A reader responded to my last post that his reference experiences in the West led him to believe that most if not close to all women in the west court for sex, and not for commitment, and that he believed that sociosexuality would be strongly envirionmentally influenced, and as such in the opulent west women would change their strategies away from low sociosexuality.

I replied:

A careful read of the wikipedia articles and the relevant links suggests strong nurture components, but also some nature components
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociosexual_orientation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociosexual_Orientation_Inventory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-monitoring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrinsic_religious_orientation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morningness-eveningness_questionnaire

A few interesting quotes:

Individuals who are partnered typically have lower testosterone levels than individuals who are single. However, this was found to apply solely to individuals possessing a restricted sociosexual orientation. Partnered, unrestricted men and women’s testosterone levels are more similar to the levels of single men and women.

In regions that suffer from a high prevalence of infectious diseases, both men and women report lower levels of sociosexuality, as the costs of an incautious lifestyle (i.e., being unrestricted) may outweigh the benefits

Higher masculinity[16] and eveningness[17] in women is related to unrestricted sociosexuality.

I’m going to assume that higher masculinity in women is biological but mostly epigenetic, and I will assume that eveningness could be genetic as well as epigenetic. I think epigenetic means that environmental cues trigger changes in gene functions without changing the underlying genes, for instance hormone balance during fetal development cause dramatic epigentic differences in brain and body development.

Also please note:

Individuals who are sociosexually unrestricted tend to score higher on openness to experience,[7] and be more extraverted,[8] less agreeable,[8] lower on honesty-humility,[9] more erotophilic,[10] more impulsive,[11] more likely to take risks,[11] more likely to have an avoidant attachment style,[12] less likely to have a secure attachment style,[13] and score higher on the Dark Triad traits (i.e. narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy).[14][15]

Which would suggest we should expect that the pick up community should self select for people who
1) have dark triad traits
2) are more likely to have an avoidant attachment style
3) all the rest

My seduction style is very sexual, and I usually have sex on the first date. With this virgin V it took 8 dates. And with my last virgin M it took about a month. I’ve heard of many virgins putting out within hours or even minutes, so I doubt in either case that the virginity was the sole factor for the sexual reticence. The virginity was caused by an underlying factor, rather than being an underlying factor.

As for your reference experiences, yes, it will be hard for any of us to tease out how much of that is due to how we screen.

I thought the eveningness trait was interesting, in light of how some people judge the general character of all women based upon women they meet in the evening in clubs. Heartiste used to always counter the argument that club girls are different by simply saying that no, all girls go to clubs. It’s a weak argument. The proportion of girls in a club will not be representative of an average.

In what other ways are we all screening without being aware of it? Many pua systems have screening explicitly built right in. And then after careful screening we declare that “all women are like that”?

It is the case that the relative distributions of sociosexual orientations are changing, and this is reflected in the changing statistics for infidelity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity

However the best statistics that we have for marital infidelity still show that infidelity is not the norm. Not all men or women do that. And most experienced PUAs will be clear that not all women can be seduced away from their man.

And so I think it’s a matter of how we screen, but also the stories we tell ourselves. How convenient to our collective egos is it to tell each other that “all women are like X”? How much warm brotherly camaraderie do we get to enjoy by sharing that story? Our relationship failures are communally exonerated.

People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions and help them throw rocks at their enemies. The One Sentence Persuasion Course

I’ve been saying for years “all women are devilish whores”. And there is some truth in it – there are some underlying fundamental similarities in the potentials of most all women. Most of them have sex drives that are like a back door to hacking their system. Get a girl isolated with an attractive man and you have opportunity plus proximity – the magic recipe.

But now I’m questioning why I said that. Was it from a lack of reference experiences? Was I trying to extrapolate out from a limited data set onto what was actually an unknown? I know I feel very clever when I claim a hidden and forbidden knowledge on the nature of all women.

It’s not true that we only have our reference experiences to go on. There are also studies and statistics. Some women marry as virgins and never cheat. Most women don’t cheat, either on their boyfriend or their husband. A great many women screen for commitment before having any sex.

And a great many women don’t.

Author Ken Wilber was once asked why he didn’t go on a tour circuit, and he replied that it was because he did not trust that he was different from everybody else he had ever seen. Everybody else he had seen who had gone on a tour circuit was constantly explaining their viewpoint again and again, and so naturally became INVESTED in that viewpoint. Their character was someone who had that viewpoint. That viewpoint became not only what they believed, but who the were. Without that viewpoint they would need to re-adjust their entire character.

I see investment in viewpoints all the time in the manosphere. Heartiste and Rollo have explicitly stated that any scientific study that goes against their gut feeling will be automatically assumed by them to be false. They have blantently pledged allegience to confirmation bias.

And I’m seeing groupies of writers who have taken up clique-talk as if any manospherian term were a biblical truism.

These truisms become litmus tests for in-group loyalty. Of personal character.

Are all women like that? If you dare to question it, are you (gasp) purple pill?