The Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy Refined

A rather long and mostly retard-filled thread on SG about the FSSH prompted an equally long and almost as fruitless conversation with an actual autist, that nevertheless made a few things clear to me concerning why people seemed a bit confused or autistically stuck on some point I specifically stated could not and would not form part of the FSSH because… I didn’t include it.

Once again, I think a giant statue to Professor Cipolla needs to be built. Him and Tesla may have been the greatest men the world has produced; but leaving that aside for the moment, let me try and make things even clearer for the autists out there, and those challenged by lack of reading comprehension, or logic capability, or abstract thought… oh you get it, the vast numbers of NPCs.

So my original (rather long in a vain attempt at clarity, where I now realise less is probably more) is here, for reference, but in any case, the FSSH is encapsulated in TL;DR at the end.

Let me start by explaining, as simply as I can, and using short words, what the FSSH is NOT.

It is NOT A static list of “types” of what women are like —and likely to behave as— most of the time, with a rank that is at least partially based on the number of sexual partners she has had.

That is what Vox’s Male SSH is. He has a nice list of “types” and in the original he also had, linked to each one, a somewhat less relevant statistic that was based on a multiple of the number of lifetime sexual partners that each type had compared to the “average” man (which number is around 10, globally, in case you were wondering). I say this was a somewhat less relevant statistic because, firstly the math was a bit off, at least by my experiential reckoning, and also global averages. His numbers would tend to skew the various sizes of population types in a direction that observable reality does not support very well, but, that could be a locality factor. Maybe he was reflecting mostly American numbers and I was referencing lived experience in other countries around the world and/or global numbers. So howsoever much it may be off by (between 10-50% by my global estimation, and even worse if you include the “Lambdas” into the equation) mathematically, it remains relatively irrelevant, more of an indicator than a hard number, which is fine. But that aside, for me that statistic was mostly irrelevant because… well… to be blunt, like a fish doesn’t worry about how much water he has around him, I wasn’t short of female company. My specific circumstances aside though, most men, latched on to that number as if their very existence in the Universe depended on it. Which is understandable, if a little sad, and in any case, Alpha Game was also to some extent or other part of the zeitgeist created by PUAs at the time, and the overwhelmingly “important” point for men was (has always been?) the number of women they can have sex with. So men naturally understand and appreciate such a list with statistics attached. So let me say it again:

The FSSH is NOT:

• A static (almost completely so) list of behavioural traits attributable to a specific “class” of female.
• Related (for the most part) to the number of sexual partners she had, or will have.

In short it is NOT a parallel to the Male SSH Vox came up with. And in fairness, my naming my predictive methodology as the Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is somewhat badly named. The point was mostly to have people understand that there is a way to predict female behaviour that is at least analogous to the Male SSH, in the sense that it can be used to PREDICT female behaviour before it happens, which is useful and in that respect does parallel the Male SSH quite well, but not in METHODOLOGY, only in predictive ability (which remains lower than the Male SSH predictability, but is still a VAST improvement over the general floundering of the average male when it comes to reliably predicting female behaviour).

It has proven helpful to compare the MSSH with the FSSH for men to begin to understand how to use my model, though, in my defence, I really thought I explained all this quite clearly in my original post, but… the unwashed masses have made it clear that my model is a lot more useful for them once they understand the difference from the MSSH better, so… I bow to the masses.

The MSSH describes a mostly static type of behaviour and relates it to the ability/prowess of each type to have sexual relations with women.

Most men get caught in the idea of “what they should be like to get more sex” and then obsess about wanting/needing or fooling themselves that they are or should be, or will be, an Alpha or a Sigma and star in their own James Bond themed all-female (except for them) orgy. Which frankly, is mostly pointless.

Predictability is the Point!

The usefulness of the MSSH, at least as far as I am concerned, has always been it’s rather detailed and quite accurate ability to predict the behaviour of men, based on the type or class or category they fall into. Alphas will behave in ways that a Gamma simply does not understand and can’t replicate, and when he tries to usually end in sexual assault charges being levied against them.

The usefulness of my FSSH is its ability to predict how pretty much almost ANY woman will behave in pretty much almost ANY setting. So in that sense it is analogous to the MSSH, but the methodology used is of a completely different nature, and if you need another analogy, the MSSH might be like doing trigonometry. Once you have figured out the angles and variables, you can locate the needed points and they are stable and predictable.

The FSSH is like doing calculus on the fly to discover the volume or area of a constantly changing shape. It is far more dynamic, requires more intelligence and observation, and women don’t have “classes” as such other than in the broadest sense, because their “rank” best described as a pecking order really, is fluid and dependant on context from minute to minute.

A Male’s rank, once established tends to broadly apply to many aspects of his life.

A Female’s rank on the other hand is mostly contextual and changes with time and place and group one is in, to an extent that is orders of magnitude faster and more dynamic than any male counterpart.

So perhaps I should not call it a Female Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, but rather, the Kurgan’s Magic Orb of Predicting Female Activity Before it Happens.

You’ll agree that it is a tad less elegant a name though.

How Does the Magic Orb Work?

Let me try and simply list the operating mechanisms of this method and then I will break them down in turn.

You can predict a woman’s behaviour and rank (which rank is almost always temporary or specific to location, timeline, and composition of other people present at any given time) by being aware of:

1. The situation itself.
2. The relative 1-10 attractiveness of each woman in the interaction.
3. The fact women process the world mostly according to their emotions and most important of all:
4. Women are essentially solipsistic to the point of their believing the universe is there to please them!

So let’s first explain what is meant by rank in the FSSH

Rank Explained

Rank for men is mostly static. Which is why all civilisations, since the dawn of time, have been, and will continue to be built, by men. Stability in rank is absolutely required for anything involving military action (defence of the tribe) construction projects beyond the individualistic (the workers need to work, the planner to plan, the store keepers to guard the material, the managers to direct work more efficiently, and so on), the application of anything resembling justice (consistency in laws regardless of emotions, applicability to all equally (as much as possible)) and so on.

Women’s rank is temporal and specific to the event, time, place and people present at any give time. This is why they are essentially incapable of building a huge bridge, or a skyscraper, or design a rocketship. Their hierarchy of rank is constantly changing and in an ebb and flow that can mutate severely in minutes at times, and certainly is never stable enough to achieve anything on a scale that goes beyond the immediate, individualistic, or at most family orientated (yes, yes, you screaming harpies, one woman in ten million or so might be the exception, blah, blah, we don’t care, pay attention!).

So what is meant by ‘Rank” for the FSSH? It means the woman in any given group, at any given time, that is in pole position for getting what she wants. And that’s it. Because remember point number 4, the most important one of the FSSH: Women are solipsistic, so everything and everyone, is all about her or relates to her or is going to.

While male rank is generally an indication of not just what he specifically wants to achieve, but rather of how his actions are perceived by other men, not just in relation to themselves alone, but in relation to all sorts of things, from his ideas on leadership, politics, industry, or his physical and mental achievements in various fields, or even his ability to influence events and people.

Female rank, instead, is based on being the one that gets the most, of what she wants the most, at any given time, without looking like a greedy monkey snatching at peanuts more than is absolutely necessary, because a naked display of goldigging or its equivalent, is one of the few things that can alter her overall generic “rank” that is hard to overcome, especially among other females (and eventually, most non-sex-starved men too). It can be a fine balance, so it is naturally more dynamic, because the conditions under which many of the variables play out is almost always dependant on the situation at hand and the participants involved. So, at any given situation, a female’s rank is determined by the other women in the group as being higher for whoever is the woman that gets most of what she wants most. If that is male attention in one context, then it is that, if it is the respect of her church group, then it is that, and so on.

The ability to predict what actions or tactics a specific woman will use in any given situation depends on your ability to observe and evaluate the points I explained above, which in turn are:

Reading the Situation

In any given context where women are involved, you can generally make a good guess at what her primary aim is by observing her behaviour while keeping in mind these three factors:

1. Her brain works predominantly based on her emotions (in general terms overall, and in the situation specifically) keeping in mind that stronger emotions overwhelm any tenuous grasp on logic, rationality or common sense she may have, but these emotions are not completely chaotic and wildly unpredictable, they are regulated by two other factors, which are:
   • Her attractiveness, which you can use the standard scale of 1 to 10 for, and even more importantly,
   • her solipsism. So let’s understand these two factors in the context of her emotions, remember.

2. Her attractiveness would seem to most people to be relevant only in relation to men, and there is some truth to that, but the reality is that women notice each other’s attractiveness and compete with it to spectacular levels even if these are mostly hidden from obvious displays of naked envy. The result is that a woman’s physical attractiveness is an intrinsic part of her own self-identity and it sets a number of parameters for her that are for the most part static. But it is also viewed in this way by other women (and men) so it is both an internal as well as an external reality that they can do little to change but can “weaponise” in various ways when required to get what they want. An obese woman with poor clothing choices, is automatically ranked lower than a sexy one dressed well in almost every setting, but, if the setting is one that specifically has negative connotations with sexiness (a dignified or puritanical church, the funeral of a close relative, grandma’s 95th Birthday, and so on) then the attractiveness, especially if accentuated by actual sexiness in behaviour or clothing choices can be a temporary negative score in that situation, and the matronly and obese woman, with kindness, plentiful food for the grieving family members and effective support for the afflicted, becomes the “star” in that specific context and outranks even the supermodel with the miniskirt. And all other women present would notice and act accordingly. They may still resent the attractive supermodel even if she is dressed appropriately and behaves well, in fact, more so the obese woman, because then, even in this context, the hottie wins again, since she is not only beautiful and appropriately dressed, but she also acts kindly and supportively in a practical way). Generally speaking then, almost always (but not actually always) the physical attractiveness of a woman is about the only statistic you can count on as being mostly somewhat static with relation to her rank in any given situation or group. it forms part of the total weight that is most reliable anyway. Her baseline staring level if you prefer.

3. He solipsism is how she will mix her attractiveness, emotions and wished for outcome that makes her behaviour predictable. Gauging the degree of solipsisms takes some observation, but usually not necessarily long periods of it. One can fairly quickly establish how much or in which aspect a woman’s solipsism is most evident. Does she want to be the centre of attention by her looks, her supposed relevance to the situation or topic at hand, or some other metric? Is she the only doctor in the room and that matters to her? Is she the best skier at the mountain lodge, or just the prettiest? Or sluttiest? etcetera. And the other aspect of it is, what matters to her in this context and situation? Does she want to get the attention of all the good looking men? Of just that ONE man? Or detract the attention a rival is getting from others (on some level ALL other women are rivals, regardless of if it makes any sense or not)? In short, what is she after the most in the context. Does she want to appear to be the most interesting, or kind, or whatever it is? If you can figure that out, which a few minutes of observation in a social setting should do it, you can then begin to understand how the circumstances may affect her emotions and based on the level and direction of solipsism, be able to predict how those emotions and her brand of solipsism, in THAT specific situation, is likely to play out.

As I said, this can take a little practice and requires the ability to NOT be solipsistic yourself, because you literally have to observe another person and how they interact with the world to begin to notice certain intrinsic traits they have as well as how they get affected by the specifics of the ongoing situation.

It is easier to do in groups than one on one. Especially if you are very attracted to the woman in question. Sometimes, the misreading of a woman’s solipsism by a man, because her attractiveness confuses his calibration of it, can border on the comical. When one is in a group, it is far easier to detach somewhat and note the dynamics.

One on One at the Start can be Deceptive

I will provide a somewhat less than flattering example to make the point. There was a time when I briefly met a very attractive woman that turned out to be a stripper. I had met her in a large gathering of people and she was literally supermodel pretty without the anorexia. She was also well-read and witty and definitely above average intelligence. Seeing her in a group also made it obvious she was not only absolutely aware of her looks, but was almost annoyed at them and the reaction it had on pretty much any man with line of sight. She had no interest in any of the attempts men made to make a connection with her, however subtle, and it was clear that any attempt at direct flirtation would go nowhere. So, I stopped thinking about her that way and simply interacted with her and her friend as if they were male colleagues at a seminar or something. She then tentatively brought up rather odd topics that I was actually knowledgeable of and I responded and as a result we made a connection which meant that from then on, we very occasionally remained in touch, I saw her, always in company of other people a couple of times and whatever she was going through in life, I noticed that although she seemed still uninterested in men in general, she did act genuinely friendly towards me. Then time passed and I forgot about her and then one day out of the blue she got in touch and asked me to meet her and made it quite clear she was thinking about us getting together, yet, when we did meet up, her tendency to be stand-offish was again in full effect. Polite and friendly, but certainly not open to the usual flirting I would otherwise have engaged in, which has always been fairly direct in my case. And at this point I was really not often confused by a woman, but her behaviour seemed a little bizarre. By text she made clear references to us becoming a couple, but in person she was far from approachable.

Me being the shy wallflower type I am, I think lasted about one coffee before I told her something along the lines of, well, ok, so let’s find out, at which point she did explain certain things in her life that gave me pause. I am not going to explain here what those things were, because it’s not relevant, but at least I understood that she had valid reasons for not wanting to just end up in bed without knowing about certain other parameters. And they were serious enough that despite her looks and even the possible imagining of living to old age in blissful harmony with her, they made me realise that thinking with any kind of little head here was not going to be worth it. So we went out a couple more times with a view to getting to know each other beyond the physical, which it was clear we both were happy it ticked whatever boxes we might want ticked in that department. We spoke directly and quite brutally, if kindly about ourselves, our lives and expectations and the situations we had, and I came to the conclusion that if she was willing to chance it, I would too, and I told her as much. We finished dinner and I walked her to her car and told her I wanted to kiss her. She smiled and walked on until her car, then she stopped and stood near me waiting, and we kissed. Then she got in her car and left.

Good result right? Great. And then the next time we met she acted like we were just friends again and I was again confused and thought, okay maybe she changed her mind, whatever. But then she called again and asked to see me again, and when we met up she was kind of enthusiastic, but I just gave her a peck on the cheek, which was the usual way we greeted, and not a kiss and she kind of froze. And I realised in that instant she’d wanted to be kissed, and I had not. And this was absolutely due to my having been unable to properly read her solipsism. From her perspective, her having been a stripper made her a kind of slut, and in her mind, the last thing she wanted was a guy that was with her purely because of her body and supposed “sluttiness”, because she literally was surrounded by guys like that for years, salivating at her while they threw money at her like a pack of drooling morons. And that makes perfect sense, in retrospect, which I realised only in that moment of the missed kiss. But for me, her having been a stripper posed precisely zero issues. I had observed her enough to know that yes, of course she was very beautiful, and I could even make a very well-educated guess at the fact that I am sure she was good in bed too, but more importantly, by having spent that time with her, I liked her general sense of values and intelligence. And if you think “what values?!? She’s almost a common whore!” I’ll have you know that aside from the fact that back then I really had no concern regarding a woman’s sexual past, aside her being healthy that is, strippers are not quite as sexually promiscuous as most men think, and common whores are still generally far more moral, reliable, and trustworthy human beings than anyone that works in finance, journalism, the media, or entertainment.

The point is that by not wanting to appear slutty, she had made some assumptions about me initially and when she realised I was, yes a man (so attracted to her), but also able to curb my basest instincts and act according to some higher principles, and in doing so reached out a bit towards me, I was still thinking she was in another space and rejected her. Mild as that rejection-interaction might seem, and easy to correct, I realised that she was quite a different person to what had been presented until then. We met up once more and we both realised that while we were attracted, and that attraction would certainly go a long way to keeping us together for a time, the intrinsic way in which we were internally would eventually clash. She explained it best in words, which I did not have, just a sense of it, that yes, we would love each other, but we would also end up wanting to kill each other, and neither of us was likely to bend, so something would break.

So, from the point of view of “wanting to get with the girl” sexually, you could say I failed, and I would be dishonest if I said that at the time I did not wonder what it would have felt like, not just for me, but for her too, if we had gotten together sexually, but I also know that the end-result would not have led anywhere good, whether it was after a week or a year.

The reality was that her internal world, her specific brand of solipsism if you like, was extremely stark. Almost pure black and white, which presents superficially as almost the perfect woman, direct, able to articulate herself well and intelligently, and with humour. Simple, direct and entertaining, what more could a guy want, right?

But, for whatever reason, perhaps the reactions she got from men all her life, she was also absolutely convinced that ultimately she knew the Way, or a Way anyway, without compromise or “give” in it. And that, to me, is the certain death-knell of a relationship between a man and woman. Or really anyone and anyone. And I had spent hours with her in polite one on one company, and totally missed this aspect of her until that moment.

Had I seen that specific type of Solipsism as she had it to begin with, I would likely not even have felt the attraction. But the attraction tends to blind men, easily and often. Which is why you need to be aware of her attractiveness, on the scale of 1 to 10, and consider it when observing her to figure out her specific solipsism and what it mostly shows up as. In what ways does it manifest? Because if she is a 7 and you are very familiar with women in general and you are also a 7 or even an 8, there will be little this woman can do to surprise you. If however, she is a 9.8 and you’re a 7, it is likely that the light blinds you, and like ea moth to a flame, you will keep going closer and closer to her, until you burn like a rat soaked in petrol and shot at with tracers.

Conclusions

Hopefully this explains how to use the FSSH to predict their behaviour, but there are a few points that the autists among you may want even further clarification on:

No there is not a “class” for women – I mean there are some broad general descriptors, but if we use the RPG analogy, these are more like ethnicities rather than classes. A woman may be an orc, or an elf, in general terms, but not an orc archer with thief abilities. So for example a woman might be more generally considered in terms of her overall looks, (beautiful or gargoyle-like) sexual availability (slutty) or lack thereof, (puritanical) but there isn’t an “Alpha” woman or an “Omega” woman other than in extremely broad categories. This is also tied to their sexual “score”, because unlike men, woman do not struggle to get sex. Even paraplegics of low quality looks, if female, can get regular sex (if not perhaps lasting love and affection), so as a metric for measuring rank among women it is functionally useless.

Body Count counts only for men – The number of lifetime sexual partners a woman has, or will have, informs what “class” she is almost not at all for women, and is “curated” by women, mostly for the benefit of men. Whether she had 2 men or 2,000 other women will tend to “chastise” or “weaponise” this information, not because they intrinsically care about the other woman’s proclivities in that regard (remember women only pretty much care about themselves and what affects them, after all) but because weaponising, in either direction by the way, serves some ulterior purpose of increasing her own rank. Sluts can be shamed for being sluts today, and virgins for being virgins tomorrow, as the situation demands. Women don’t actually care what another woman’s body count is other than in relation to how it can make her look in comparison with the other woman. Men tend to care about body count though, so women will pretend to (sometimes even convincing themselves that they do care) for the sake of men. If you have ever been present, like a fly on the wall, or in a room full of women that for whatever reason you are in no way perceived as being either available or worth competing for their attentions for, you will know what I mean. Whether in a coma or because you’re their pimp, any group of women that speaks with each other openly, will make you instantly aware that all their shyness and timid behaviour is as real as their make up and silicone implants. The reality is that other than contextually (which is nowhere near as many times as you’re likely to think) the number of lifetime partners doesn’t really feature in the FSSH as far as the majority of women are concerned. As such, it cannot be a feature by which one measures the rank or pecking order of a female with anything like the same level of authority that one can do with the MSSH.

A Woman’s SSH Can change both in the wider general sense as well as in the specific moment with far greater ease than any male SSH – It is far easier for a woman to go from being a nymphomaniac that does pornography, (General SSH: She is a porn actress) to a married housewife that has children (She’s a housewife that has children now, she used to do porn) and is accepted by the community she lives in (Oh leave her alone! She was a whore in another life! Look, she is a devoted mother! And she has more money than us, why don’t you get a better job, anyway, loser!), than it is for a man to go from an Omega to an Alpha (already mostly impossible, but even if it were…) and do so (the community itself would try to keep this guy down. Damn creeper, who does he think he is all of a sudden?)

The sexy girl on the arm of the boss at the Christmas party can suddenly drop from being THE one the middle managers’ wives want to befriend, to one they will shun like the plague if it turns out she is an escort for hire for the evening. While the boss himself, if he is a brash Alpha, will remain pretty much the guy all the guys want to chum up to, regardless of if the hottie on his arm is his wife of two decades, or an escort from the local fetish themed escort agency paid by the hour.

In short, the magic orb has constant moving parts – While the Male SSH is mostly fixed and reliable, the Female SSH is only “fixed” in the most general of terms, such as:

• The Whore
• The Slut (not quite the same as the Whore)
• The Gold Digger (also not the same as either of the two above)
• The Nag
• The Nun
• The Grandma
• The Housewife
• The Shrew
• The Feminist
• The Career Woman (almost interchangeable with the shrew or feminist)
• The Lesbian
• The Bisexual (almost interchangeable with the slut)

…and on and on and on. If you notice, many of the somewhat ephemeral “categories” are pejoratives and often with a sexual component to it, that is because most of these categories are produced by women, as labels to attach to other women.

The Final Point

The ultimate point of the Female SSH is to evaluate the ever-fluid “rank” or pecking order of a woman at a given time, place and context, when compared to the other women in the group.

It is not used to append a perennial label to a woman with regard to what “class” she may be, but simply so as to be able to predict her behaviour, which is usually (but not always) imminent, and thus anticipate your next move with respect to whatever she is about to begin doing.

Trying to use it for much of anything beyond that is almost certainly futile.

Good luck, and I hope I have now explained this topic ad nauseam for everyone.

UPDATE: A female reader of Vox’s site added a rather insightful explanation of the FSSH. It verifies my own explanation above in pretty much every respect but I think does a better job of explaining it from a bird’s eye view. My comment on it was thus:

I would say that this is generally a good take and the concept of wheel and hub are what I termed the “generic” status or “type” that is rather tenuous when compared to the male hierarchy. I would also add that while the writer is clearly more self-aware than the average woman by… a LOT, most of the behaviour she describes, insofar as it fits observable reality, is done by women mostly unconsciously, similarly to how men too for the most part, fall into their hierarchy structures by instinct.

I found it interesting that she also indirectly confirmed that the attractiveness scale, which I mention explicitly in my model, is a factor, as well as the point that amongst themselves women could not care less about body-count or the perception of them men have. They only care about it insofar as it affects them directly. The writer mentions the need to protect the wheel, and that is true, but that need is driven primarily by the fact that if the wheel suffers, so does the individual woman within it. If she did not suffer, she would not really care either, and if it would propel her into a new wheel that is higher up the social ladder and that includes more resources, or even makes her the hub of a more prosperous wheel, she will do it in a heartbeat and all her previous “good friends” will become overtaken acquaintances.

So while the writer makes some very good points and a valid argument for the “positive” aspects of female solipsism, do not be fooled into thinking that it lacks the usual scorpion sting in the tail if and when a woman feels the need to do so. And more often than you’d like, that use of the poisonous tail is very much along the lines of the story of the frog and the scorpion. Which is why I say that women really need to begin to learn to evolve themselves consciously, as they have quite a bit of catching up to do in that respect when compared to men.

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Relationships. RSS 2.0 feed.