Hot, Young Women: Ignore Everybody (Except Me)

by Frost on July 28, 2011

This post is the thrilling conclusion to Part 1: Who Benefits From The Sexual Revolution?

We left off with this revelation:

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

But now let’s dig a bit deeper.

First question: Why is the sexual revolution happening in the first place? Obviously because powerful people support it.

It’s easy to see why powerful men would support easy sex. Powerful men are attractive, almost by definition. They are supporting a paradigm in which they get laid more, at the expense of the powerless. Duh. Those most harmed by the revolution are busy playing video games and watching their twenties evaporate in mediocrity. They are not the movers-and-shakers of the world.

But why are powerful and attractive women supporting the cheapening of their greatest source of power? (Power and attractiveness are close to synonymous for both men and women – the difference is in the direction of causality). The most attractive women have the most to lose from the breakdown of monogamy, and yet… not a whimper from them. The best women, in my experience, frequently find themselves playing the role of pseudo-girlfriend to the top men, shedding many tears over their boyfriend’s repeated infidelities and constant refusal to commit.

It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia,  he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.

If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7’s and 8’s throwing themselves at the male 9’s, the female 9’s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.

So why don’t the hottest women ever scream: “Fuck off, you mediocre sluts! Leave my boyfriend alone! Why don’t you go date someone at your level, instead of ruining my relationship!” Why don’t they realize how much they’re losing?

To answer this, we need to look at the lifecycle of female attractiveness.


Men like younger women. This is an immutable fact of human biology, untouchable by culture and social programming. Deep in our hindbrains, we’re all trying to maximize our reproductive success, and chasing after barely-fertile 45 year olds doesn’t help that cause.

Neither a woman’s or a man’s sexual marketplace value is set for life. A man can drastically change his value my hitting the gym, making more money, learning Game, dressing better, and so on. A woman can do all of the above as well (yes, game is for girls to – what do you think this post is about?) but there is an additional factor that has a comparatively massive effect on her value: Age.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of age on a woman’s sexual attractiveness. From an evolutionary perspective, not only are younger women more fertile at a given age, but a man committing to one can also expect to benefit from subsequent high-fertility years. So while a 30 year old woman is (roughly) twice as fertile as a 40-year old, the 30 year old is much more than twice as attractive.

From a more personal perspective, years of dating have given me a good sense of the toll that age takes on the typical woman. At 19, most girls are somewhat attractive: Their skin is smooth; An extra 10lbs is carried well; The bubbly energy and innocence of youth pallatiates her personality flaws. In five years however, those advantages will evaporate, and the 10lbs will have turned into 20. A 7 at nineteen will be a 5 at twenty-four, and a 3 by thirty. The only exceptions to this rapid decline are legitimate 9’s, who can retain their looks into their early 30’s. But even for them, the mere fact of their age will dissuade quality men from a long-term commitment.

So we have a interesting wrinkle in the competing interests of attractive Vs. unattractive women: They are the same people, but at different phases in their lives. The struggle between attractive and unattractive is also the struggle between young and old.



I’ll now cite the hilariously accurate Sailer Law of Female Journalism:

“The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”

Have you ever noticed that the most numerous and impassioned cries for young women to embrace the sexual revolution – sleeping around, avoiding marriage and child-rearing, and generally making what any women in any culture and any time period other than our own would consider to be terrible life choices – come from ugly, old, lonely women? Browse through some SlutWalk photo galleries. Read up on Dalrock’s multiple exposes of bitter old women’s campaign against marriage. Check out the author photos at Jezebel and Feministe.

Hot, young girls of the world –  the generation before yours has wasted their lives, and now seeks to encourage you to waste yours, so they can preserve what shred of sexual value they still have, and soothe themselves that their lonely, childless adulthood doesn’t reflect poorly on the choices they’ve made. The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.

If the current generation of young women were to absorb the lessons in this blog post, they would absolutely slaughter the “liberated” women of yesterday’s ideology in the competition for the best men.

The only reason they haven’t done so yet is a lack of leadership. The generation before yours has a vested interest in preserving the status quo, knowing that self-improvement on your part will expose their flaws all the more clearly.

Fortunately though, leaders have started to appear. Ladies, bookmark each of these sites: Hooking Up Smart, Dalrock, Grerp, and Badger Hut. Read their archives. Subscribe to their RSS feeds. Immerse yourself in the world of the sexual counter-revolution, and critically evaluate which approach will lead to a happier, more fulfilling life for you.

Perhaps you’ve wondered: Why are our attitudes towards sex and relationships contrary to pretty much every successful culture, in every time period in human history? Why has the glorious sexual revolution seemed to have coincided with the collapse in marriage, trust, and birth rates across the western world? If feminism is truly about helping women to be happy, why isn’t it working?

The answer is that you’ve been lied to. You’ve been tricked. And you’ll continue to engage in self-destructive behaviours until you wake up from your slumber and reassert your control over the choices you make.


{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }

LE March 30, 2012 at 10:42 pm

This doesn’t account for the fact that some hot women like having lots of sex. So they are “winning” too. Also, beta men might be having more sex on average than before as a result of the sexual revolution (sex is in general easier to come by), even though alpha men’s gains have been relatively larger.

In other words, maybe everyone is winning.

Jennifer September 13, 2011 at 11:12 pm

No, it isn’t false; you’re putting a man’s preference on the same plane as what makes someone worthy as a mate, and confidence IS a mark of worthiness because it goes beyond looks. Keeping up your appearance and being a super-model are two separate things; if a guy doesn’t like the former, it’s an indication of valid judgement on some level. But if he rejects a woman based on the fact that she’s not the latter, he’s fatious and shallow, not appreciating true value of what makes a mate; it’s as simple as that. So is the fact that people’s definitions of beauty differ, so the rank to me is fairly useless in general anyway. Unless women at the lowest ranks are women who actually do a BAD JOB of self-maintenance, I’d say it’s useless.

Frost September 16, 2011 at 11:28 am

Is it wrong for men to care about a woman’s looks?

I like a woman who takes care of her appearance because it also shows confidence and pride, in addition to making her look good. But mostly I just like girls who look good in and of itself. Big bouncy titties are more important than clean finger nails.

Andrew August 24, 2011 at 2:04 am

Extremely well thought out and written. I’m passing this one on.

Jennifer, a woman’s looks are an enormous part of her value as a mate. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact about what men like. Your statement is the equivalent of saying “a man’s confidence is not representative of his value as a man.” Despite what every shy and self-doubting guy out there would like to believe, the statement is false. And so is yours.

Check out my new blog:

Andrew August 24, 2011 at 2:04 am

Extremely well thought out and written. I’m passing this one on.

Jennifer, a woman’s looks are an enormous part of her value as a mate. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact about what men like. Your statement is the equivalent of saying “a man’s confidence is not representative of his value as a man.” Despite what every shy and self-doubting guy out there would like to believe, the statement is false. And so is yours.

Check out my new blog:

Jennifer August 8, 2011 at 10:41 pm

This works greatly with the problems of feminism, but I despise the focus that everyone has on looks. Women should be discouraging the sexual revelution because they’re not deserving of being treated like crap, not because we’re all brokenhearted that the “pretty” girls are getting hurt. Pretty isn’t everything, by a long shot, and the obsession of looks led to many so-called “tens” taking men from women “lower down” on the asinine looks rank. Bottom line: a woman’s looks, and a man’s, are not representative of their true value as mates.

Doug1 August 2, 2011 at 11:14 pm

Great juxtaposition.

tenthring July 29, 2011 at 11:46 am

I’m going to comment on the above post in clear disregard for your closing comments.

“Instead, we need to look at policy questions from this perspective: if we had absolute power to enact whatever reforms we desired, what would we do? ”

Why? I’m not talking about what we can do next election, but generally what can we do in a democracy. You know they used to have this thing called political economy in college, where you studied how governing systems worked, not from an individual election standpoint but long term. So for instance you learn how having something like Medicare reduces political support for universal health care because current Medicare recipients view expansion of that benefit as a threat to their own benefits. Things like that last election after election. Coming up with policy ideas that can’t survive many election cycles and trends because they don’t have a solid political economy background aren’t very useful.

Frost July 29, 2011 at 12:02 pm

You’re taking it as a given that we must live under democracy.

There’s a comment thread at IMF, paste this over there if you want to continue the discussion.

Frost July 29, 2011 at 11:03 am

Different woman!

One is Lorraine Berry of Dalrock fame. The other is my favourite front page result for a google images search of “babe.”

That’s not an angle I touched in the series, but it’s an interesting one. Back when women learned about sex and relationships from their relatives, mama and grandma had a vested interest in passing on good advice. They wanted to see their little girl happy.

Nowadays, girls learn about sex from Cosmo, pop culture, and feminist academia. I’ve also noticed a pernicious meme among parents: “You can’t influence your child’s decisions! If you try to nag them, they’ll just react in the opposite way!” So it’s a two-pronged attack: 1) Destroy families and convince parents not to “lecture” their children, and 2) replace the wisdom they once passed down with Helen Gurley Brown.

William August 1, 2011 at 1:53 am

The meme could be successful if children faces the consequence of their actions.
Instead parent decide that they won’t discipline their children or be an authority figure, but WILL be there to bail their children out of any trouble they get into.

I’ve seen it play out with my oldest nephew.
As a child he was bad and was known for stealing, his mother would intervene whenever the grandmother tried to discipline him.

He is now on probation for robbery.

Puck July 29, 2011 at 3:53 am


That’s really the point of these posts, isn’t it? Young women (and older single women) need to reevaluate the basis of their decisions because their current system of thinking is not particularly effective at achieving their desired outcomes.

It was the feminists (to be fair, in combination with modern tech) that reduced both the parents and grandparents influence on young women and allowed them the freedom to sleep around with a relatively select few alpha males. It seems to me that what Frost is advocating is simply a return to the fundamental knowledge that our grandparents had about mate selection and the nature of relationships.

Writers such as Susan Walsh (who is absolutely wonderful) are merely trying to reinstill this age old advice through modern systems of communication in an effort to improve the overall life satisfaction of young women.

And dear god, please tell me that’s not the same woman in those two pictures….

tenthring July 28, 2011 at 6:05 pm

Perhaps there is a simpler explanation:
Young women don’t know what they are doing and can’t control their sexual urges. While women are more discerning about who they sleep with, once they are into a guy I find they are incredibly horny for him. Can’t we just chalk young girls decisions up to youthful ignorance and hormones.

In the past young women didn’t make their own choices. Parents did. They protected young women from themselves. Its entirely possible young women of past generations would have made the same bad choices en masse if they had the choice, certainly there are many stories in that regard throughout history.

louie July 30, 2011 at 4:25 pm

we can chalk it up to that but it won’t change the results. that is the reason but what will excusing it do? as for your second point, yes, it is true. but that doesn’t mean they were wrong to do it. is wrecking society a right?

filrabat August 4, 2011 at 8:45 pm

“Can’t we just chalk young girls decisions up to youthful ignorance and hormones.”

We can, sure. But if so, then why can’t we chalk up 20-year old men being a father 3 to 4 times over up to youthful ignorance and hormones too? Or for that matter, making any other stupid decision for that matter? This is LEGALLY the age of an adult, after all; and has been this way for thousands of years (not because of mere tradition, but because cultures around the world have determined this age – and usually a few years younger besides – to be one where a normal person should be self-disciplined enough to be held accountable for their actions)

Humans will do whatever they can get away with. If they see a really bad person getting away with “that” then that tempts the better people to do that same bad thing.

Besides, this assumes 20 year olds are no more capable of checking their impulses than wild animals are, and therefore find the remark frankly insulting – especially to the 20 yr olds (female or male) who DO exercise such self-control.

filrabat August 4, 2011 at 8:46 pm

Sorry Louie, that’s meant for Tenthring

Jack Dublin July 28, 2011 at 4:31 pm

In a surprise to no one with a grasp of history and human nature, culture and civilization arose in the ways they did for a reason. And nature does not abide infractions of reality. ‘Reaping the whirlwind’ comes to mind.

js July 28, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Rusty Shackleford July 28, 2011 at 3:32 pm

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: