Table of Contents
What is going on?
With each generational shift, the older generation always complains about the “decline of morals,” while the younger generation accuses the former of being conservative. One way or another, the average number of sexual partners people have is increasing year by year, and being chaste is now considered to mean “no more than five.” Divorce statistics raise questions about the crisis of the institution of marriage. What is actually happening?
Scientific and technological progress is taking place, which increasingly distances us from nature with its dangers and uncertainties. Initially, humans, as a species of living beings, chose a monogamous or predominantly monogamous reproductive strategy. Humans became a species with high paternal investment—a species that could not effectively raise the next generation without the involvement of both parents. While the mother cared for the child, being vulnerable and unable to provide for herself, the father hunted for food and ensured the family’s safety. In such conditions, both partners were compelled to engage in long-term, often lifelong relationships if they aimed to effectively raise their offspring. Naturally, in an overall monogamous environment, there was always room for “free riders”—either males who were able to “donate” their sperm to another family’s hearth or females who, skillfully navigating their circumstances, employed a strategy of “promiscuous sex” and managed to raise their offspring with the support of several men.
With the improvement in both the quality and duration of human life, it has become clear that marriage is not always the optimal way to raise the next generation, nor is it always necessary to remain married for a lifetime, especially when that life lasts much longer than the time it takes for children to grow up. In a world where the cave lion is no longer a threat, where food doesn’t need to be hunted in the literal sense, and where there are plenty of kindergartens and schools around, a woman may find that she doesn’t need a male partner. The added value that a male brings in terms of “protection and provision” diminishes to the point where a woman might start to wonder why she needs someone to take care of, feed, and tolerate, whose character and family habits she has to endure, and whose money she has to almost wrest from him before he spends it on his own entertainment. A husband may only be necessary for the first few years of a child’s life, after which the reasons for divorce often boil down to “we just grew apart.” The internal voice of reason signals that it’s time to part ways, and the actual reasons are rationalized. Is the wife nagging? She’s just trying to extract a bit more resources from her partner. Is the husband cheating? The wife might not be paying him much attention. Has he started drinking? Is he depressed and feeling hopeless? Is he abusive? Regardless of the reason for the separation, the key issue behind most divorces is that the male, in the form and role that was useful in the previous generation, is no longer needed, and the woman simply isn’t willing to give more of herself to keep him around.
However, we do not live in an egalitarian society; we live in a society where there are rich and poor, where social hierarchy exists. If a woman among her equals struggles to find a worthy man for whom she is willing to enter into marriage, she can always rely on a man who is higher up in the hierarchy. A husband who earns more and/or holds a higher position can continue to be an attractive marriage partner for a woman.
In fact, a woman who seeks a partner with a higher status than her own assumes that this partner’s parental investment will be greater than hers. From a biological perspective, the sex that invests less in raising the next generation should strive to attract the attention of the opposite sex. The colorful plumage of male birds, whose role is to “mate and then fly away,” the branching antlers of male deer, and the magnificent mane of a lion—all serve one purpose: to attract the attention of the opposite sex, which is the greater investor and, accordingly, has the right to choose.
In a society that is far from equality, where a vast chasm exists between the rich and the poor, a woman seeking success in life may try to attract high-status men, ignoring suitors who are her equals. In a society with greater social justice, a woman has less to strive for and may prefer to completely withdraw from actively seeking attention from those around her. Furthermore, if the society is also overpopulated, a woman may be willing to forgo marriage altogether, as she may not have the desire to reproduce.
What do we have in the end? On one hand, we have stunning beauties, wonderfully looking and impeccably groomed women in Latin America and other third-world countries, such as most of the former Soviet republics. On the other hand, Western Europe is filled with women who reject makeup, appear modest, often carry extra weight, do not aspire to marriage, and have a negative attitude towards male attention, labeling it as “harassment.” On a third front, we have women who have achieved or hold a high social status but struggle to find a worthy husband, and their inner “squirrel” kicks in with a program of infatuation when they see a man who seems more prestigious to that very “squirrel”—a personal trainer, instructor, psychotherapist, or the captain of the yacht they are vacationing on.
Now we understand why a girl in certain societies is willing to spend her entire salary on trendy shoes or a new iPhone. She is simply buying a ticket to a better life. Unfortunately, it’s a lottery ticket. What awaits us in the future? Likely, as the investment role of men decreases and we hope for greater prosperity and increased equality in society, we will increasingly observe male behavior aimed at attracting women’s attention without positioning themselves as potential partners. Men are paying more attention to their bodies, sales of men’s cosmetics, perfumes, and jewelry are on the rise. There’s even a new term: “metrosexual.” Another sign of moral decline.
Antiselection
Written with the active participation of Anna Beloritskaya.
The less we value a woman, the more she diminishes us!
M. Zhvanetsky
Modern economic theory uses the term “adverse selection.” This phenomenon occurs when the service provider faces a decline in the quality and desirability of consumers, despite active efforts to counteract this process, and the very attempts to combat it only exacerbate the issue.
For example, among the clients of an insurance company, there will always be those who have a higher risk propensity than the average client, and, importantly, they will be aware of it. This could refer to drivers who frequently get into accidents, drivers who spend a lot of time on the road, or, conversely, beginners. In any case, the demand for insurance in this consumer group is always higher.
The insurance company is unable to account for absolutely all parameters when setting insurance rates. It doesn’t know everything about its clients, which is why it averages the price of insurance. As a result, those who drive carefully and infrequently become disinterested in insurance, as they see no benefit in it. The insurance company experiences increasing losses—now policies are sold to those who are more likely to get into accidents. The insurance company starts raising prices, and another segment of clients opts out of insurance because the cost has exceeded the perceived risk. Once again, the company incurs losses and raises prices again. Theoretically, equilibrium is unattainable. Practically, all insurers navigate this slippery and dangerous playing field.
A similar situation is observed with banks – the higher the interest rates on loans, the larger the share of borrowers who don’t even think about repaying their loans. It has long been noted that banks are willing to lend to those who actually don’t need the money. A banker’s dream is a creditworthy client who owns expensive real estate and has a stable, high income. But, excuse me, why would they need a loan then?
Insurance companies have a favorite joke that plays on the idea of insuring concrete slabs at the bottom of the ocean against fire. Before insuring a property, insurers will make sure that a fire in the insured building is virtually impossible: there are no wooden or paper items stored inside, no open flames, the wiring is well insulated, the house is equipped with an alarm system and automatic fire suppression, and the fire station is located in the next block.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that service providers in the market are not alone; they operate alongside competitors. For instance, one could consider removing the clause from auto insurance policies that excludes coverage for incidents related to the driver’s alcohol intoxication. However, the company would then find itself with a portfolio consisting solely of policies sold to alcoholics, as they would have nowhere else to get insured. It often reaches absurd levels where, in highly competitive insurance markets, companies refuse clients who approach them “off the street” rather than being referred by agents or brokers. Their reasoning is: “If a client is shopping around for insurance and has come to us, it means they have been turned down multiple times for reasons they are trying to hide from us.” London underwriters also will not sign an insurance policy if a broker has not been able to find an underwriter on the first or second attempt. A third underwriter simply will not consider a risk that has been previously rejected by others.
Similar phenomena can be observed in almost any market. People will clean their car interiors at a special service not once a week, but when the interior has been soiled by children. The more advertising promotes the possibilities of deep cleaning, the more complex and expensive cases will come their way. Those who go on vacation to an all-inclusive hotel are usually the ones planning to overindulge, and an increase in hotel prices will attract even more people looking to save on food while eating a lot. That’s why all-inclusive hotels rarely offer free alcohol. If a supermarket offers discounts to attract new customers, it will mainly draw in people looking for cheaper prices rather than future loyal clients.
Now let’s take a look at the sexual market and see the same thing. Men and women, instinctively guided by an ingrained heuristic, will diligently avoid potential partners who are too eager and pushy. It’s like banks that turn away borrowers who are in desperate need of money. The more persistent and intrusive a potential partner is, the quicker you need to make a run for it. After all, anti-selection applies here as well.
Why did this partner choose you? Maybe everyone else turned him down, and he just has no one left around. But why did they refuse? And what about that woman, over 30 and still not married? Why? And this man, he’s also single? A sketchy guy. Why does he need me? Can’t he live without me? Meanwhile, I’m looking for support myself, not planning to be someone else’s crutch. She’s in love and swears her love? Sure, she wants my apartment and car. Oh, she doesn’t need them? So, it turns out she’s not a self-sufficient person. How can someone like that raise children? And why is she specifically pursuing me? Am I her last chance? Maybe she’s crazy or, worse, foolish? Would a smart and balanced person humiliate themselves like that?
If you want to capture the attention of a potential partner, the worst thing you can do is to impose yourself on them. If you want your partner to take a step towards you, the worst thing you can do is to let them know how in love and how much you are suffering. At the very least, they won’t be in a hurry to reciprocate – they know you are waiting for them. At most, they might think twice, as the alarm bells in their mind have already started ringing.
How to get someone into bed?
Always, every minute of your life,
even when you are absolutely happy,
have one attitude towards
the people around you:
“I will do what I want, with you or without you.”P. Durov
A quick answer to this question is: “It’s not worth framing it that way.” If you’re already in unrequited love with someone, any attempts to get closer to that person will cost you too much or may even be completely futile. Among two partners, the one who is more willing to say “no” tends to win. The one who confesses their love first usually loses. If you plan to build a relationship with the person you are in unrequited love with, you should accept the fact that every day of your life together will be seen as a favor from the partner you pursued. This partner will “demand payment” every day on the simple basis that you were the one who begged, not the other way around.
And if you’re not in love, then you have some good news. The first piece of news: You’re not under the influence of drugs and can objectively assess how good a partner is as a person, with their strengths and weaknesses. The second piece of news: You can bring him or her to bed, regardless of how attractive you are on the outside or how rich your inner world is. The most important thing is that you really don’t care who you bring to bed if you’re not specifically in love with someone.
But let’s assume you’ve decided to try to seduce someone. A person who isn’t in love will simply move on to the next candidate for a sexual partner if they get rejected, so they have nothing to lose. On the other hand, a person in love risks losing hope, but if they receive a categorical refusal, they become freer in their actions—there’s no longer any point in wondering, “What if they say no?” If “what if they say no” is a possibility, then there’s really no reason to pursue their heart.
But we will assume that we want to act in the most effective way, rather than in the style of Lieutenant Rzhevsky with his seduction technique, which consists of the question, “May I have my way with you?” We need to maintain a relationship with the person and, ideally, make them want to take us to bed, and we, well, would agree.
The biggest mistake that people make when trying to get someone into bed is thinking that the opposite sex necessarily wants marriage with a bunch of kids and a happy retirement at the end of the road. Yes, they do want that. But if we’re talking about a transactional relationship, any actions that make your potential partner evaluate you in terms of a long-term relationship will lead to failure. The easier it is to break off a connection after what might be a disappointing sexual encounter, the more likely the partner is to engage. This is why vacation flings or affairs during business trips are so common. This is also why a man declaring his marriage and commitment to family values makes it easier for him to access a woman’s body, even though it seems that women only want single men. This is why you can never get a man into bed if he knows for sure that a woman is in love with him and is looking at him with those doe-like eyes. If he’s not a complete jerk, he simply won’t be able to break up with her later if things don’t go well. This is why office romances are more likely to happen between married people, while single individuals often enter romantic relationships only after they’ve worked or studied together. The conclusion: Be easygoing and don’t try to build serious relationships before they actually become serious.
The second mistake is that people don’t know how to think “backwards.” Here’s an example: In order to have sex, you need to go on several dates first. Moreover, these dates should lead you to a place where there’s a bed. This could be one partner’s home, where there aren’t any other people around, like parents, or a hotel room if it’s a business trip or vacation. Once you find yourselves in the same space, it’s already 90% done. If such an event doesn’t end with a bedroom scene, then some kind of force majeure has gotten in the way.
For men, it’s easier in this case. They can gauge a woman’s interest in sex through their gestures of attention. Women, on the other hand, find it inappropriate to actively show signs of consent. They have to find ways to get closer to each other than etiquette would normally allow. What can be done? Go out on the balcony to look at the stars. Ask to figure out something small and hard to read together. Find an excuse to get closer and run your hand through his hair. In any case, position yourself close to him so that he feels inclined to hug you. If he doesn’t hug you, complain that it’s cold. Doesn’t get it? Well, that’s just one of those insurmountable circumstances.
By the way, it’s important to remember that the most innocent yet simultaneously the most exciting kiss isn’t on the lips, but on the neck from behind and on the ear. The most innocent, yet also the most stimulating tactile contact isn’t on the chest or hips, but on the stomach when embraced from behind, subtly pressing the back against the chest. Boys and girls—if you want to lure someone into bed—find yourselves in a position where the woman stands in front with her back to the man. This way, you can kiss the nape of her neck gently, sending shivers down her spine, and embrace her tenderly without excessive sexual aggression, or accept her when she presses against you.
Dating itself. How to get someone to go on a date? It’s really quite simple. But again, you need to think “backwards.” To make the date interesting for the other person, you should suggest an outing that they would enjoy sharing with you. What do they like? Theater? What have they seen before? Are they planning to go to anything soon? Oh right, they haven’t thought about it… Well, how about I buy the tickets and we go together? I’ve been wanting to go for a while but couldn’t find anyone to join me. What about sports? Football? Oh, I’ve never been to a stadium! What movie did they want to see? Hey, I wanted to see that too. Want me to buy the tickets and we can go together? What did you say? Tripolye ceramics? We can come back in a couple of days and talk knowledgeably about Tripolye ceramics and suggest visiting something together. Oh, you’ve always dreamed of skydiving too?
What if they say no? Well, if they do, they do. Notice that the invitations you make for a date are innocent. You’re simply suggesting spending time together and, most importantly, you’re not triggering any signals of intraspecies aggression; instead, you’re allowing the person’s inner “squirrel” to get used to you and start considering you part of their inner circle. So, there’s no need to fear rejection. First of all, your invitation is innocent. Secondly, you’re using the most effective strategy for humans—the gradual approach based on shared interests. And thirdly, if you don’t take the shot, you definitely won’t score.
A mandatory part of one of the dates should be sharing a meal together. If we’re talking about three dates as a program for getting someone into bed, then that should happen on the third date, and you should kiss on the second date. To kiss, you need to have certain feelings for each other, and they should be mutual. Otherwise, it will feel like a game of “favor.” If you’re a man, you should be wary of a woman’s “dynamo”—when she uses you while giving you mixed signals. Kisses are somewhat of a guarantee that you’re not being played. If you’re a woman, you should assess how willing the man is to pursue you.
In our culture, it’s customary for the man to pay for a shared meal. However, this shouldn’t be taken for granted. You should suggest splitting the bill. A decent man will decline this offer but will appreciate that you’re not just a gold digger looking for a sponsor (though perhaps that’s exactly what he’s expecting—who knows). An unsuitable man won’t pass the “test drive.” But if you let him take care of the bill at the restaurant, you won’t find out if he’s the right man for you or not. Sometimes one partner might genuinely not have any money. Don’t jump to conclusions about that; it can really be a coincidence. The man might then ask you to cover the bill, apologizing and blushing as he says he’s borrowing the money from you. Go ahead and pay. Then graciously accept his repayment for the debt. He already owes you more than just money; he owes you his reputation. Use that to your advantage. If he doesn’t repay the debt on time, you’ve paid a small price to find out whether this man is worth your time or not.
Shared meals are important for several reasons: During a meal, you can engage in conversation and gauge your partner’s overall level—perhaps you’ll decide you don’t want to deal with them after all. Most importantly, when you’re sitting across from each other, you have a wonderful opportunity to look each other in the eyes for longer than 6-7 seconds. A full 6-7 seconds.
Another important aspect of going on dates together is tactile contact. Man — offer your hand to the girl and don’t let go of it afterward. She won’t mind leaving her hand in yours. Girl — ask the man for help, for example, by offering him your hand on the stairs or, if you’re wearing heels, on the cobblestones. And don’t rush to take your hand back, even if it gets a little sweaty. He’s quite nervous — that’s understandable. Just loosen your grip so that your fingers hold the edge of your partner’s palm while the palms themselves remain open and allow for some air.
So: dates with an interesting theme, walking hand in hand, visiting a restaurant, long glances, kisses at the end, and going to one of your homes. Oh, and don’t use your car! First of all, there’s always a taxi. Secondly, you’ll have the chance to suggest a walk before heading home. If you’re a woman, heaven forbid you drive to the movies or theater. He should take you home, not you say “goodbye” and slam the door.
An interesting topic, how do you find out about it? Just chat and ask questions. Ask and listen. People enjoy communication, and importantly, in most cases, the feeling is mutual. You’re likely to get a positive response if you like the person. Not interested in talking? Just read the epigraph above and move on.
Wishing you success, and remember that you should sleep with those who are simply interesting to be around. You should sleep with friends, not just be friends because you’ve given each other something.
How procurement departments work
Written with the active participation of Anna Beloritskaya.
— What do you think about while sitting in the chair of a space capsule and listening to the countdown? — I look at all these levers, buttons, and indicators, and one thought overwhelms me: just think, this thing was built by someone who offered the government the lowest bid for its construction! From an interview with astronaut W. Shirra.
The market is not only about effective sales but also about effective purchases. In patriarchal cultures, there is a stereotype that a man buys a woman, rather than a woman buying a man in the sexual market. The biological foundations for the emergence of this stereotype have already been discussed in this book. It has also been shown that the development of human civilization is gradually erasing the basis for gender stereotypes, and in some post-industrial communities, men are slowly becoming the commodity. At the same time, if the goal is not to sell oneself but to effectively organize purchases, then that task also needs to be addressed.
The best example can be found in the purchasing departments of large companies. Every salesperson knows that getting through to these companies “through the secretary” is nearly impossible; the buyers themselves are not open to contacting salespeople, and particularly persistent salespeople are simply ignored.
How do these companies exist then, if they don’t communicate with sellers or are even afraid of those who are trying to sell? It’s quite simple. Imagine yourself in the shoes of a procurement department employee tasked with creating a budget for something large, complex, and critical. You have tight deadlines. You have a technical specification that outlines the mandatory parameters for the required products. You have a description of the quantity of products, along with drawings, schematics, and plans. Tell me, will you have time to talk to every seller and let them use all their possible “sales techniques” on you? No. What do you do? If it’s your first time, you simply go online, and if it’s your second, you turn to an existing database of emails that start with info@, and you send out requests for pricing. Sellers, listen up: the addresses that start with “info@…” do work, and their inboxes are being checked carefully. They just ignore all sorts of commercial offers and look for what they are waiting for – requests for quotes.
Within a couple of days, the companies will familiarize themselves with all the project information, select the requested products, and if there are any other items in their product range that are described in the project, they will include those as well. They will prepare a commercial proposal and send it back via email. A procurement department employee will review all the received proposals for compliance with the project requirements, immediately filtering out those suppliers who offer products that do not meet the request, or those who try to convince that their proposal, although not matching the request, is much better than what was asked for. From the remaining two or three products, they will choose the cheapest one. That’s it.
People barely have enough time to read technical specifications and prepare estimates, and communicating with sellers is the worst thing they can imagine. No one is going to call back or ask for clarification. If they don’t respond – fine. Others will. If they say they can’t deliver what’s needed? No problem. Communication in the “Email request-response” mode is every buyer’s dream. They will be happy with just one thing – if the responses they receive are only those that meet the technical requirements and can be easily copied into the estimate.
If the price difference is minimal, the buyer will prefer the supplier who responded faster and required less time to process the supplier’s proposal. Successful companies in such a B2B market earn money solely based on their reputation, meaning they meet expectations. Sooner or later, buyers will learn that proposals from a certain company are always clear, concise, and relevant, and that the text of the commercial proposal already includes a ready-made section of the estimate, which can simply be copied and pasted into their documentation.
Purchasers need several supplier companies to a) compile a price comparison folder and b) avoid dependence on a single supplier. The worst scenario for a purchaser is when a specific supplier is already mentioned in the technical specifications. In this case, the purchaser becomes dependent on the supplier and has to wait, make follow-up calls, rush, and generally act like a salesperson, feeling the pressure to respond quickly.
By understanding how professional buyers operate, we can draw several lessons on how to properly make a proposal to a woman.
- It is necessary to have clear technical specifications.
- You shouldn’t depend on just one woman and should make offers to several at once.
- You shouldn’t be afraid of rejection.
And you know what? This is exactly how successful men behave in patriarchal traditional communities. When they see a woman who meets their criteria, they instantly profess their love and propose marriage. Often in front of witnesses, to ensure her “yes” is firm.
There is a predatory logic to this behavior. If a woman says “yes” so directly, it means she really wants to get married, and she will see this proposal as a gift from fate and be grateful to that fate, as well as to the man who marries her. Her happiness is guaranteed; she immerses herself in domestic life and raising numerous offspring. There are minimal family quarrels and maximum understanding of who is in charge in the house.
Spending time on courtship, getting to know someone’s inner world, and other nonsense is inefficient. All women are essentially the same and have the same value. Are the technical requirements met? Blonde, nice figure, no drafts in the attic, parents’ wallet not full of cobwebs? Make an offer. If she declines, fine, then it wasn’t meant to be. It means she wants something more and/or she values herself not just based on the obvious physical attributes, but also because of her rich inner world, education, and ideas. But who needs ideas in the kitchen? No one. Great, she turned you down.
This seemingly transactional behavior actually serves quite strategic goals – a long and peaceful family life with many children. And from the perspective of a potential groom, he also measures himself by his own criteria: a bank director, an apartment, a car, a good reputation. What more do you need? Dating? Courting? Spending money? So who, excuse me, is trying to deceive whom? And love? Strangely enough, it will definitely come. There will be passion and infatuation. It’s natural for people to fall in love with those they see every day and sleep with every night.
Conclusion: if you have decided to get married and start a family, you shouldn’t settle for that “one and only” person; otherwise, your marriage will exist on her terms, not yours. You just need to organize your purchases correctly. “Here are the technical specifications – please send me the price list. I would be happy to see your proposal by Thursday.” If you are a prominent and successful woman, you can do the same, but only if you can handle the possibility of facing 30 rejections without damaging your self-esteem. Of course, you can convince yourself that no one will turn you down, but you’re likely to hesitate to try. However, as mentioned in the chapter about the discerning bride, the best opportunities go to those who take an active stance.
How should potential brides respond to such a straightforward proposal? Of course, one could take it as an insult, snap back, and refuse. However, considering that this approach is common in close-knit, reputation-sensitive communities, it’s not worth earning a reputation as a quarrelsome scandal-monger. Additionally, a direct refusal might hurt the groom’s feelings, especially since, according to legend, he is the director of a bank. The classic advice suggests acknowledging the proposal and thanking him for his attention. Something like: “Thank you. I’m very flattered by your proposal. I’m quite taken aback and need some time to think it over.” The ultimate finesse is to convey that you feel unworthy of his attention—this will prolong the transaction without requiring an immediate “yes.” On one hand, you’re not offending the person; on the other, you’re acting like a discerning bride from the namesake problem—you set the groom aside and continue to consider other candidates. Importantly, you leave yourself the option to revisit this groom later. After all, he is the director of a bank, and education for the children is important.
How to forget love
What are you saying! Love should not be forgotten! Are you suffering for him or her, overwhelmed by longing? Does the world seem bleak, and you can’t bear to look at other members of the opposite sex? And you can’t go back to your beloved, or more often, you don’t want to? For example, he turned out to be married and promised to get a divorce… uh-huh… Or he betrayed you or deceived you in some other way. Or he showed some unpleasant traits of character or behavior. You understand intellectually that he is not your soulmate and you decided to part ways, but you yearn for those moments of happiness you shared together.
You no longer love him if you’ve noticed some flaws that led you to decide to end the relationship. When you’re in love, you don’t see the flaws. You just want to reclaim what you’ve lost—love, feelings, emotions, passion. But you don’t know how to replace your loved one. You start thinking again about how to get back to him. You suffer once more. And if it wasn’t you who left him, but he left you, then that’s also a betrayal on his part, and you can’t count on someone like that. If he suddenly passed away, you still can’t bring him back. And if you’ve divorced, then the road back is just going in circles.
People who enjoy something tend to want to prolong that experience in any way they can. After reading an interesting post on a blog, they rush to check the comments. After watching an exciting movie, they look forward to a sequel, which inevitably “just isn’t the same.” Every person is unique, and you can’t “replace” one with another. You can’t “replace” one movie you’ve seen with the same one again. You can only watch a new, good movie. One with a different plot, belonging to a different genre. And the new movie might be better, or it might be worse. You’ll never know unless you step into the theater and immerse yourself in the story. Don’t look for replacements. Look for something new. It’s always better.
But as you step out of the dark cinema, you walk through a sunny city filled with movie posters, and you really don’t feel like going to another film. That’s perfectly fine. You won’t want to see another movie for a while, and that’s okay. Everything will come in its own time. Moreover, if you rush to catch another screening right away, it’s not really what you want, anyway. It’s like trying to snack again after a hearty dinner. Especially if your motivation for seeing a new film was to forget the old one. It just won’t work. Try not to think about a pink monkey. Can you do it? Exactly.
The worst way to fight insomnia in bed is to lie there and think about how important it is for you to fall asleep. You’re guaranteed not to doze off. You’ll keep checking in with yourself, wondering if you’ve fallen asleep or not. Forget about sleep. Convince yourself that sleep is nothing, and the main thing is rest. Just lying in bed. And you’ll fall asleep right away. Similarly, the worst way to “find a replacement” is to actively search for one and think about how important it is to you. To avoid being alone. To forget the past. To rediscover that feeling you had back then. Stop constantly analyzing whether you like others now. Just allow others to be closer to you. Go to the movies next week to see some new, promising film. It might not be great, sure. Then go to another movie. And it might turn out to be better than all the films you’ve seen before. And don’t forbid yourself from seeing or talking to or having sex with the person you left. By lifting that ban on yourself, you’ll realize that you don’t really want it that much anyway. And there’s nothing much to talk about. But by allowing yourself to be close to someone with whom you can’t imagine a future, you make yourself a more desirable commodity in the sexual market.
Surely, there are people in your circle who would be happy to get closer to you. Allow them to do so. But don’t rush yourself. Just never compare your past love with these new people. There’s no point in that. Which movie is better: “Star Wars” or “Cruel Romance”? Can you forget “Star Wars” after watching “Cruel Romance”? And what’s the point of forgetting them—both are good films, and you enjoyed them. They have ended. We have the next movie to look forward to. Remember your love and the time you spent together with gratitude to fate. After all, you were happy. What more do you need?
Macro level
Where wealth is revered, all that is honest is despised: loyalty, integrity, shame, modesty…
Salpustiy
The society we live in is not monogamous. The laws and rules of our society imply that a high-ranking male is capable of having multiple wives, not simultaneously, but sequentially, without deviating from moral norms and laws. Male attractiveness in the sexual market is primarily determined by a man’s investment capabilities rather than his age. Thus, a financially capable man does not lose his appeal after a divorce and remains a suitable candidate for marriage to a younger wife. By “investments,” we should understand not only purely material resources, such as financial stability and ownership of movable and immovable property, but also aspects like culture and the time a man is willing to spend on caring for and raising his children. A genetically sound male sexual strategy, in the presence of external demand for his genes and resources, would require him to part ways with his aging wife in order to marry a new, younger one. Additionally, if moral norms allow, he may seek to acquire “official mistresses.”
Emotionally, this may manifest as a “cooling of relations” or a growing hatred and impatience towards one’s spouse, but the economically rational motives driven by instincts are quite simple – it’s better to have more diverse offspring carrying your genes than to continue reproducing with the same female.
In such conditions, high-ranking males monopolize women who are at the most attractive age in terms of fertility. On one hand, this reduces the number of childless women, but on the other hand, it does not provide women with any lifetime guarantees. In a polygynous society, a woman can expect to rely on the resources of a high-ranking male for life, even if those resources are shared with co-wives. However, in a society with sequential polygyny, a high-ranking male’s wife is likely to lose him once her value to him has diminished: after having given birth to several children who are now independent and no longer require constant care. If we consider that the “average duration of a woman’s utility” is about 10-15 years, a man aged 25 to 75 can easily monopolize access to the eggs of 3-4 women. All of these 3-4 women share the same fate as single mothers, without any lifetime guarantees of having a husband.
The presence of one high-ranking man with 3-4 wives means, in addition to an increasing number of “divorcees,” that low-ranking males are left with no women at all. The less a man can compete as an investor with others, the lower his chances of marrying an unused and childless woman. Moreover, in modern society, where women can earn money independently and hire nannies to raise their children, the market attractiveness of low-ranking males tends to approach zero.
Despite the fact that logically, a financially secure woman should not be concerned about her husband’s ability to invest in offspring and can focus on other factors, such as her partner’s cultural level, physical appearance, or excellent performance in bed, a woman’s instinctive drives demand that her husband be wealthy. This, by the way, explains the large number of single women among those who have built successful careers or businesses on their own. A husband’s wealth is a relative measure, and women naturally assess it in comparison to their own financial status. Thus, the more stable a woman is on her own, the fewer choices she has among men who are instinctively attractive to her. The subconscious evaluation of a man’s investment potential also explains the almost inevitable cooling of relationships in couples where the primary income is generated by the woman.
Therefore, the surplus of men in society creates a shortage of quality men in the social group to which a particular woman belongs, especially if she leads an independent lifestyle and earns her own living. Unwanted men tend to accumulate at the bottom of the social hierarchy, as the shortage of women created by status-driven males trickles down the hierarchy to the very bottom. A man, as an investor, will always be in demand by women who are even lower than him in terms of wealth. And considering the pyramid structure of any hierarchy, there will always be fewer desirable suitors for women of a certain social level than there are women themselves.
It is worth focusing on the fate of a large number of impoverished single men who have not entered into marriage and find themselves at the bottom of the social ladder. As mentioned in the article about moral values, a greater number of single men intensifies competition among them, provokes aggression, and makes society unstable. This situation automatically fills society with men who, in the absence of family, are prone to engaging in risky activities and lack long-term strategic goals—such as war, crime, vagrancy, antisocial behavior, alcoholism, and drug addiction.
Of course, such a situation is possible in societies with significant wealth inequality.
Only a significant difference in the investment attractiveness of men can sustain demand in the sexual market for divorced high-status men. It turns out that certain clearly kleptocratic regimes, characterized by high levels of stratification, provoke mass unrest by creating a large population of aggressively inclined unmarried men, which can escalate into armed conflicts if the ruling elite resorts to force, or lead to “velvet” revolutions if the elite hesitates to actively suppress the rebellion. The presence of a large number of bachelors provides the necessary participants for such a deadly folly as war, especially in the context of modern weaponry. In contrast, married and family men are much less prone to aggression or risk, and a greater proportion of married men acts as a stabilizing and pacifying factor in society.
It is important to note that a highly stratified society, where there is a decreasing demand for low-status men in the sexual market, leads to even greater social division. Disadvantaged men sink further down the social ladder and drag down their victims of antisocial behavior: those who have been robbed, injured, raped, or who have fallen into alcoholism “for company,” or who have become clients of a well-developed drug distribution network. This creates a chain reaction with positive feedback. The presence of a large number of “used” divorced women with children does not contribute to egalitarianism either.
In such conditions, the options for the ruling elite, who wish to maintain their position, include the genocide of their own male population through the organization of war, redirecting the aggression of discontented males towards some external imagined or real enemy, or eliminating aggressive potential in other ways, such as supplying people with large amounts of cheap alcohol. A seemingly viable solution to the problem could be the promotion of “family values” to ensure that every man has a “lifetime” woman. However, this is not a true solution, as the elite themselves are the ones creating the shortage of women suitable for reproduction, rather than just for recreational sex.
Additionally, due to the rise in crime and aggression, there is an increasing demand for law enforcement personnel, who serve as a convenient factor channeling “surplus” men. However, the growth of the apparatus of violence does not solve the problem; it merely postpones it. First, aggression does not disappear; on the contrary, it becomes mobilized. Typically, in such societies, the “law enforcement agencies” do not focus on maintaining public order but primarily protect the ruling elite—this is why they are hired in large numbers, given the obvious threat posed by single men. Second, law enforcement officers are still the same risk-prone, impoverished, and unmarried men, more concerned with enhancing their attractiveness, meaning their financial status, than with fulfilling their professional duties. For them, this is ultimately more important than questions of life and death. For their genes, it is the only chance to be part of the next generation. Under these conditions, the police force is likely to be prone to corruption and collusion with crime. Such a force not only consumes the elite’s resources, bringing the crisis of power closer, but also contributes to the development of aggression within society. It is also worth considering that a violence apparatus that has grown into an independent force could stage a coup. This is very likely, as there is essentially no one left to “cover” for the thieves in power.
An alternative to “manual control” is the organizations of society that impose administrative barriers on high-ranking males in their pursuit of sequential polygyny.
This could be a system in which men and women can only marry within their social class. When market demand and supply in the sexual market are restricted to such a class, men appear to be roughly equally well-off and thus do not compete with each other for women. The division of society into social classes is ensured by a caste system, characteristic of India.
A system that prohibits men and women from premarital and extramarital relationships, regardless of social status, can be stable. However, in the presence of contraceptives and established paternity, there seems to be little justification for such prohibitions on extramarital sex. Nevertheless, similar systems have existed in the past, with a striking example being Victorian England, which had a cult of the virtuous and chaste woman, and correspondingly, the pure-hearted gentleman.
The third approach is the organization of a society where material goods are redistributed from the rich to the poor. In this case, both the wealthy’s ability to practice polygamy is reduced, and the competitive advantages of the poor are improved. However, such societies deprive the rich of the incentive for entrepreneurship and the poor of the motivation to work, resulting in a lower gross national product compared to those where free competition and purely capitalist relations thrive. At the same time, these societies tend to cultivate humanitarian values and are less aggressive and more prosperous. For example, progressive or even repressive taxation on the wealthy and the widespread use of social benefits in the countries of Northern Europe.
The fourth method is a practice where the husband, upon divorce, gives all his property to the wife and takes the children older than infancy for custody. In this situation, the wealthy husband becomes burdened with too many obligations to be considered a serious competitor in the marriage market for at least some time, and that time is often quite lengthy. This is how divorce proceedings occur in several Islamic countries, particularly in Iran.
It turns out that the higher the social stratification of a society, the more likely it is to have strict restrictions on sexual activity. It is usually believed that the more backward and impoverished a society is, the stricter its sexual taboos. However, this is not the case. Firstly, there are poor and free communities. Secondly, there are wealthy and strict ones. The number and severity of sexual taboos are determined more by the degree of egalitarianism. The more equal a society is, the more freedom is expected in inter-gender relationships.
Modern post-industrial societies contain, to varying degrees, all the elements that curb the uneven distribution of women among men: these include social barriers, legally enshrined monogamy combined with a certain societal intolerance towards extramarital relationships, a taxation and social benefits system that ensures the redistribution of material wealth from the rich to the poor, and legal practices that require husbands to divide property and provide financial support for children until they reach adulthood.
However, there will always be some societies where all these restraining factors are practically absent for historical reasons: the idea of alimony and property division doesn’t work when most people receive “black” salaries and don’t really have any assets. The concept of redistributing material wealth is blocked by the very power represented by the super-rich, who advocate for tax cuts for the wealthy or, in general, for creating conditions under which the rich can evade taxation altogether through various “schemes” that are inaccessible to the middle and lower classes. The idea of intolerance towards extramarital relationships is not supported by any religion, or the religion is tolerant of such behavior, and the idea of social stratification fails because the wealth distribution curve among the population is extremely steep, making it nearly impossible to identify a closed social group where individuals do not differ vastly in terms of wealth. For instance, even if we take a hypothetical and relatively small group of “oligarchs,” the poorest oligarch will be ten times, if not more, poorer than the richest one. In such conditions, competition among high-ranking males still persists, especially in the absence of clear administrative barriers separating social groups, and in a context where most wealthy individuals are former poor people who have maintained their social and familial ties and, de facto, belong to a lower social group.
Such societies, for the reasons mentioned above, are not sustainable and will experience uprisings, revolutions, and wars. In these societies, there will be an increase in theft, murder, rape, drug addiction, and alcoholism, making it dangerous to go out on the streets in the evening. These societies pose a threat to their neighbors due to the accumulated aggression within them. They are doomed, and sooner or later, other societies will emerge in the territories they occupy, societies that have figured out how to limit the sexual activity of high-ranking males in one way or another: from the introduction of Sharia law with a nod to monogamy or other religious laws to the egalitarianization of society and the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.
In essence
• Our society is not monogamous. One way or another, “sequential polygyny” is present.
The shortage of women, provoked by the top of the social pyramid, intensifies and cascades down to the very bottom, creating a large mass of unsettled men.
A large number of unsettled men provokes instability in society.
To counteract this effect, different societies invent various tools. Each of these tools has its own set of drawbacks.
• There may be young societies where customs and morals have not developed enough to counteract the negative effects of unsettled males. Such societies are unstable and either establish appropriate institutions and morals or dissolve among the surrounding, more stable communities.
