The Handicap Principle

...or: why women are often mating down?
or: why stupid is attractive to women?

Of course when I say women are mating down, I mean that western women are mating down. I don't think there's such dysgenics going on anywhere else. The country  where I live in, which is a Nordic country and one of the most culturally liberal and "equal" countries there is, women go with anyone. Borderline retards? Weaklings? Disabled? Fat? Short? Dwarfs? Animals? Sure, why not. Negroes and Arabs? Oh yes, please! Gimme gimme!

I used to think that sexual liberation of women is a good thing, because I thought that if women were to choose their mate freely, they would choose wisely and well (compared to the situation of total patriarchy, in which some okay-type women are forced to mate with very low type of males). Also I used to think that equality considered as such as wage equality is a good thing, because then women would be economically independent and not forced to mate with... say Harvey Weinstein -type of men because those men can provide, no matter their inferior genetics. You know.

I can see many of you are laughing now. Please stop. Obviously it goes without saying at this point that I was stupid then. Very stupid. I'm a slow learner. But I learn.

Back to the subject of why women mate down? I think we have all seen this phenomenon. I mean, isn't this precisely the reason why feminism and emancipation of women are the central questions of this decadence we see?

The emancipation of women does not lead to more coherent society or harmony between people (which patriarchy does, the cost though being that genetics somewhat corrupt over time). But we know that emancipation of women is not even solving the one and obvious problem that patriarchy does. In the West, we are seeing persistent and straightforward dysgenics going on.

So why that is? I think that Zahavi's Handicap Principle explains it quite well (over the years I remember Satyr also spoken about the same phenomenon there and there, could not find topic dedicated to Handicap Principle, so I went on and made one)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Handicap principle suggests that costly signals must be reliable signals, costing the signaller something that could not be afforded by an individual with less of a particular trait. For example, in sexual selection, the theory suggests that animals of greater biological fitness signal this status through handicapping behaviour, or morphology that effectively lowers this quality. The central idea is that sexually selected traits function like conspicuous consumption, signalling the ability to afford to squander a resource. Receivers then know that the signal indicates quality, because inferior quality signallers are unable to produce such wastefully extravagant signals.

So let's take an easy example. Two guys are running a kilometer-length race. They finish the race exactly the same time, but the other was carrying a 10 kg load on him (10 kg handicap). Which guy was more fit (in this case, running a kilometer)? Obviously the one with a handicap to cope with.

Obviously it occurs to mind, when you read the Handicap Principle, that in the west, we live in a sheltered bubble, where no disadvantages or handicaps have any cost to it's bearer.

So do we see many handicaps today, in this modern era? Do they have any costs?

One example is what Satyr said in some of his recordings: today a man can pretend to be a hard man, a macho, and take part to fights as much as he wants. There's rarely any real cost. If this macho were beaten up very badly, he would be taken care of in hospital, and he will be back in The Game in no time.

Let's say that this kind of man's tendency to fight, for instance, is caused by excessive impulsivity and lack of instinct for persist. Excessive impulsitivy in evolutionary environment is usually a cost, a disadvantage, a handicap. There this sort of handicap would have obvious cost, a fatal cost, since this man would have died already half a dozen of times. Pretty much excess of anything is many times a cost. Excess testosterone is a cost with obvious health problems, but still anabolic steroid users do many times just fine in mating market. It's like this site's slogan states "nothing in excess" - this is many times really the superior.

Same goes for all kinds of dangerous behavior we see today. Drug abuse, promiscuity, etc... Simply being stupid and slow is a cost, a big cost in evolutionary environment, and I doubt that we would see any types of modern "stupid with style" -kind of people there.

But in western liberal and industrialized society? There's usually no cost.

So Handicap Principle states that animal of greater biological fitness signal it's quality through handicapping behaviour. In humans in modern society, it's not men (and women) of greater biological fitness that signal their quality through handicapping behavior. Today they signal handicapping behavior because they really are handicapped. Borderline retarded.

But especially women get confused. Biologically they are drawn to men who show handicap (even a handicap in a ridiculous degree) as a signal of strength, but in modern society there is nothing to hold these inferior men from gene pool. So, a woman's body still thinks when encountering a handicapped (in a ridiculous degree) male: "Okay, this stupid negro must be REALLY superior, since his behavior is not facing any consequences from other men or from nature herself"

In fact, today even stating something ridiculous about yourself could be benefitical. In the past, it could've been that your words were often and easily put to test. Today? Not so much. You can declare being anything, with no substance, and still get a reward. (Isn't this how those Nigerian males have scammed billions of euros and dollars from stupid white women? Okay granted, those women were usually stupid, ugly, fat, old, miserable and desperate in the first place, so lots of buts there)

So, I think Handicap Principle explains it quite well, why women are attracted to the types of males they are attracted to today. Usually these males either lack something or they have excess something.

Of course since human is a specie characterized by that men invest on their offspring too, in humans, males too can make sexual choises. Of course not nearly all males, and not in a same degree as women. It is clear that in humans aswell as other mammals the female is the genetic filter.

But if we take a stand that some males can make a sexual choise (those males that invest on their offspring), and therefore they would seek to get the best partner they could, as do women, would males be drawn to handicaps too? I must admit here that I'm not really sure about this Handicap Principle applied to men's sexual selection. Correct me if I'm obviously wrong.

As we see today, some men are drawn to this slutty type of a woman, calling decent women "prudes". Why? In evolutionary environment, being a slut is a huge disadvantage. Remember, no abortion, no birth control, no disease inhibitors. Wiser and safer course is mate with a woman who too, is conscious of her own actions. This of course, if you as a male want to quarantee that your offspring will be of quality. The other possibility for a male is to go Genghis Khan, who is said to have thousands of offspring. This is no option for females. Women must always seek quality. Men can compensate in quantity.

If men, who are choosy of their partner, can be applied to The Handicap Principle too, then that explains well why some men are seeking the slutty type of a woman today.

Now, granted, the men who are calling women sluts are very different than the men who call women "prudes". So it is a very different type of males who want to restrict the sexual behavior of females than the type of males who want that women are as liberated and slutty as possible.  I think in males, there can be something else going on than The Handicap Principle, such as some men wanting to liberalize women's sexual behavior as much as possible, so that they could get their share.

Anyway, more insights on this?

Self handicapping is a way of signaling virility.
Huge antlers, or huge cumbersome tails.
In humans its the sport's car.
But there's symmetry involved.
Disproportional tails relative to body must display a compensating elaborate symmetry, symmetrical antlers and beautiful tails, just as the short fat guy externalizes his compensatory beauty in the form of a technologically advanced sexy automobile.
But in this case we must incorporate the meme.
No other known species, other than man, externalizes abstractions in the form of art, or technologies - like the sport's car. A male purchases a symmetrical sophisticated tool and/or clothes to represent his internal qualities, if not only his ability to endure the payment of exuberant amounts of money to purchase and maintain such peacocking displays.

In the case of modern females and "mating down".
Two factors may be at play here.
First, the female's own self-esteeem.
You may think she deserves better but she may disagree. A woman judges a male according to how she judges herself - so a feeble man may be strong to her if she has evaluated herself as being feebler.

Second, the faceless institution has replaced masculinity - has abstracted the alpha male status.
Used to be that a leader represented a group's ideal male, the alpha - the culture's collective ideals.
Now masculinity has become an idea that can be represented by a woman, or a retard, like Bush, or a narcissistic buffoon, like Trump.
This relegates all biological males to the status of beta to omega, without any hope of becoming alpha other than as its representative, e.g., president, prime minister, king, queen.
Now we can turn to chimpanzee culture for further insight.
Female chimpanzees mate with the dominate male but not exclusively.
They are sperm samplers, intuitively desiring to not invest their eggs in one sperm category.
They also use sex as a method of maintaining in-group loyalties that ensure their social status, or to aid them in raising their young or in their conflicts with other females, i.e., in-group conflicts.
Beta males fulfill this role and as a reward they get access to sex which may lead to an offspring.

In this case the abstracted male cannot become jealous or protective, in fact the institution promotes promiscuity with beta males since it cannot fertilize females itself - it can only protect and provide.
See also how this manifested in Abrahamism where females were effectively under the care and protection of the alpha, god, and biological males became beta-male extensions of his divinity. Females belonged to the one-male, god, and biological males either represented his ideals or were excluded.
This is why all children born under these institutionalized circumstances belong to the institution and the male becomes its proxy, forced to raise the state's or god's offspring in accordance with its values.

But there's another factor, nihilism.
Both secular and religious ideologies/dogmas - Americanism and Abrahamism - adopt nihilism that attempts to negate biological identifiers, erasing ethnicity, sex, race etc.
All markers of biological identity and fitness are considered superficial, irrelevant, vulgar, prejudices etc.
The body is dismissed as a concealment of the individual's true essence - see transsexuality.
All that matters is mind and mind is judged according to how well it adopts and repeats collective values, beliefs, ethics etc.
Memes usurp genes.
Women are easily indoctrinated into any ideology that holds power - is popular - especially medium to low IQ females. Higher IQ females are more immune to this.
This means that they no longer evaluate physically but ideologically - not primarily genetically but memetically.
If the male parrots the prevailing ideals - memes - religiously, concerning equality, race and gender being a social constructs, and now postmodern Marxist ethics, then he is superior to the male who does not.
Males are evaluated ideologically, and within postmodern ideals there is a victim hierarchy inverting biological hierarchies. The low status male becomes a high status symbol of the female's conformity, her moral quality.
Like the sport's car is for the male.
A way of signaling ideological fitness through a self-imposed handicap.
Now the sexual impulse is dominated by the motherly instincts.
The female wants to heal the world, correct its injustices, by proactively doing something about it - by paying the price.
In honesty, she is trying to protect herself and raise herself, as primary victim, into a higher social position.
Having been indoctrinated into Abrahamism and then Marxism, most modern/postmodern females identify themselves as victims. So, by aiding higher status victims they believe they are raising themselves within the victim hierarchy.
They want to have a retarded child, a handicapped child, or to adopt one, so as to raise their victim status.

Nihilism inverts everything,.

Illiterate wrote:

So, I think Handicap Principle explains it quite well, why women are attracted to the types of males they are attracted to today. Usually these males either lack something or they have excess something.

Satyr wrote:

Self handicapping is a way of signaling virility.
Huge antlers, or huge cumbersome tails.
In humans its the sport's car.
But there's symmetry involved.
Disproportional tails relative to body must display a compensating elaborate symmetry, symmetrical antlers and beautiful tails, just as the short fat guy externalizes his compensatory beauty in the form of a technologically advanced sexy automobile.

Quote :

Second, the faceless institution has replaced masculinity - has abstracted the alpha male status.
Used to be that a leader represented a group's ideal male, the alpha - the culture's collective ideals.
Now masculinity has become an idea that can be represented by a woman, or a retard, like Bush, or a narcissistic buffoon, like Trump.
This relegates all biological males to the status of beta to omega, without any hope of becoming alpha other than as its representative, e.g., president, prime minister, king, queen.

Even with a lack of compensating symmetry, lack or excess could be seen as strength by some women, and some men, who don't understand why men with the lack or excess are able to survive. Those who pay less attention to larger social issues would be less likely to understand why those men are not strong, and would be less likely to have a full impression of controlling institutions as masculine. The displayed lack or excess, which lacks compensating symmetry, would be seen as a strength for lack of an alternative explanation.

Another element needs to be mentioned. Men who are often mocked or pitied show forms of lack or excess which others rarely mistake as strength. Those who pay less attention to larger societal issues would be more likely to see a lack or excess as strength if the lack or excess was considered respectable by those she knows.

Exclusively in terms of women discern potential mates, I don't know if the dynamic, for which some women find some modern displays of lack or excess suggest strength, relates to mating instincts outside of there being an instinct to discern strength. This relates to what Satyr said about symmetry being involved with self-handicapping. Maybe women can discern strength, that isn't overtly obvious, rationally, which then leads to them having an instinctive sense of strength. But if symmetry is involved in the lack or excess seen as strength, it would be more likely to relate to the existence of, one or more, instincts specifically oriented towards seeing particular lacks or excesses as strengths.

Munchausen's syndrome by proxy.
Females are prone to it, as part of their feminine mystique.

Essentially, when the institution is an abstraction of masculinity, she that needs more protection and to be provided for becomes the intuition's favoured concubine. The institution allocates funds, resources to protect and provide.
This makes the female feel special.

Infantilism - the baby that cries the most and the loudest is cared for first.

We've all seen women pretend they are more helpless than they really are. It's a way of manipulation, and so a female is rounded, retaining the infancy form to trigger parenting instincts in males.

Munchausen's syndrome is as typical to female psychology as Napoleonic syndrome is to male psychology.
Short males feeling insecure about their manhood, not so attractive females feeling insecure about their femininity.
Both compensate to receive the attention they desire.
The higher the insecurity the more exaggerated the compensation.

Stuart- wrote:

Even with a lack of compensating symmetry, lack or excess could be seen as strength by some women, and some men, who don't understand why men with the lack or excess are able to survive. Those who pay less attention to larger social issues would be less likely to understand why those men are not strong, and would be less likely to have a full impression of controlling institutions as masculine. The displayed lack or excess, which lacks compensating symmetry, would be seen as a strength for lack of an alternative explanation.

Yes, immersion in an alternate universe creates a paradigm shift.
Sheltering produces excess which is directed towards those on the bottom, raising them up as if they were fit.
Redistribution of energies is part of postmodern collectives.
Sharing of the negative consequences due to poor judgement gives the impression of good judgement.
Negative consequences are evenly distributed so that those who are guilty of them the most come to be at par with those who contribute to them the least.

There is no reason to self-correct because whatever happens will be evenly distributed.
There is no distinct benefit to being superior.
In fact inferiority makes one more dependent and therefore loyal to the system - proxy alpha male.
The most inferior becomes the best proxy of institutional dominance.

Why would a female surrounded by emasculated European males go for the African or Desert nigger?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the answer.

Because you never listen to what a female or a child says, but you watch what they do.
Actions are honest, words are not.

The mind lies, the body cannot.