Simping and the Sexual Marketplace

Whether you’re an impartial onlooker or active combatant in the culture wars, you may have come across the term “simp.” A lexical fixture in Twitch chatrooms and TikTok videos, simps are romantically-challenged men whose servile nature prevents them from earning the affection of their love interest. To be clear, a simp isn’t your stereotypical nice guy. Rather, his excessive geniality belies a focused desire for romantic attention.

Nevertheless, simping isn’t merely a sexual strategy. More crucially, it is a trend born out of the challenges of an unbalanced sexual marketplace where romance has become increasingly sporadic, fleeting, and transactional. Simping reflects the cold reality of our modern sexual marketplace where a growing number of lonely young men search desperately for a romantic partner. Moreover, the ineffectiveness of simping reveals something about female mate preferences.

Sneaky simps

The etymology of the term “simp” dates back to the early 1900s where it began as an abbreviation of “simpleton.” However, as with many slang terms used by today’s youth, “simp” was popularized by hip-hop culture. Rappers in 1980s and 1990s used the term as an insult for a subservient man. This is not altogether different from its current use.

According to Urban Dictionary, “simp is a slang insult for men who are seen as too attentive and submissive to women, especially out of a failed hope of winning some entitled sexual attention or activity from them.” In short, the simp is a transcendent nice guy whose sycophancy is strategically deployed to attain sex and/or affection from women. As such, the compliments he pays and gifts he gives are gestures tinged with Machiavellianism.

Crucially, simping is akin to the “sneaky fucker” strategy. Coined by biologists, the “sneaky fucker” strategy refers to the adoption of deceptive practices by low-status males incapable of attracting females via traditional means of signalling dominance. The technical term for this phenomenon is kleptogamy (derived from the Greek klepto (“to steal”) and gamos (“marriage”)).

Consider male gobies whose body size is positively correlated with their ability to mate. Smaller male gobies cannot compete with their larger counterparts as female gobies prefer males with large bodies. To solve their reproductive dilemma, small male gobies, passing themselves off as females due to their size, will hide in the periphery of the spawning ground of paired fish. Once a female releases her eggs, these fish will slyly fertilize them. While this strategy is dangerous, it is the best option available to small gobies in a hypergamic environment.

Similar to gobies, simps must skirt convention, pursing a sexual strategy that is more tailored to their circumstances. Importantly, the decision to simp is perhaps driven by imbalances in the modern sexual marketplace.

As one article maintains, “The modern sexual marketplace is predicated on a power law where a small number of highly successful men are desired by the majority of women.” As such, average and below average men who cannot compete with above average males in the traditional arenas of wealth, social status, and appearance must turn to simping to attract mates. This, however, is not to suggest that highly successful men cannot and do not engage in simping. While professional success might reduce the difficulty of courtship, it does not guarantee romantic success, nor does it insulate a man from simping.

Nevertheless, the aforementioned power law imbalance in the sexual marketplace has created a demographic of lonely young men who yearn for the “girlfriend experience.”

According to Pew Research, 51 percent of men between the ages of 18 and 29 are single compared to 32 percent of women in the same age group. Furthermore, the number of men aged 18 to 30 who report having no sex in the past year has tripled between 2008 and 2018. Consequently, this development has fuelled the meteoric rise of OnlyFans.

The simp economy

While OnlyFans was not created for the distribution of adult content, the site has morphed into a subscription-based adult site, catering to over 50 million registered users and 1.5 million content creators. The site’s gross merchandise value and net revenue are projected to be $12.5 billion and $2.5 billion in 2022, respectively. However, the site’s revenue model is defined by a power law distribution where the top 10 percent of content creators generate 73 percent of all revenue. The majority of accounts receive less than $145 per month.

The popularity of OnlyFans raises a fascinating question: if internet porn is free, why do men pay for OnlyFans?

OnlyFans offers something which porn does not: emotional connection. OnlyFans provides men that have withdrawn from the sexual marketplace with an opportunity to interact with women. Moreover, despite the near impossibility of establishing a romantic relationship with a content creator, the desire to be loved on the part of users spurs them to empty their bank account.

Importantly, this perceived emotional connection comes without the sting of rejection. OnlyFans dilutes the challenge of courtship, eliminating flirtation, charm, and rejection. It is, moreover, clear from the empirical data that young men are petrified of rejection. According to Pew Research, a whopping 52 percent of single men reported the difficulty of approaching women as the primary reason for their relationship status—by far the most common reason given for why they are single.

It thus makes intuitive sense why these men have turned to OnlyFans. For single men, romantic success is largely predicated on initiative and grit. One must have the fortitude to approach a woman as well as the resolve to move on and try again if rejected. For men, finding a partner rests on action and repetition.

Importantly, OnlyFans’s financial metagame is not contingent on the profitability of its “power few” content creators but on simping. If a popular content creator were to leave the platform or discontinue the sale of content, would it stem users’ demand for the “girlfriend experience”? This is unlikely as users would simply migrate to another content creator to get their fix.

The influx of single young men has created massive demand for the “girlfriend experience.” This has in turn created a simp economy where emotional connection can be acquired through economic transactions. Moreover, content creators can also tap into this market, harvesting simps for their own profit. In this sense, simping is comparable to a hard commodity like gold or silver as it is both currency and commodity within the simp economy.

The dark gentleman

The ineffectiveness of simping lies in its pedestalization of women in the absence of genuine intimacy. While the gentleman holds doors and pays for dinner, and engages a woman on an emotional level, the simp inundates a woman with extravagant gifts and superficial praise. The simp engages in romantic bribery, attempting to buy a woman’s love.

A man who is too ingratiating is ultimately a man who is too desperate. His inability to tell a woman “no” is a direct reflection of his over-eagerness to please. Contrary to popular belief, telling a woman “no” in specific circumstances is an attractive quality as it signals that a man is not a pliant doormat.

Importantly, simping contradicts women’s romantic preferences. Whereas men typically mate below and across dominance hierarchies, women typically mate above and across them.

Neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine has shared research indicating that women, on average, prefer men who are at least four inches taller and three and a half years older. Other research by sociologist Rosemary L. Hopcroft indicates that men in the highest income category are 57 percent more likely to find spouses compared to men in the lowest income category. Moreover, men in the highest income category are 37 percent less likely to divorce compared to men in the lowest income category.

Interestingly, a woman’s income is not positively correlated with her likelihood of marriage. In fact, higher-earning women are more likely to get divorced. Likewise, recent research by psychologist Gillian Parker reports that, “within couples, a shift toward women out earning their partners was associated with decreases in relationship satisfaction for both women and men ... women who win political elections are twice as likely to divorce than their counterparts who lose.”

Taken together, the empirical evidence suggests that simping and its associated subservient qualities may be ineffective in attracting a romantic partner as self-devaluation reduces a man’s attractiveness.

Nevertheless, the ineffectiveness of simping reveals much about what women find attractive. Importantly, what a woman finds attractive will often differ based on her age as the mild-mannered professional is generally less attractive to a woman in her early 20s compared to her early 30s.

In contrast to the simp whose attention is abundant, the stereotypical jerk withholds his attention. This lack of interest often presses a woman to chase him. Moreover, the scarcity of bad boys as well as the inherent challenge of acquiring can increase their perceived value in the minds of (some) women. In some contexts, the more a woman seeks to qualify herself to a man, the greater his perceived value. We desire most that which we cannot have.

Cognitive psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman defines a jerk as someone with “high extraversion, low neuroticism, low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, high openness to experience, and a bit of a dip into the dark triad traits.” Curiously, much is made about women’s attraction to men who possess the dark triad personality traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism (manipulativeness), and psychopathy (callousness, lying, thrill-seeking). This is corroborated by the scientific literature.

Research indicates that the dark triad is associated with a preference for short-term relationships. To this extent, narcissism was positively correlated with a preference for one-night stands and friends-with-benefits, while psychopathy was positively correlated with booty calls. Both traits were negatively correlated with a preference for serious romantic relationships. Furthermore, researchers also found that the dark triad was associated with game-playing and cerebral mating strategies where individuals shirked long-term relationships by avoiding emotional connection. Furthermore, dark triad individuals tended to use more sexual words in naturalistic settings, enticing prospective mates.

In another study, researchers had participants fill out personality questionnaires then participate in speed dating sessions. Following this, participants filled out score cards for each person they met, indicating the type of relationship they envisioned with each person and whether they’d like to see them again. Men who scored higher in narcissism were rated by women as more appealing for both short and long-term relationships. Crucially, male narcissists tended to score higher in extraversion, but were no more appealing than the other males once extraversion was factored out. I will return to this point.

In general, genes linked to the dark triad are correlated with the genes associated with reproducing earlier in life and having more children. Of course, much of this can be explained by the impulsive, risk-taking nature of these individuals. Nevertheless, these traits facilitate attraction and reproduction. To this extent, researchers asked 128 women to rate the attractiveness of men who either represented the dark triad or a control personality. Even when controlling for physical appearance, the dark triad man was rated as significantly more attractive than the control.

The allure of dark triad persons resides in their ability to cultivate an aura of self-importance. For example, researchers found that dark triad persons were often better dressed than their non-dark triad counterparts. As such, the additional attention garnered by their wardrobe served to increase their self-esteem. In addition, dark triad individuals were found to be more likeable, exuding greater confidence and attractive facial appearances. Indeed, confidence in a man is more alluring than modesty.

Of course, it is one thing to appear important and another to be important. Research indicates that narcissistic tendencies were positively correlated with professional success and financial achievement while Machiavellianism was positively correlated with a leadership position. High-level resource acquisition and inexorable confidence are, by themselves, desirable qualities in a man. Put them together, however, and you get a man that is highly attractive to the opposite sex.

While dark triad men are certainly attractive, I am not suggesting that a conniving psycho-Chad is a good long-term option. They’re not, by most empirical accounts. Nevertheless, perfect is boring and a man with questionable character who never texts is generally more desirable than a diffident simp who texts too often. It is not that women like bad qualities. Rather, it’s that bad boys possess a bevy of ancillary traits (e.g., charisma, humour, social dominance, etc.) which make them attractive.

Dark triad personality traits reflect low agreeableness, high openness, and high extraversion, which are often alluring traits. For example, the behavioural scientist Daniel Nettle reported a significant negative correlation between agreeableness and number of sexual partners in a sample of 545 people. That is, disagreeable men tended to report having more sexual partners than average. Furthermore, men who scored one standard deviation below the mean on agreeableness earned 18.3 percent ($9,772) more than men who scored one standard deviation above the mean. Disagreeable behaviours are generally rewarded in environments where competitiveness and aggressiveness are valued. With regard to extraversion, research indicates that those high in this trait were perceived as more attractive. This is the same for openness where ornamental/aesthetic creativity was found to be sexually attractive.

Based on the empirical evidence, female mate preferences might be described as conflicting. The ideal man is a figure who embodies contradiction as he is both the disagreeable bad boy and the caring family man. Such a man is capable of great violence yet is too self-disciplined to use it. He is proficient at attracting other women but is loyal to his own. He is hyper-masculine yet emotionally aware, roguish yet caring. In practical terms, the ideal man is capable of both short-term sexual gratification and long-term provisioning and parental investment. Such a man is a Rebis-like amalgam of the cad and the dad. He is the dark gentleman.

Game over man, game over

Game theory is a branch of economics that considers how players of a mathematically formalized game can optimize their decisions. It is a method of making predictions in a world that is simultaneously probabilistic and rules-based. Simping is game theoretic. It involves some form of strategic interdependence where the actions of either party affect the welfare of both. It is, moreover, governed by three logic parameters:

  1. It involves a set of players.
  2. Each player has a set of allowable moves.
  3. How each player feels about outcomes can be mathematically described by a payoff matrix or utility function.

Here, I apply game theory to better understand the operable value of simping as a sexual strategy in the modern sexual marketplace.

Figure 1 presents the payoff matrix for simping. I have designed the matrix such that one participant is female and the other is male. Moreover, males can pursue one of two strategies, “simp” or “don’t simp,” while women can either reciprocate or not. For the purposes of this model, simping involves expending resources during courtship to acquire affection from a female while reciprocation involves pursuing or committing to a romantic relationship with a male.

The top-left quadrant represents an outcome where the male engages in simping and the female reciprocates. In this scenario, the male expends resources and receives affection but must continue to expend costly resources to maintain the relationship. In contrast, the woman receives resources but is saddled with a simp. This outcome is pareto inferior as there are other outcomes which would give both players higher payoffs. The top right quadrant represents the worse outcome for the male as he expends resources but does not receive affection in return. In contrast, this is the best outcome for the woman as she acquires resources from a simp but does not have to commit to him. As such, she can commit to another male while receiving resources from the simp. This particular outcome is common on OnlyFans.

The bottom left quadrant represents a positive-sum outcome where the male does not expend resources but gets the girl while the female does not receive resources during courtship but is committed to a man that is not a simp. This outcome is pareto optimal as both parties stand to gain without making at least one party worse off. In economics, a pareto optimal outcome implies that resources are allocated in the most economically efficient manner. Finally, the bottom right quadrant represents a neutral outcome as neither individual gains or loses anything.

Based on this payoff matrix, choosing not to simp is the most prudent decision a man can make as he does not lose resources during courtship regardless of whether the woman reciprocates. In contrast, the simp does not score a resounding victory in either scenario as he can either continue expending resources to remain in the relationship or gain nothing for his efforts. Nevertheless, both parties stand to gain when the male does not simp and the female reciprocates.

Simping is a by-product of a deregulated sexual marketplace. This asymmetry has resulted in an influx of lonely young men. This is not merely a negative development, but a warning sign of a society teetering toward disaster.


  1. Thanks to Rob Henderson for his feedback on an earlier draft.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

This is anecdotal, but it sure seems to me like there are a lot of lonely women out there, too, not just men. I think this is, as was discussed elsewhere on this site, due to mismatched mating priorities. Men are looking for youth and fertility signals, and many women seem to be unwilling to consider men who don’t at least equal them in education, earnings, career achievement, etc. So you have educated women looking for one kind of man, but those men aren’t particularly interested in them, then you have a whole other group of men that no one seems to be interested in at all. How do you put this humpty dumpty back together again?


Am not sure.

But there’s a lot of lies that are told to women about the sexual marketplace.

We could first stop with the lies.


I think this is what happens when you let the big brain do what the little brain used to do. Just can’t win.


If anything is driving men to lonelier lives it’s a misrepresentation of what “women on average” want that’s distilled into a simplistic Goldilocks package completely ignoring the spectrum of human variability, circumstances & evolutionary psychology.
One thing that’s an evolutionary constant which seems to drive attraction is competence and competent men usually have more confidence that acts as a signal of their competence. I suspect dark triads do well mostly because of the veneer of competence they portray from their ability to project confidence & therefore successfully ‘sell’ themselves better. However, their relationships are often fraught with conflict & don’t usually go the distance so it’s not their uglier sides that’s actually the draw. And It really does a disservice to young men to misrepresent the attraction of triads given it’s clearly a competence & confidence thing that brings about more success rather than the ‘bad’ always winning out which invites victim mentality & loneliness.
Is ‘simping’ really born out of the imbalance of the sexual market place or does it have its function in nature because of human variability? Just because a man ‘simps’ doesn’t necessarily mean he’s an incompetent in any way. How a ‘simp’ is defined not only hugely varies between individuals but between men & women. Whilst some men may perceive a more ‘eager to please’ man as weak & sneaky, women may perceive him to be able to achieve more because of his ability to cooperate. Some women being on the more egalitarian or masculine side might like to be the aggressors. Some men may feel threatened by men who are more cooperative & therefore feel compelled to categorise them as being ‘weak’. Some men may resent more assertive/aggressive women & seek to denigrate the men they prefer. Making ‘sacrifices’ to prove one’s mating fitness/fortitude is also a long standing evolutionary behaviour. The point is humans & their relationships are complex & not a one size fits all so let’s not judge categories that don’t meet more popular preferences as inferior. Some ‘simps’ might actually be lonely because they lack confidence &/or competence rather than their mating strategy being at fault or maybe they are conditioned by narratives that only a certain style can win…


Good article. The simp thing can be found in the adoption of activism related to areas where women are particularly represented. Both feminism and critical social justice have their fair share of weak younger men who try to ingratiate themselves with women in the hopes of getting laid- it’s a subject which Joe Rogan has remarked upon in the past.

Machiavellianism might be correlated with leadership and success, as can narcissism- some in the realms of psychology have speculated on the existence of ‘visionary narcissists’, where the self-absorption relates to a business venture similar to an architectural vision. The concept is based upon the examples set by giants like Steve Jobs, who could simultaneously be very rough and rude with his staff, but also be very inspiring.

With psychopaths the story is different- they make terrible leaders. Although most people overestimate the prevalence of corporate psychopaths, their existence has been found in all manner of organisations. Generally, they are well thought of by senior management, being able to project exactly the right image- but it is a shallow veneer, which doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. One typical way in which corporate psychopaths reveal themselves is in the way they handle teams. Whereas a healthy manager will try to split teams evenly, so that hard work and teamwork are the key metrics for success, a corporate psychopath will divide people into definitive ‘A’ and ‘B’ teams and then proceed to encourage the ‘A’ team to bully the ‘B’ team, probably as a means of constructing camouflage for their aberrant behaviour patterns. As one can imagine, this is disastrous for overall productivity levels.

The other thing to bear in mind is that dark triad types are overrepresented as rapists, so however much women may be drawn to them, they should beware. Once one overcomes the jaw-dropping statistic from the NVAWS study of 1996 conducted by the CDC, that of all lifetime rapes, 54% occurred before a woman’s 18th birthdays, dark triad types are likely overrepresented in all areas of concern. For adults, they are probably massively overrepresented in the 17.6% of rapes which are stranger rapes (particularly psychopaths). They likely represent a significant portion of the 27.3% of acquaintance rapes, especially in work environments where they are likely to benefit from a power imbalance, and it seems to me that although some of the dark triad types might be inclined towards shorter term relationships, the sense of grandiosity common to all the dark type types, is going to mean that dark triad types are not going to handle rejection well, when it is the woman doing the rejecting- and dark triads traits are likely to comprise a large segment of the majority of adult rapes of women which occur as a function of a relationship- towards its end, just after its termination, or both.

So women be warned, no matter how enticing you may find the bad boy types, beware they don’t possess a dark interior to match the facade. A good tell is whether they can privately praise their friends without belittling them- if they can then it’s a sure sign the bad boy image is just a brand.

As usual, my essays are to be found on my Substack which is free to view and comment:


It couldn’t possibly be for reasons of a personality trait that tilts towards egalitarianism? Politics often drives such misrepresentations as does machismo.
And while individuals high in the agreeability personality trait are usually women, to a lesser extent it also appears in men.


Good point, and this was probably the case when the feminist movement was about achieving equality of opportunity for women- but this has long since been achieved, although the omnipresent threat of male violence from a minority of men remains and issue.

I score 50 on agreeableness, but this is dichotomised between a somewhat contrarian attitude towards ideas in pursuit of the truth, and being very laid back in my personal life. Men tend to be somewhat more status seeking in their outlook and focused on achievements, and protests achieve little. I sign petitions if I agree with them, and even joined Amnesty at the Freshers Fair because the young woman doing the sign ups was beautiful- it didn’t last though.


My husband scores 90+ on disagreeableness & this is somewhat dichotomised by my scoring 90+ in agreeableness. This kind of couple ratio happens regularly in reverse as well but women’s agreeability somehow is considered a ‘strength’ not so much for men tho…

That maybe so institutionally but I think there’s still much room for improvement socially. Stereotypes & misunderstandings are still an issue that I suspect causes a lot of the conflict between the genders.

What qualifies as achievement varies between individuals. Activism for some is a form of achievement, brings a status of sorts & requires a certain amount of disagreeableness. Just ask JC….

I agree with men when they justify their positions but sometimes I agree even when they don’t just so they go away…. :grin:


This is a line which says more about our society than the authour intends.

Well said.

Competence is attractive in women, too.


There is some truth to this, however I would argue that the reason for this is Hollywood and feminism. In many movies, the story is shown such that the guy pursues the women, makes all these nice gestures and finally gets the girl. Young men and women have grown up with this.
The problem is that reality does not conform to this. In reality the women are turned off by it. They say that is what they want, but the actions show a different picture.

Now to the message of feminism, well it preaches to treat women equally, with respect, support. But it is a gamble. What is too much niceness? how does one decide? it is truly a landmine. Men wanting sex, have simply adapted to womens requests. In this sense it is a mating strategy, but not a good one as the article also concluded.

The definition of average has changed thanks to the internet and dating apps. I think that is the biggest problem of it all. For many young women the image of a man is formed via the internet. So before even starting dating there is this image of a perfect man, which is probably less than 1% of the population. Rationally as a women if you can get with a millionaire, why would you even want to entertain someone less than. Of course this delusion will come to an end around 35. In the past hypergamy had natural constraints on it, like community pressure, cultural expectations and geographical limitations.


I agree with the comments regarding the importance of confidence. A lot of guys are born with it, but many aren’t. Me for example. I grew up a bit timid, a bit of a follower.

The key for these boys, as it was for me, is to find things to get good at. I mean really good at. Competence generates confidence.

For me it was two things - music and martial arts. In high school I very quickly learned that playing guitar in a rock band was a real turn on for girls (and, 50 years later, still is). With Kung Fu, getting used to being punched or kicked while sparring resulted in an almost magical physical confidence - the discovery that getting hit wasn’t humiliating. You focused on how it was that you got hit, and figured out how to not let it happen again. Practice practice practice.

I think there’s a real lesson for parents here, especially fathers. Guide your sons towards activities where they can truly excel. (I’m not leaving out girls, same thing applies. It’s just that the article focuses on boys.)


I’m glad I’m not in my 20s trying to date and find love - it seems so much harder today. My advice, to all the lonely 20 something men and women out there, is (a) put yourself out there - if you don’t try, you won’t get anywhere, and rejection is just bad weather passing through, (b) try to meet people through a community of shared interest (e.g., if you like dogs, volunteer at the humane society) so you have something to talk about, (c) go into any and all relationships at the start with no expectations except to have a enjoyable evening, (d) if things start to get real, try and go slow and steady pace, (e) don’t try and change someone (you never will) but do allow space for someone to grow and change, and (f) if you’ve dated for a year and have tried to make it happen, but love has not bursted inside you, it is most likely best to move on. If my advice is superficial, forgive me, but the social isolation and loneliness among so many of the young is heartbreaking. I don’t know how to help other than to post a comment in Quillete Circle.


Fantastic comment @ricthmp.

1 Like

Great responses - totally agree with the competence/confidence mix and keeping things light at the start with no expectations other than having an enjoyable interaction. I work in ever-changing teams and the odd narcissist that joins a team is quickly noted and generally is a nett loss to team performance; anecdotally, they’re usually lower on the individual performance scale, blissfully unaware of that fact too.

My advice to my boys when the time is right will be to establish competence in their chosen field, have fun doing what they do, and live well. If they put themselves out there, it will happen organically.


We could start with throwing out the “sexual marketplace”. Although it’s not so much a lie as a bad, overextended metaphor from the 80s that got conjured into pseudo-existence by the shared neuroses of all 30-year-olds throughout time and space.

Well, and probably because “I lost out in some kind of mercenary contest/social-Darwinian mating frenzy” is definitely way less painful than “My love adored another, and it broke my heart”.

Point is, whoever we’re looking for, they’re not chattel, and neither are we. Why are we modeling our search for romantic love on some weird combination of slave trading and elephant seal ruts?


What this article says to me is that romantic attachment, sexual fantasizing and laissez-faire ‘arena’ sexual politics are vastly overrated in their capacity to deliver reasonably ethical, well matched and stable relationships that are likely to last at least a reproductive cycle. And all the article does is articulate just how shabby and half assed the present sexual politic is.

More, this situation reflects a system of social reproduction that has been so damaged by protracted deregulation and privatization of accountability that is no longer capable of producing high integrity and robust social product.

If our current system of social reproduction were regarded as an ‘industry’, it would be shut down for trading while insolvent, because its capital structure is severely rundown, its management is incompetent and untrained, its assembly lines have fallen to pieces, its regulatory and accounting systems are defunct, the product is negligibly engineered, badly put together, liable to breakdown and/or give up, and can be dangerous to itself and others…i.e., a real mess.

And the answer to that is the sort of reconstruction you would have to do with any other broken down industry that just isn’t performing as it should; you know, heavy investment in high integrity institutional development and capitalization, some rules and regulatory accountability/oversight, some proper education, training and coherent mentorship, high expectations, including moral precepts and their social enforcement, rebuilding the marriage factory and its progeny lines to produce robustly designed, fit-for purpose, secure and quality product that will reliably intergenerationally reproduce itself.

All that implies a much more formal system in terms of relationship formation and training for it that focuses on the real reason that sex exists at all, which is the most important production system any species has, which is its children.

I would assert that as much as 50% of the wealth portfolio of any human being is the quality of the social and existential software that they have been endowed with by their parents and their parent’s generation, in constructing them as high integrity individuals. Without that, all the hardware wealth in the world will not prevent a poorly constructed life from trashing itself and others…

Sex is just nature’s special introductory offer to get us to reliably make an extremely onerous and sacrificially heavy duty investment in the next generation. Anything else is just color and movement.

And the reason that we are now in a not very good place in these matters, is that Indulgence capitalism runs on sexual fantasy as its primary marketing and cultural tool, to drive excessive production and consumption, to the extent that over a 50-70 year period, the borders of knowing fantasy and unknowing delusion are now too opaque to reliably determine, turning sexual politics into mush as it goes.

Reregulation and deprivatization are a no brainer, once one grasps the extent of present bankruptcy. And if we don’t do anything about it, historical forces already in assembly will do it for us, but with the added bonus of a lot of disruption and violence.


@Geary_Johansen2020 - I recall something similar happening to me - although it was for red bull on an extremely hot day - I can’t recall if the beauty of the girl promoting the product effected me

@Ella-B - I’d definitely advocate the view that “simps” are lonely because they lack confidence/competence because of conditioning through narratives. The young are more susceptible to this

@Eli_Cash “All the King’s horses and all the King’s men COULD NOT put Humpty together again." I think this answers your question… depressing hey?

@ricthmp - Your advice is sound. It will work for most, but I do genuinely think its too late for some. Sounds harsh I know, but I just look at the way in which tech and social media has warped the norms and mores around these things.

Personally, my experience with girls my own age has taught me more than reading anything ever could. Also, sex is everywhere and on everything now and it results in taboos within your more conservative groups and perhaps an abandonment of personal responsibility in those who embrace the rampant sexualisation of society. I think one can note this sexualisation is rampant without sounding like a fire and brimstone preacher. I’m not even conservative, but perhaps I take a liberal approach to the topic of sex and have conservative virtues around it (?)

The whole topic is difficult. @ricthmp you’re bang on btw. But I think, as I mentioned above, its too late for some. So much of this stuff comes through in your formative years. Growing up religious, even though I wasn’t in a religious family, exposed me to 2 completely differing worldviews on the topic. I found I was caught in the middle and had no female friends as a result. Only after shedding the skin of religious dogma could I truly begin to even TRY and interact with women. Thank god i was socialised well in my earlier years.

1 Like

I have never met a woman who showed respect for male followers. They always end up as diposable servants for a short time or get infantalized.

The only useful principle I have found for how males and females relate goes like this:

When he is number 1, she is number 2. When she is number 1, he is number 0.