The Problem with PUA Advice: 4

One of the more frequent themes heard on PUA blogs, newsgroups and in ‘game’ literature concerns classifying men into “alpha”, “beta”, “omega” etc. Many also think that women want only “alpha” cock.. which just happens to be what they see themselves as.. very convenient.

However this view of the world contradicts reality in some very fundamental ways.

Consider that for most of human prehistory we lived in groups of 100-2,000. Let’s say that each group was adjacent to a few more groups. Given what we know about hunter gatherers and their range, the population density was about 10,000-50,000 people per say.. 1000 square km. Given the rates of birth, equal sex ratio at birth and the length of human gestation/maturity, we can extrapolate an often missed fact.

Most women who came of age had to choose from less than 50 guys.

Now some of you might talk about harems and so on.. but here is the problem. Harems were very hard to build and maintain before civilization began. Indeed only the top few richest men in any given area had harems, even in the age of harems.

Large harems in hunter-gatherers are not possible because of lack of surplus and need to maintain group cohesion.

Even chimpanzees do not intentionally murder senior members of their group, but humans can and do it often.

Simply put, having a harem was just too much trouble for too little gain. That is not to say that tribal chiefs did not get more pussy than others.

Here is something to think about:

Why did every guy, who could get it up, in hunter-gatherer communities get laid?

Sure some may get more.. but it is unmistakable that every guy got ass, in many cases much more than most of us get nowadays.

So why did the supposedly evolutionary-psychology based female search for “alpha” cock and semen not stop “non-alpha” guys from getting laid in the past?

My theory is that:

1] Without a centralized law enforcement system to protect ‘pussy’, women who did not like it learnt to like it. Remember that throughout most of human history, corporal punishment of adult women was not a crime, as long as the goal was moderate pain and humiliation (as opposed to real injury).

Women who refused to play nice, were subject to a bit of rough handling and humiliation. I personally feel that the ease at which most women accept moderately painful spankings and moderate BDSM is a remnant of such times.

But here is the catch.. what was accepted practice throughout most of human prehistory and history is now felony.

2] Most pre-1800 cultures were not modest, nor was there much privacy. If you grew up in such a culture you likely saw your older relatives having sex. Prostitution was also very widespread and accepted. Nor did most cultures have hangups about teen sex. If anything, many cultures actively facilitated teen sex through early marriages.

Therefore pretty much everyone who wanted to get laid, got laid. Contrast this to our present dystopia.

3] Women could not go cock-hopping with the freedom they have now, as STDs were untreatable, effective contraception was non-existent and women REQUIRED a man to support them.

I have no doubts that women screwed around, but they could not GET AWAY with the ease they have now.

In case, you do not believe me- have a look at pictures and writings about how female adultery and general BS was dealt with.. and compare such punishments with BDSM today.

Did I mention that almost no pre-1800 culture pedestaled women?

More next time..

  1. Hughman
    May 16, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Almost every pre-historic man got ass?

    The 40% of men only passing on their genes says otherwise.

    That number is based on statistical extrapolation and a host of assumptions. It is about as reliable as one pulled out of your ass.

    • Hughman
      May 16, 2010 at 4:40 pm

      Research and stats seem plausible to me. I admit it can be argued either way: maternal variation is higher, therefore less guys got involved. but then it could be argued that the Y chromosome shows greater rate of change in variation, which can imply both selective pressure to change (from fewer men passing on genes) or a greater pool to be a part (that most men do reproduce)

      It’s pretty radical still to even think that guys reproduce less through out history. Let alone to then re-backtract.

      The question is not whether 20% of guys have 60% of the kids. That is quite feasible. The real question is whether 60% of men have no surviving kids.

  2. May 16, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Absolutely out of my field here, but I wonder if it isn’t like rabbits. With rabbits, every rabbit who wants it can get ass, but in practice the colony’s alpha will father all the kittens: he gets ass *much more often* so the others are getting sloppy seconds. Could reconcile AD’s theory with the 40% gene pool thing.

    Could be.. But it is hard to say. I do not trust anything that is based on speculation, as opposed to direct measurement.

  3. Niko
    May 16, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    I have a Bosnian friend and he made mention that his Grandmother (from a backward region) was simply kidnapped into marriage. And yeh she simply learned to like it.

    Mind you sex ratios were fantastically skewed in favor of men.

  4. the dude
    May 17, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Dunbar’s number suggests 60 people for complex groups, otherwise nothing’s manageable. So whenever you had to chose from 50 guys, choices were more effective than in today’s world, suggesting better possibility to select whatever is deemed alpha.

  1. May 17, 2010 at 2:02 am
  2. May 19, 2010 at 1:47 am

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: