The normative value of a guy to a girl (across all societies)

#on why girls reject guys more readily than guys reject girls.

The value of a guy to a girl is the average value of the guy as perceived by all the other girls in her society.

Therefore for that reason, unlike a guy who would not tell other guys about a random girl he rejected, a girl will never make herself lose out in rejecting a guy, by making sure if others ask about this guy she rejected, she will tell them all kinds of reasons that makes him not desirable, such that the other girls in her society will perceive him this way too, for if she does not do that and the guy is indeed a proper guy, other girls will start going for him and then up his value as a boyfriend, and therefore make her decision in the past reflect her own failed decision.

And so we see the contrasting phenomenon of:

when a girl gets rejected, guys get more excited that they have a chance to chase this girl again. They don’t mind because they perceive the girl at her substantial value, not her perceived value. While guys who get rejected the more times, the less attractive it is for another girl to want to go after him, because girls at the age far from settling down are not going after the substance of a guy but really are going after a test of how much their market demand is able to attract guys away* from other girls.

Therefore a guy who does not need to be attracted away from other girls does not serve their current life purpose and there’s no incentive for her to want to end up with him at this stage of life, regardless of whether he has true subsistence value or not.

They will do this as much as possible until they are firm and secure about their ability to attract a high demand and keep their guy away from other girls vying for him. Then she will break up with him and then go for a guy who CAN provide her with real non volatile value and efficient survival relationship structures. The age at which this happens differ from girl to girl and ranges from before university, at university to when they realize they cannot afford to compete against younger girls anymore at about 30 years old, because they didn’t build any survival distance for themselves as they didn’t have to since they’d rather train up on how to depend on guys and so finally they obviously can’t survive efficiently in this world by themselves without a guy who has worked hard on substance rather than attraction, providing for their needs.

At this point of time, it does not matter whether his guy is perceptively attractive or not. But rather, it is more important whether he is substantially efficient in providing survival and communication or not. In fact because substance forms the base of attraction, whether real or manufactured, it is better for the guy to have just enough substance for her and yet not enough to fire up other girls’ perceived attractiveness of him. That’s the point where a girl in a relationship gets defensive over his boyfriend because obviously guys have been trained into a pro by herself and her gender to keep increasing and apply their perceived attractiveness on other girls. How can he not have the incentive to utilize it again for his needs when it is now definitely more efficient than attracting only based on substance and love provision?

Corollary. All girls who intend to settle down permanently (or at least until miscommunication breaks them up) with her current boyfriend have either 1) tested and found out her maximum possible market value already (it could be low it could be high. The higher it is, the longer it takes.) 2) cannot afford to test around anymore due to

Then of course there are the girls who are somehow decided not to play the attraction game and fight for themselves. These girls in reality do not need guys. They are good catches! But somehow it is common that girls like that are also bitchy and angry towards normal men. It is in my theory most likely that they accidentally got into a rejective mess while playing the attraction game when they were young and therefore decided to quit it and prove that they do not need to abide by it. But because society is more in the girls must be attracting side, they needed to prove it by going to the extreme end (that is extremely self sustaining and extremely cold towards any intentions of provision from guys) .

Of course again. There exist girls who don’t do these at all. (Or at least not to the society average extent). They are the normal girls. :)

Ok. I got the universal phenomenon in a nutshell.

I would like to theorize that this equilibrium is not entirely a biological construct. But that it is a societal Nash equilibrium that makes it so that all girls gain more by being an attractor and all guys gain more by being a provider of social security to girls.

Any inidividual’s singular (without the rest of the people) deviation from this Nash choices will in all cases yield him less relationship utility in the span of his/her life.

He will only deviate iff the cost of losing this utility is covered the the benefits of other things like, truthfulness, cognitive congruence, a more transparent and stable relationship, if it ever occurs.

# on why guys seem to like many girls and the girls they like don’t vary very much and are stable. While girls seem to like only a limited selection of guys at a time and who they like can vary very much across time.

#on why girls reject guys more readily than guys reject girls.