Monday, October 17, 2011

Jerk Theory and the Law of Chastity

After my last post about 9 hours ago, I received a comment from one Colonel Crimson, who, I'm about 99% confident, is a SpUte fan (but hey, we all have our faults.)  After reading through a few posts on the Colonel's blag, there are two things that I want to say.

The first is that the tenants of 'Jerk Theory' or 'The Game' are at least half true.  Jerk theory basically states that women prefer men who treat them like crap; women will deny this left and right, but they often end up with guys who treat them like crap, regardless of how much they say they want a guy who's funny, nice, and smart.  In the words of the Colonel, women will follow after "alpha (α) males" (douchebags, essentially) while ignoring the "beta (β) males" who are less aggressive.  On the contrary, women will tell you that they want a guy who treats them well and respects them.  These two ideas are contradictory and neither seem to reflect the total reality.

Because of the evolution of the human race, there are compromises between aggression and docility (for lack of a better word) among males.  In primal human males, the trait of aggression was perpetuated not only because more aggressive men were more likely to pursue women with whom to reproduce, but also because aggressive men were more likely to be able to protect their offspring from outside threats and keep them alive to reproduce and pass on those genes.  However, aggression is not a universally beneficial concept in the realm of evolution.  A male who is too aggressive will be prone to killing his mate and/or their offspring and will not be able to pass down his genes.  Thus, there is a balance to strike between the aggressive and the docile characteristics of males.

Primal females had to strike that balance, and try to find a man who was aggressive enough to protect their offspring, but not so aggressive as to kill and eat them.  We can observe similar behavior in modern women.  The traits of aggression and docility are manifest as confidence and niceness (again for lack of a better word) respectively in men.  These ideas are not inherently mutually exclusive, even though one tends to take away from the other in the observed populace.   The best responses I've received from women have been at times when I was both confident and respectful.  From what I've been able to gather from my time on the Earth, women want a man who has both swagger and a deep respect for the woman who he's with.

Unfortunately, the traits of confidence and aggression often end being correlated with self motivation, greed, and straight-up douchebaggery.  Due to the nature of our evolution, the slightly more aggressive ends up edging out the slightly more docile and the aggressive man who treats women like crap ends up with more women than the docile man who tries to remember what his mom told him about being nice to women.  Thus, jerk theory is born even though a balance between confidence and respect would be more ideal.

I have to add as a slight disclaimer to this logic, that, in my adult life, I've generally pursued women who were fairly nice and docile themselves.  I'm not the kind of guy who goes after the b*tchy, slutty my-size Barbie doll.  If that's the woman you're after, then treating her like crap might just be the way to go.  And also, as if you couldn't tell from my last post, I'm not exactly the mack daddy of Heimlich County; these are just analytical observations I've made of other relationships as well as of my own along with a parallel to principles of biology to reconcile both jerk theory and what women do to reality.

Secondly, I'd like to bear my witness of the law of the chastity.  I was a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I've experience firsthand that sexual contact is not the way to long term happiness.  In the end, the only way to avoid the heartbreak and sadness that eventually come from illicit sexual activity is to abstain from it altogether.  I've felt empty and worthless as a direct result of the things that I've done, and it was only through the atonement of Christ that I was able to feel whole.  I have a testimony that marriage in the temple is ordained by God and I have set it as a goal for myself to make that covenant, despite all the stacked odds against me.

And to Colonel Crimson, if you end up reading this, I want you to know that I respect you, I really do.  You refuse to accept the bullsh*t that women dish out about just wanting a guy who's "nice and funny."  You've taken a step back, examined the facts as they really are, and realized that what we hear isn't usually what we see.  Naturally, I think your conclusions are slightly misguided, but I respect you for making them nonetheless.  Stay classy, my friend.

2 comments:

  1. While I may disagree with some of your conclusions as well, I do respect your faith and the lifestyle you choose to live by. Ultimately it is about *your* happiness. Just know that my question was not tongue-in-cheek; I was sincerely curious as to how someone who both abstains from sex before marriage and is skeptical that he will ever enter into marriage would respond.

    By the way, a couple quick points I'd like to address in your post-- the alpha-beta paradigm is one of degree, not kind. And aggression is not all that encompasses the alpha male, not by a longshot. In fact, those who are the best at attracting women (whom I'd define as alpha) display traits from both ends of the niceguy-meanguy spectrum, though I'm sure you know to which way the balances are tilted. Even so, there's certainly room for vulnerability and even chivalry, but once the man's behavior reeks of weakness and neediness, the relationship is soon going to fizzle out, or the female is going to have complete hand the rest of the way (aka the man has become... *whhhhiped*).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said, Colonel. Well said indeed.

    ReplyDelete