Evolutionary Psychology and Retrogamy

Posted on June 22, 2011


Many men use Evo psych to try and quantify, or qualify female behavior. While the Seduction movement has managed to have astonishing success using it as a way of prediction and evoking female actions and reactions, many of the things that go on in the female mind, while predictable, still seem to be quite survival-negative in the long term. For instance, why do women seem to simultaneously crave and fear both change and danger? Why do are they simultaneously attracted to incredibly successful and powerful men (in the form of the successful alpha) who can clearly protect and provide for them, and dangerous outcasts who will do nothing but abuse them? Why is both drive for success (ego) attractive AND utter contentment with who they are (self-esteem) similarly a powerful attractant?

I would like to introduce a new concept called retrogamy into the mix. Unfortunately, when you consider retrogamy, you have to set aside some of the older concepts of ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ and ‘omega’. These terms are predicated on the concepts that prehistoric humans organize themselves along the same lines as wolf packs and ape tribes.

The problem is that humanity went with a much higher sexual selection than natural selection as wolves and apes did. Wolves in particular are carnivorous, and much of their natural selection involved making them more efficient hunters. Apes, being omnivorous, more closely adopted a similar structure to humans, but again… their preferred habitat was also that of many large carnivores, so their muscular density, behavior, and social structures frequently resemble that which is most efficient to survive in such a hazardous environment. Much more natural selection than sexual selection.

Humans, however, after natural selection gave them somthing which is marvelously capable of adaptation of both environment and social structures, I believe stopped paying attention to natural selection except insofar as negative mutations instantly caused them to become ‘maladapted’ and incapable of survival or reproduction.

In other words, the minute we developed enough brainpower to become capable of adapting our own environment, we stopped ‘environmentally evolving’. All of our further evolution was virtually entirely based on sexual selection and social adaptation.

What this means is, ‘natural adaptation’ was still taking place, but it was only selected for as long as it was socially desireable. For instance, a lighter musculature that is fleet, comparatively both on land and ‘swimming’ increases your chance of gaining food, and escaping… but it is selected for sexually because it makes you a better food provider for your culture. More motile hands with delicate fingers, again, might be a naturally selected-for trait, but it is more likely a sexually selected for trait because it enables you to better conquer your environment, and become more valuable to your social framework, rather than simply because it increases your personal survival and chances to breed.

So, with a species that has evolved to use it’s brain as it’s most powerful survival characteristic, what would be the most powerful sexually selected for traits?
Not merely cognitive intelligence, otherwise every woman would be a geek-chaser. Geeks, by their very nature, are more sexually selected against. Too much cognition tends to alienate one from one’s social framework. But, the ability to cognitively select socially valuable traits instead of simply possessing them actually CAN allow the ‘geekhood’ genes to thrive.

So males have two survival strategies-
To rebel against female sexual selection, conquering and raping their way through other men’s women, these traits lead to a ‘selection’ in females to seek reproductive rape, violating social selection to protect one’s own line, This is where ‘natural’ selection comes back into play.
to be the most socially valuable, to learn or earn social value to create the most sexual attractiveness possible.

The problem is that these two sexual selection strategies DIRECTLY compete. They are not seperate breeds, or races, or even genetic dispositions, they are two sexual selection strategies available to EVERY male. social value, however, is much HARDER to maintain than rebel sexual selection, ancd is also stronger from a species survival point of view, and thus, when social mores change to make a variety of sexual selection techniques inviable, the ‘social value’ method tries to adapt to the change in society (ironically making itself LESS valued because of the confusion inherent in a female-driven society)

Retrogamy is the female desire to ‘have it all’, both the ‘invading rapist’ and the ‘socially valuable male’. to pay heed to both competetive reproductive practices.

The seduction community has learned exactly how to ‘create it all’ by combining both sexual selection strategies into a single method. What I believe they are taking advantage of is not ‘hypergamy’, so much as ‘retrogamy’. They take advantage of the dichotomy to produce an illusion that they are maximal in both aspects of the competing sexual selection strategies. This is a VERY powerful attractant, as any ‘pick up artist’ that has easily amoged a ‘natural’ can tell you. I don’t believe that he has projected himself as the ‘alpha male of the group’ but that he has projected himself in a way that appeals to both competing strategies in the way that a ‘natural’, who instinctively leans toward one or the other sexual selection strategies, can never possibly match.

I have this tied into many of my other theories of male-female interactions, but this article is already getting far too long, so I will bring those up later.

Posted in: PUA, The Bachelor