"Hawk Tuah" and Sexual Selection
Life is like a slice of pizza.
Why would a woman get drunk, go out, be solicited for an interview, and describe the act of fellatio for millions of viewers? Let’s investigate selection selectivity.
the squeaky wheel: not all women
Men often have a distorted view of women. In general, we tend to stereotype groups by their loudest, more prominent, and obnoxious members. As a result, all black people are athletic or in a gang; all liberals have pink hair and hate men; all right wingers are incels; all women are “sluts”!
Less real life experience with these groups increases the distortion. If you spend time with black people, you realize the majority of them have higher rates of obesity, are not very physically active and have no gang affiliation (most black crime is committed by a small percentage of repeat offenders). The majority of liberals don’t have pink hair, and they are heterosexual. Right wingers are no less likely to have sex than leftists are.
This is different from “NAXALT,” “not all _ are like that.” Jews, Asians, blacks, and Indians all vote overwhelmingly Democrat. White evangelicals in rural Oklahoma vote overwhelmingly Republican. My argument isn’t that groups don’t have average behaviors, or that I view each person as a special snowflake, completely divorced from any collective affiliation. Rather it’s to point out that often, when there is a sub-group which is extremely intense in its behavior, we tend to view that sub-group as representative of the majority, even when this is not the case.
More specifically, men who do not have an extensive sexual history with a large number of women have a distorted view of women. This is because the vast majority of women are not comfortable sharing their views on sex or their sexual history, unless and until you become intimate with them.
Types of promiscuity.
Promiscuity should be divided broadly into two categories: quiet promiscuity, and loud promiscuity. Quiet promiscuity would be a woman who is introverted, shy, and would be embarrassed to discuss her sexuality in public, but in her private life, she does not highly value monogamy and may engage in behavior like having short-term sexual relationships, multiple over-lapping partners, or infidelity.
Quiet promiscuity could be described as traditionally immoral, but at least from my perspective, it is not offensive, disgusted, or ostentatious.1 It is not “attention seeking behavior.” The sense of shame or humility that motivates one to hide or conceal their private behaviors is a cultural value of Puritans, while sexual “bragging” is more common to southerners.
One of the reasons why Puritans may have had stricter sexual norms than other peoples of the British Isles is because they were more sexually selective. As in Judaism, Puritans in England believed strongly in the concept of being “equally yoked.” This meant choosing a partner on the basis of their religious piety, but that general concept may have also influenced selectivity on other traits: intelligence, conscientiousness, and work-ethic. It could even be argued (this is a stretch, but big if true) that Puritans were so sexually selective, that their desire to move to America was itself a desire to gain sexual isolation from their uneducated, unspiritual, unreformed English neighbors.
To some extent, when Puritan northerners do become promiscuous, they seem to emphasize aspects of sex which are “forbidden” or “taboo” more than Southerners. In fact, ostentatious sexuality could be viewed as less sexy than secretive, private, “ironic” sexuality. The “sexy librarian” is an archetype of the north, while the “southern bell” stands in clear distinction to this.
In this article, I will argue that women are generally not promiscuous, but that social media (Tinder, Instagram, snapchat) amplifies “loud promiscuity,” and distorts our perception. Specifically, these platforms select for and promote “loud promiscuity” because it drives traffic and profit. It is no coincidence, given the cultural history of the North and South, that “Hawk Tuah” combines southern culture and “loud promiscuity,” producing culturally divided feelings of entertainment and disgust.
Today, the “cultural North” has colonized all of America’s cities, including Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, while the “cultural South” is colonizing rural America, even in areas of Maine, Vermont, and Massachusetts.
Consider a heatmap of country artists like “Florida Georgia Line” and “Luke Brian.” The highest density is in West Virginia and Kentucky, but somehow these “Southern-coded” artists have penetrated upstate New York, Vermont, Maine, and the upper peninsula of Michigan. This is part of a larger trend of Southern culture being nationalized as rural culture, and Northern culture being nationalized as urban culture.
Tinder
Are a majority of women promiscuous? Let us define promiscuity as the extent to which they do not value monogamy; they prefer short term relationships; they have over-lapping sexual partners; and they engage in infidelity.2
A classic Tinder experiment to prove this goes as follows: set up two Tinder accounts. In one, describe yourself as a family man, a Christian, with a stable job, bio: “looking for marriage!” Then set up one where you are a drug dealer showing your abs with a fancy car: “In town for a week, looking for something short term.” The results are well known and do not bear repeating. Redpill logic confirmed: “the majority of women prefer the bad boy over the stable guy. Beta bucks, alpha fucks.”
The problem with this narrative is that women who use Tinder are not “the majority of women.” In America, for example, there are 25.7 million Tinder users, but — surprise surprise! — 75% of the users are male.
There are only 6.4 million American females on Tinder. Meanwhile, there are 42 million adult women in America who have never been married. That means that less than 16% of women are on Tinder, while nearly 40% of single men are on Tinder.3
These statistics are not entirely accurate, because some people on Tinder are widowed (15 million) and some are divorced (25 million) and some are even cheating on their spouses or in a polyamorous relationship. We'll estimate that 1% of married people are on Tinder, which comes out to an additional 1 million.
In total, there are 64.1M potential male users if 1% of men cheat,4 and 77M potential male users if 20% of men cheat.5 For women, there are 69.5M potential users at 1% infidelity,6 and 82.5M potential users at 20% infidelity.7 This infidelity could be augmented by the 2-10% of Americans who engage in “swinging,” or the 3% who are poly.
Using these larger totals, only 28-30% of men use Tinder, and only 8-9% of women use Tinder. Any sexual norms dominant on Tinder are not exactly a representative selection of the population.
What about for the youngest age group of adults, 18-24? What if that age group is super saturated with Tinder users? Wouldn’t that defeat the argument that Tinder users are a “selected” group?
There are over 30M people in America ages 18-24. Since 15% of Tinder users are this age, there are 3.9M users aged 18-24. This means that 13% of 18-24 year olds use Tinder, which is still small enough to be a “selective” sample. Given that there are 3x as many men on Tinder as women, we can guess that there are 2.9M men (18-24) on Tinder, and less than 1 million women (18-24).
There is, on average, one woman aged 18-24 within any random three mile radius on Tinder.8 You can empirically test this hypothesis by driving out to a random rural area and seeing how many available profiles there are when you set the distance =3miles.
Manhattan has 27,747.9 people per square mile, and about 10% of these are people ages 18-24. This means there are 2,775 people ages 18-24 in this theoretical square mile, and only 13% of them use Tinder, resulting in 361 total profiles.
Of course, that number might be much higher in Manhattan. It is possible that in Manhattan, 99% of young people use Tinder, while in other more rural parts of the country, only 1% of young people use Tinder. The term “use Tinder” does not refer to anyone who has ever at one time used the app, but refers to “active users.”
So far we have established the following:
Dating app usage is not universal: users are a selected population;
There are geographical differences in dating app usage.
There are differences in dating app usage depending on whether you are urban or rural, young or old, educated or uneducated. The least likely person to use a dating app is a blue collar rural person in the trades, meaning someone who did not go to college, but earns over $75k per year. The person most likely to use a dating app is a bisexual college graduate earning less than $30k a year (Hospitality degree) who lives in a city.
All of this is to say that Tinder is not real life — it is a slice of life, and that slice is biased.
Tinder is like a slice of pizza in the dark. If you take a bite of the slice, and it tastes like Hawaiian, you may think the whole pizza is Hawaiian. But there is another half of the pizza which is pepperoni. If you prefer pepperoni, despairing about the Hawaiian half, and throwing the entire box in the trash, might be self-defeating. Turn on the light, open the box, and look at the whole thing.
Hawk Tuah!
The girls on Tinder most likely to respond to short-term sexual signals are women with low sexual selectivity. If you engage with these women, you will realize that their preference is for men like them: men with low sexual selectivity. In general, they tend to be less intelligent, less educated, more risk-taking, more likely to have tattoos and non-standard piercings, with lower rates of church attendance, higher rates of obesity, higher rates of extroversion, and higher levels of testosterone, often associated with aggressive, competitive, or anti-social behavior.
Women with high sexually selectivity tend to be more intelligent, more educated, more risk averse, less likely to have tattoos and non-standard piercings, higher rates of church attendance (or yoga class, or meditation class, or some secular equivalent), lower rates of obesity, higher rates of introversion, and lower levels of testosterone. They tend to be more risk-averse, avoiding controversy and conflict.
While there is a correlation between low sexual selectivity and promiscuity, this is not necessarily an absolute 1:1 correlation. As mentioned, there is “loud promiscuity” and “quiet promiscuity.” A girl could present herself as having many of the signals of promiscuity (tattoos, piercings, obesity, loud, aggressive) but still be saving herself for marriage. Even more likely, a girl could signal against promiscuity (conservative clothing, Bible quotes, “looking for marriage,” quiet, skinny) and still be open to casual sex.
Where does Hawk Tuah girl fit on this spectrum? What kind of girl is getting drunk and going out on a weekend, and then doing random interviews with heavy-set black strangers?
Substance use.
While 50% of highschoolers were drinking in 1993, that number is approaching only 20% today.
Those who are still drinking alcohol are generally staying home. One of the reasons why people prefer to drink alone instead of going out is because of low social trust and increased social anxiety.
If you do go to a busy area, like a college town bar-crawl, the population is already doubly selected: girls who drink, and then girls who drink in public rather than at home. If you start approaching girls for an interview, most of them are going to walk away and not be interested (introversion). So the third round of selection is for extroversion and low-anxiety.
Fourthly, consider the mental state of a woman who is drunk, trying to have fun, doing an interview. Any responses you obtain from her in this state will be at her most extroverted, most silly, and most wild. To take these answers and generalize them to the entire female population is inaccurate.
However, it is understandable that our opinions are shaped by these anecdotal social media trends. If you spend time on Twitter, you might think that black people are conducting gang-beatings of white middle schoolers on a daily basis. The more intense and emotionally charged an image is, the more likely it is to distort our perception.
The Big 5
Putting “Hawk Tuah” into the language of mainstream psychology, “loud promiscuity could be a combination of the following:
Low conscientiousness
High openness
Low neuroticism
High extraversion
Low agreeableness
Conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness is aligned with order, discipline, and seriousness. “Hawk Tuah" is funny, disorderly, and wild. If you walk into the bedroom of a “Hawk Tuah,” you might be more likely to find clothes on the floor. Conversely, women who are quietly promiscuous, or not promiscuous at all, are more likely to take education seriously, clean their rooms, and feel uncomfortable with being “crazy.”
Openness.
There are many non-promiscuous women who are high in openness, but openness to new experiences could also be associated with promiscuity. People who fear new experiences may be less likely to be promiscuous. “Hawk Tuah” girl is from a small town and is now venturing out into the big city. The Weimar German stereotype of the “small town girl who becomes a prostitute in the big city” may derive from the fact that this sort of life transition requires high openness to new experiences.
Neuroticism.
Neuroticism is the tendency toward anxiety, depression, and self-doubt. For example: “maybe this isn’t a good idea. This might ruin my reputation. I’m too sad to go out. I think I’ll just stay home. What if my parents find out? They would kill me.” To go full “Hawk Tuah,” you have to be happy, carefree, and confident.
Extraversion.
Extraversion is not necessarily linked to quiet promiscuity — it is possible to be both shy and promiscuous. However, in the case of loud promiscuity, it is necessary to be outgoing, high energy, and talkativeness. If you love people, and you like having sex with them, and you’re proud of it, you can declare it to the world. Misanthropes and introverts prefer not to brag about that.
Agreeableness.
People who are agreeable generally put others before themselves — they are altruistic and charitable. I can imagine “Hawk Tuah” girl working in a soup kitchen for the homeless. However, if someone challenged her on her actions, she would be ready with a retort: “only God can judge me!” People who are high in agreeableness find it difficult to be controversial, confrontational, or assertive. So while she may be agreeable in some ways, her ability to not care what others think about her is her ability to be disagreeable. Again, once she is sober, some of these traits might diminish and lead to embarrassment.9
We need more sex!
Traditionalists react to the Hawk Tuah girl and other viral videos by imagining that females are out of control and need to be put back in the kitchen. On the contrary, women today are more introverted, socially anxious, and depressed than ever before. They are scared to leave the house!10
When our culture was healthier, in 1991, teen sex was much higher than it is today. For whites, this decline is from 50% to 38%. This is not an argument in favor of pre-marital sex, but it is to say that decreasing promiscuity is not going to save civilization, because a decline in sex is already happening.
The idea that glorious men of the past who conquered the world were prudes is not entirely accurate. Consider Machiavelli’s disgustingly humorous letter to his friend Guicciardini, in 1509:
You had just finished fucking your woman when you want another one. I've been in Modena for several days when I came across an old woman who washes my shirts. She asked me to come into her hovel because she wished to show me some fine shirts. Innocent prick that I am I went in. There was a woman over in the corner. "This is the shirt that I wanted to sell you," the hag said. I was terrified. But I fucked her. I found her thighs flabby and her cunt damp. Her breath stank. But I was horny. When I was finished I took a torch and looked at her. I nearly dropped dead. The woman was ugly. She had a tuft of hair on her head but her head was bald. Her forehead was scarred. One eye looked up, the other down. Her eyes were filled with mucus, and she had no eyebrows. Her nose was twisted into a funny shape. Her mouth looked like Lorenzo de' Medici's but was bent to one side. She was toothless and saliva drooled out of her mouth. Her upper lip had a moustache. I looked at her stupefied. "What's the matter sir?" she asked me. As soon as she opened her mouth, such a stench came out that my eyes and my nose were assaulted and my stomach indignant. They could not bear it, and I vomited all over her.
Machiavelli was one of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance. I will not attribute his genius to his sexual impropriety — there are plenty of men, such as Newton, who were geniuses despite being virgins. But the point here is that Renaissance Europe was not a period of chastity, abstinence, or celibacy. Even medieval Europe was filled with prostitutes. The Amish are not a representative model of the sexual mores of the average historical medieval peasant, least of all the aristocracy!
Traditionalists believe that premarital sex is a sin and should be suppressed, and maybe even punished with death, or at least imprisonment. For this reason, they hate the Hawk Tuah girl, because she represents sexual liberation.
I’m not the type for the Hawk Tuah girl. She is looking for a guy who isn’t so nerdy, with high extroversion, a guy who likes beer. My attributes, like my ability to write poetry and do algebra, are not sexy to her.
Fortunately for me, there is a class of women in America who are extremely lonely, because they have very high sexual selectivity. This is educated women: “Close to half (45%) of college-educated single women say their relationship status is largely due to an inability to find someone who meets their expectations.”
The solution to the problem of the Hawk Tuah is to "Delete Facebook, Hit the Gym, and Lawyer Up." If you have a magical PhD (insert WOW sound effect), you will have access to the most sexually selective women.
This isn’t easy to swallow: credentialism replaced meritocracy, playing this sexual selection game is stupid, and maybe we just need to crash civilization and start over again. For in the short term, if you want to attract girls outside of the “Hawk Tuah,” the best way to do that is to get educated, not because of the money or the status or the content of the education (which you can get for free from this Substack), but because many liberal women have a tendency to value credentials.
Female focus on social status and credentialism is reflected by the fact that they are much more likely to get a college degree.11 Most men believe it is beneath them to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a meaningless piece of paper, but what you should really be asking yourself is this: how much would it be worth to have more options?
Imagine you are stuck in a well. At the bottom of this well is Hawk Tuah, single moms, obesity, mental illness… I toss you a rope. This rope will cost $100k. With it, you can climb up into the realm of the light, and gain access to women of high sexual selectivity. Culture, class, poetry, literature… All of this and more can be yours, if you just fork over the cash, waste four to eight years of your life, and use ChatGPT to pass your courses. Is it worth it to escape the Pit of Hawk Tuah?
For many men, this metaphor is inverted: Hawk Tuah is hot, and liberal women are gross. They want a woman who likes to go four wheeling, drink beer, and shoot guns. God bless ‘em. But in order to succeed in that sexual market, you will need to be something of a rugged, masculine, country-kind-of-guy. If you’re a big nerd like me, you might need to get a PhD.
“all women are like that”
Christians believe that each person is born totally depraved, and only by accepting the ideology of conservatism can their lust for evil be somewhat mitigated. Most Christians will admit that even those who are “born again” sometimes slip up and have premarital sex.
The redpill-incel-mansphere ideology is often atheistic, but its favorite part of Christianity to borrow is the idea that Eve is the archetypal woman, and that the concept of “total depravity” applies only to women, or especially to women.
When I try to explain that there is a difference between people in terms of sexual selectivity, conscientiousness, introversion, intelligence, and obesity, I get met with the “fundamentalist wall.” At a certain point, “all women are like that” becomes a dogma enshrined in the deep recesses of the mind, and no amount of data can break through.
Men adopt positions like “all women are like that” to feel better about their failures with women. “All women are like that” allows them to drop out, stop trying, or better rationalize their choices. If different groups of women have different personality traits, rather than being a uniformly promiscuous group, then men would only be able to blame themselves for their limited dating options. Scapegoating is much easier.
That said, there has been a general decline in sexual selectivity, as obesity has increased alongside mental illness. Obesity is a mental illness,12 so these two trends are one in the same. While hereditarians believe this is due to dysgenics, I think the more likely culprit is the xenoestrogenic, carcinogenic, toxic and poisonous forever chemicals in our air, water, and food. These produce permanent damage to our genetic code, which we then pass on to our children. The collapse of religion and the rise of Jerry Springer culture also deserves blame.
If we define low sexual selectivity as “worse,” then yes, women are, as a whole, getting worse. And so are men. But the worsening of the population is not uniform. Some populations are healthier than others. Realizing that is the first step to seeking them out and finding how to break into their gated communities.
In Vedic times, this was referred to as Svayamvara, 'self-choice,' as opposed to arranged marriage. In Svayamvara, men would compete for the hand of a maiden in physical contests of strength or military skill. Svayamvara represents the ability of men to grab hold of their destiny, to defy political convention, with heroic acts of strength. Today, the modern Svayamvara is getting a PhD.
Or, you can become a traditionalist Catholic and pray that Candace Owens has a sister. Different strokes for different folks.
Maybe there is a mysterious third way…
One of the biggest outlets for “quiet promiscuity” is extramarital affairs, including “cyber sex.” According to a study (all the way back in 2000), 45% of married women engage in extramarital affairs.
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J398v01n03_03
Body count can be a proxy for promiscuity; however, body count is often inaccurate given the amount of sexting and “non-body count adding sexual encounters.” Most women don’t consider manual sexual stimulation to be a “body,” but that would clearly be part of promiscuity.
There are 19.3 million male Tinder users, out of a total adult population of 48.8 million men who have never been married.
48.78+(67.85*.01)+3.7+10.99.
48.78+(67.85*.2)+3.7+10.99.
42.69+(68.45*0.01)+11.48+14.64
42.69+(68.45*0.2)+11.48+14.64
Since there are 3.8M square miles in America, 97% of which is rural.
One of the signals of someone who is low-conscientiousness, open, low-neuroticism, high extraversion, and disagreeable is a white person who would say the N-word on camera on a street interview. For your entertainment (these people might be on drugs):
The link between credentialism and femininity may tell us something about Chinese civilization.
Good deep dive - I read Greer's take on this about how he see's this girl as an embodiment of modern red state culture which is also interesting. To me this is just more evidence of the underclass suffering after being unshackled completely - as you point out this isn't new behavior but it was more moderated or controlled. This is the big difference to the past I think, the old rules were better defined and understood. Now there is anarchy across the underclasses as a whole.
“Most men are convinced that a majority of women are promiscuous.” Where are you getting that from? Which men?