionary choice in the current environment.  And stupid immoral men are the optimal choice for women in feminist societies, as I will explain.

The men that women seek in feminist cultures are omegas, not alphas.  I have explained this many times.  I also discuss the different male mating strategies in my description of co-alpha males.  So let's review the different male mating strategies and see when each strategy works best.  But first, we must remember that evolution is based on survival and reproduction.  The goal is to survive, reproduce, and have your offspring do the same.  So let's look at the options.

alpha - A successful alpha can have many children but takes high survival risks to do it.  To make the risks worthwhile, the alpha has a harem that he mate-guards.  The prize for getting to the top is exclusive access to a large number of females.  In modern times, survival risks are low.  But mate-guarding is banned in feminist societies, particularly with multiple females.  The alpha instinct will drive this man to success and dominance in the male hierarchy but all this effort is wasted because the prize is not available.  There is little evolutionary benefit to becoming a fortune 500 CEO.  The best that the alpha can do is to have a sequence of wives and have slightly above average number of children.  So women today consider alphas somewhat attractive based on this.

beta - This is a compromise strategy of allying with an alpha to be part of the winning team.  If your team wins, you get access to females, not as many as the alpha, but still some.  And if your team loses, you are less exposed to survival risk.  This strategy requires being a dependable guy that the alpha can count on without being too ambitious.  In modern times, this strategy leads to becoming a good employee.  This man is dedicated to his work and is a reliable provider.  In modern times, this strategy has little evolutionary benefit.  Thanks to feminism, mate-guarding is prohibited.  The lower survival risk is no benefit now.  So this strategy is inferior to alpha today.  As a result, women today find betas unattractive and will only use them as needed for material benefits.

omega - These are the lowest men in status.  They are not good providers and so are not good for long term relationships.  These men reproduce through seduction.  Their evolutionary advantage is their immorality.  Since they are not part of any alliance with alphas or betas, they do not hesitate to chase other men's wives.  Women are attracted to these men specifically based on their seduction skill because this, passed on to the woman's sons, will spread her genes.  The effectiveness of the omega strategy depends on the effectiveness of mate-guarding in a culture.  In primitive times, mate-guarding was moderately effective, so omegas survived but didn't thrive.  In patriarchal societies, mate-guarding is highly effective and omegas become complete losers who are avoided by women.  But in modern feminist cultures, mate-guarding is banned so omegas have by far the best strategy.  Omegas are immoral but not necessarily stupid.  But feminist culture combined with contraception has made stupidity a huge benefit.  Smart omegas who want to avoid being stuck with child support will use contraception.  It is generally the stupid omegas who don't use contraception.  So by far the best male strategy today is to be a stupid omega.  Women recognize this, which is why they are sexually excited by these winners (stupid omegas).  It's true that women don't recognize this consciously.  What women do recognize instinctively is which types of men are most successful at reproducing, and then women seek this type of man.

co-alpha - These men cooperatively dominate a society and divide up the women using monogamy.  The co-alpha strategy is about the same survival risk level as beta and about the same reproductive potential.  The advantage of co-alpha is that a co-alpha tribe will beat a alpha/beta tribe in warfare because co-alphas all have more of a vested interest in tribal success.  (The betas are always at risk of losing favor with the alpha, thereby losing reproductive access, so they have less of a vested interest in the tribe than co-alphas do.)  The co-alpha strategy is the most effective mate-guarding strategy because co-alphas mate-guard cooperatively, protecting each other's wives, which makes things impossible for omegas.  Co-alphas completely depend on cooperation.  For this reason, co-alphas are highly moral and worry about things like justice all the time.  When co-alphas are in control, you have patriarchy and a great respect for all traits that contribute to society, including intelligence, honesty, etc.  In modern times, co-alphas are the ultimate losers.  Mate-guarding is banned and cooperation fails.  While modern women have no respect for betas, they are still willing to marry them for the material benefit and will simply cheat on their beta husband with omegas.  But modern women will avoid co-alpha males like the plague because co-alphas are harder to cheat on and their failure to cooperate means that they have no advantage of any kind in modern culture.  Co-alphas will likely be incels.

We naturally define "winner" based on our personal bias.  But "winner" has a real objective meaning in evolutionary terms, which is the ability to spread one's genes.  This requires survival and reproduction. Survival is not a significant risk in the femisphere, so all that matters is reproductive skills.  A stable family tends to produce children of higher morality which is an evolutionary negative in modern society.  The best environment in which to bring up children today is by a poor emotionally unstable single mother.  This gets the children used to poverty, since pursuing wealth is largely an evolutionary waste of time, and will get them used to crazy women, whom the sons will have to tolerate long enough to fertilize them, and will guarantee that the children will have no moral barriers to interfere with their reproductive pursuits.  For more on this, see the introduction to Idiocracy.

I hope this explains the evolutionary results of feminism.  Women's preference for men is shaped by their environment.  So choose a woman from outside of the femisphere.

I definately agree with your statement ''women are agnostic about male behaviour''. The example i always use is musicians, in almost every age but ours, musicians were looked upon as fairly farcical characters, and not proper men, so of course women largely despised them. Now being a musician is suddenly high status, and successful musicians are amonst the most sought after men there are, we all know what is meant by the the term ''rock star'' lifestyle.

I'm not sure I agree with your breakdown of the categories of men though, I mean I'm not sure where I would actually fit in. I probably mostly resemble the Omega, but the thing is I constantly obsess over things like justice and morality. It's very easy to be an Omega in today's society without sleeping with other men's wives. There are legions of unnattached sluts to seduce, you can easily go through your life seducing as many women as you can while never committing adultery.

TheTyrannicide, how do you resemble an Omega?  Do you mean by being successful with women?  I believe you are from England, and I don't know how that compares to America.  American women definitely prefer men who lack morality, though a guy can compensate for the liability of having morality with other things (looks, money, etc.).  Do you have tattoos or other signs that you are a member of modern culture which would attract women?

You are correct, I am from England, if anything the women here are even worse than over there in America from what I have heard. They were recently voted the worst in Europe anyway, due to their foul mouths, bad attitutdes, penchant for attempting (and failing, messily) to drink like men, obesity, and general unnapealing countenances. You are definately correct that women prefer men who lack morals. For example, I know 100% that if I tell a girl that I firmly condemn adultery, believe that life begins at conception, or am steadfastly against drug using and have never taken any sort of non medical drugs, basically that I hold non-deviant moral convictions of any kind, that she will be immediately be thinking ''oh my God, what a boring loser, how the hell did I get stuck talking to this square?''

As for myself, I don't have any tattoos, piercings, or any body modification of any kind, I view people with such things (beyond a very, very low limit) as being faintly ridiculous. I would never adopt any style or mannerism designed to identify me as a member of some deviant group. However, I'm a very handsome guy, so I do well regardless of these things, I simply don't mention my moral convictions, and really, how likely are they to come up? What I meant by Omega was that I rely on ''seduction'' as you call it (basically just being good looking), but at the same time I hold all the attitudes and beliefs that you ascribe to co-alphas. My point was that it's possible to do this without compromising your convictions, due to the enormous number of unnattached women, I'd agree that these enormous numbers are a symptom of a sick society, but there it is.

TheTyrannicide wrote

However, I'm a very handsome guy, so I do well regardless of these things, I simply don't mention my moral convictions, and really, how likely are they to come up? What I meant by Omega was that I rely on ''seduction'' as you call it (basically just being good looking), but at the same time I hold all the attitudes and beliefs that you ascribe to co-alphas. My point was that it's possible to do this without compromising your convictions, due to the enormous number of unnattached women, I'd agree that these enormous numbers are a symptom of a sick society, but there it is.

Yes, it's possible to do this without compromising your convictions on if you are a very handsome guy, which most guys aren't.  Most guys, being neither very handsome nor very rich, must display omega traits to attract women in the femisphere.  And this is rather boolean, meaning either you are successful with women or you aren't.  There isn't much middle ground.