Saturday, January 14, 2012

Tim Tebow and the Peacock effect

Continuing on the sporting theme, a female friend was waxing lyrical about Tim Tebow the other day. She especially liked his 'Tebowing'. I suggested to her that she only liked him because he was a famous athlete.

She said this:
"There are lots of famous athletes. Big deal. I like this one because he is different."

I said "yeah, sure" and we left it at that as there was no time to continue our conversation.

I think I now understand what she meant.

Peacocks are magnificent birds to watch. I think they are second only to the King of the jungle himself, the Lion, when it comes to the whole "strutting" thing.
The preening is spectacularly over the top.

Some men might see the peacock as the "dandy" of the animal kingdom, the gay guy.
Some might see him as a true alpha.
I am with the latter group.
A peacock will kill, and I repeat, kill another competitor for a peahen. He ain't gay.

Some studies suggest that the plumage of a peacock is actually nothing to do with attracting the peahen - it is more a case of warding off or intimidating other males.
In any case, a Japanese study concluded, after seven years of watching free-living peacocks, that the female is actually indifferent (read: unimpressed) to the often excessive display by the peacock.
An example of hypergamy if ever there was one!

Male sparrows and other birds are Nature's serenaders. What we know as 'birdsong' is actually a full-on male choir in action. All doing their bit to attract a female.
Although not detectable by human ears, not all birdsong is the same. I have seen phonograms proving beyond any doubt that the frequency of each birdsong is different.

Each male bird is trying to be unique.
The female birds are just there, passive. They all look alike. If they like the sound of a particular male bird, they pick him.

Same story in human terms if each gender is to follow Nature's way.

A woman does not have to be überspecial, to attract a man. She does have to be visible to him, and the better her 'assets' the better. Thereafter, he needs to know that she will keep his home, bear his children and keep him company, never betraying him (read: cuckoldry/divorce rape, etc).

Some men believe that women just like the 'bad boys'. Whilst I see this happening sometimes, it is by no means the only story.

A woman's attraction triggers are different from a man's, because they have to be. Otherwise we would all be gay. That wouldn't work for the purposes of propagating the species.
She needs to look at a man and see a king. He needs to stand out because there are many men on the parade, usually.
He has to be unique, to her.

For a woman, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man really is king.
And in the land of the one-eyed man, the two-eyed man is king. And so is the blind man.

It's the difference that counts. In the purely biological sense.
In the land of good boys, a bad boy will become 'alpha' (read: extraordinary) by default.
In the land of bad boys, Tim Tebow is king.

But alas, human beings have higher functions too, as some of you keep reminding me. Social factors do come into play too. I know that.

A woman can go wrong in two ways:
1. She is not yet mature when she makes her 'choice'. So she does choose Mr Top Spot, but her criteria for choosing him are all wrong because they are riddled with adolescent thinking. Next you know, she is on the hypergamy train to the next station.

In the old days, a woman's maturity was nailed earlier in her life.
Feminism has increased the age at which this happens in modern women. Counterproductively.

2. She is mature, but chooses someone who is not Top Spot for a variety of reasons outlined under 'The Reluctant bride'.
So a man's job in this case is to find out where he is on 'the list' if this is a woman he does care enough about that he wants to commit to. Game (the right kind, as explained by Lost and Danny) can help in this regard. This is why I personally respect Game.

The happiest woman is one who is mature and chooses Mr Top Spot as a result of her physical attraction for him combined with the clear thinking her maturity accords her.

So, if many women are being accused of choosing 'the bad boy', consider that she is most likely immature and that that bad boy made himself stand out to her immature mind. In this regard, neither that woman nor the bad boy are appealing.

What's the best strategy for the immature woman with regards to the 'bad boy'?
There is a good reason girls and boys were largely 'segregated' in ancient times, until a certain age. It is also why I am in accordance with same sex education until a certain age. The goal here is to achieve the necessary maturity in both sexes, but particularly in a girl before she is exposed to the big bad world. By then, her ideas on who is worthy or not are firmly formed in her mind.

For mature women, their default position is that 'there are no good men out there' i.e. every man is a bad boy. So a 'good boy' to a mature good woman is actually a true alpha.  because he stands out. The Private Man has a series of posts advising women to 'see' the good in men. I think this is good advice because it helps this process along nicely.

I think this is what my friend was talking about when she was referring to Tim Tebow as 'different'.
This is why I also think that a 'principled mangina' can be gold dust to a good mature woman if he has enough Game.


dannyfrom504 said...

You are doing VERY well girl. If this one goes through I'll try and repost my "game" explanation. But you're consistently putting up some good stuff.

Stay up.

Spacetraveller said...

Your comment has come through! My expert turned out to be Bellita. She gave me a useful tip to sort out the problem :-)

Yes your 'Game' comment is highly anticipated!

Andrew said...

Great post.

Did you ever see The Tillman Story? I remember walking out of that movie thinking similarly about Pat - a guy who, in the middle of a hoard of military "badasses" was actually a moral person, but one who was easily as strong as his comrades. In fact I think he is a much better example of what you are talking about, albeit less well known, so perhaps not as useful for making the point.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Rules,

No, I hadn't heard about Pat Tillman...
But yes, he is indeed a similar character to Tebow.
How sad that he was killed in 'friendly fire'.

dannyfrom504 said...

game is like the force. it can be used for bad or good though it is neither good nor evil. it just is. Anakin fell to the dark side thinking it would give him the power to save Amidala. in the end......he fell. he was forever changed for the worse. game has the same seductiveness to it. ESPECIALLY to a guy that's got a history of striking out. he'll feel the need to make up for all the times a women led him on and didn't put out, or made a fool of him. he won't place any blame on himself though. unfortunately it's guys like this that give "game" a bad name. they're often divorced and have an agenda. they learn game then perpetuate the cycle that burned them.

i chose the route of Obi Wan. i realize there is a GREAT power in game. but i don't use it too get what i want, i just use it to navigate a woman's sometimes irrationality and emotional states. this irrationality/emotional state doesn't make women bad or good. just makes them women. the degree of rationale and emotion is subjective to the woman of course. lol. i've had women i know TELL ME they know EXACTLY when i'm gaming them, but then turn around and admit that they can't help falling for it. because, at it's core, game is founded in confidence. confidence alone will render 90% women powerless and filled with the tingles. what game i know/use i use to qualify women in terms of relationship worthy, NOT to simply to get laid.

Spacetraveller said...

Danny, this is priceless...

I don't think anyone could have explained it better.

I am sure I speak for most women when I say we wouldn't mind being 'gamed' as long as it is not for evil purposes...(maturity helps in distinguishing good from evil in this case).

THIS type of Game is to be respected.

Kuudos to you, Danny.

Un très grand merci à toi!
(A very BIG 'thank you' to you for this!)

May the force be with you.

Anonymous said...

So, what does "Game" consist of? All I've read so far is about "Game" in an abstract sense, but never anything concrete.

dannyfrom504 said...

thank you Dear. i had to go through a lot of emails to find that comment. lol.

for more "solid" game explanation, go to my blog and read "taking the red pill", then read "deti's advice".

"game" is simply confidence and outcome independence. it's RESPECTING women, yet...maintaining a "what do you bring to the table for me woman" rationale. it's the ability to understand when she's giving you signals that you're desirable and knowing how to amplify her "tingle" for you.

and i don't mean too be rude, but if you're having to ask what it is, then you don't have it. i'm leaving for work, but i suggest you read the aforementioned posts.....that will give you a goos jump-off point.

Anonymous said...

Well, english is not my first language, and the term cropped up here a few times, so I thought I'd ask.

I'll try to find the post you mentioned.

I don't know if I got "game", but I read the "Let the woman chase you" post and thought to myself, well isn't that common sense? Make them do some work too, let them invest something as well? Let her know you've got options (even if you don't right now) ?

BeijaFlor said...

Excellent article. I note that the peacock is such a good example of male display that "peacocking" is in the Game lexicon.

But I think your more important point is that of maturity - not in terms of years, but in terms of outlook and responsibility. And I get the idea that you recognize that the one "manly thing" Feminism does not seek to usurp is responsibility.

In those "old days" you mention, young and irresponsible women were taken firmly in hand by their elders - their mother, their aunt(s), and their grandmother (if still alive) guided them into responsible conduct. They also took an active role in the choice of a husband for her, as marriage was not just about the loving couple - the two families were joined, just as much. A wise mama was on the lookout for a young man with good manners, good prospects, and a good family - Pride And Prejudice, anyone?

Those days are, indeed, long gone, leaving not a vestige to swear at - swear by, I should say ...

Anonymous said...


well that was an interesting read.
Although I find it somewhat disturbing that men need to be told to act like, well, men? My father behaved a lot like as was suggested in the articles (i.e. "I am the King and I my word is law" for lack of a better term), and
I probably picked a up on a lot if it.

Spacetraveller said...

@ BeijaFlor,

Thank you kindly!

"I note that the peacock is such a good example of male display that "peacocking" is in the Game lexicon."

Is it really? Well, well, what a turnout for the books!

But I guess it makes sense...

And now come to think about it, I can think of at least 3 recent incidents when I witnessed 'peacocking' but of course, I was clueless as to what was happening :-)

I take your point about the effects of feminism on responsibility. It took away female responsibility whilst insisting on male responsibility. I can't really see the logic here, except if I reason this to mean that feminism is an illogical but nonetheless ardent enememy of womanhood. Because if 'man' was really the adversary, why make him a BETTER opponent than 'woman' by making him intellectually and morally superior? It just doesn't make sense!
I am sure SOME feminists had good intentions in seeking 'equality'...but they were usurped by their self-hating sisters...and the result is today's debacle.

On this point, I TOTALLY agree with you Sir.

@ Anonymous

Yes, how sad that we have to learn everything from scratch again. Men have to go to some guy named 'Mystery' to learn how to be a man, and women have to re-learn what should have come naturally to them - femininity.
It's great that your father's Game rubbed off on you. Keep it going! You are one of the lucky ones :-)

dannyfrom504 said...


glad you found the posts. there's A LOT you'd be surprised about to learn in the SMP.

it's really is that crazy out there.

if you were surprised about telling men to actually act're already on the right path. when i first started on the blogs i'd read comments and posts and think, "well...yeah, no shit." lol.

Anonymous said...

This post immediately reminded me of the following passage from the book The Privilege of Being a Woman by Alice von Hildebrand . . .

It is noteworthy that feminine loveliness contradicts the biological norm. Usually the male animal is more beautiful than the female one. The lion is more beautiful than the lioness; the rooster is more beautiful than the hen; the male duck has brilliant colors which are denied his female partner. This is one feature, among many, which points to the fact that sexuality in animals and human beings is radically different . . ."

It's neither direct confirmation or direct refutation of your thesis, but I like the way they can fit together.

In related news, a friend and I were just discussing crushes. She finds it very easy to develop a crush on someone she knows in real life; the last person I crushed really hard over was David Tennant, whom I don't at all know in real life. I think it's because I need the stories from someone's life--the experiences that make him unique--to start thinking of him as different from everyone else. Otherwise, no matter how good looking he is, there's nothing to set him apart from the rest of the pack. And it's just easier to get this sort of information about famous people. I doubt people normally volunteer random tidbits about themselves.

Having said that, I now have an exception to tell you about. My first boyfriend was definitely very different from everyone else and it was natural to him to share little stories from his life when getting to know people. One of them was about him almost being expelled from his high school for setting a smoke bomb off in the corridor. His parents managed to keep him in only because there was no actual rule or policy against what he had done (and because no one had gotten hurt). Hahahaha!

Does this mean I was attracted to a "bad boy"? If you want to split hairs and get technical, then yes, I was. But it wasn't because he was "bad," but because he told me a story about himself that made him different from everyone else. There were other boys there who shared stories about themselves, but they either already had girlfriends or were not as interested in me as he was. I don't know about other women, but information really fuels my fire.

Anonymous said...

Re: peacocking

The first time I encountered the term was while I was watching the movie 17 Again. A geeky character tries wearing outlandish clothing to impress a woman . . . but she sees right through it, even calling him out using that very term. (Only lately did I realize it was probably a direct satire of the PUA community. I think the character even wears a hat like Mystery's at one point!) Anyway, if you don't mind me spoiling the ending of the "b-plot," this character is successful in his attempts only after he confesses that he once spent thousands of dollars to buy Gandalf's staff from the Lord of the Rings movies. That's because, unbeknownst to him, his lady love is a huge Fantasy nerd, too!

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bellita,

Knowing your penchant for all things British, I must say I totally get it that you crushed hard on David Tennant. That man is total Brit :-)

I think your bf was presented to you as 'bad' because of the stories about himself he regaled to you. In this sense, he is 'displaying'. But here's the thing...if you met him way after highschool, you admired the 'difference' his storytelling provided, but from a place of security, i.e. knowledge that he is not like that NOW. So his 'bad boy' ways are nothing but entertainment for you, which has the same effect on you as though he really was a bad boy, except NOW he is no longer...if that makes sense...
Just me hamster spinning :-)

In fact come to think of it, I have a similar thing in my life...

'17 again' seems a great film. Thanks for telling me about it.

I think that passage you quote from von Hildebrand's book helps my argument...I think it places such a responsibility on a man that he has to 'impress'. If the woman is too fussy, or he is not rewarded for his efforts, it must be incredibly frustrating...

I must say though, that a possible confounding variable in the argument is that in humans at least, there are more beautiful women than men in the purely aesthetic sense. And yet beauty does not have to be 'unique' to attract. A conundrum...

Anonymous said...

If we're talking about artistic merit, 17 Again is a so-so movie. But I'd watch it again today just because it's now obvious that the writers were very aware of the concepts of Game.

if you met him way after highschool, you admired the 'difference' his storytelling provided, but from a place of security, i.e. knowledge that he is not like that NOW.

That's painting me in such a nice light! It's too bad the truth isn't so pretty ;) . . . To be totally honest, an equally huge factor in my choosing him was that no other boy was interested in me! And we were in college, when he was clearly still very much like he was in high school. :P He definitely stood out from the crowd because I didn't know anyone else in the world--or even anyone else in fiction--who was like him, but what dating him has taught me is that uniqueness is overrated when it's backed by nothing else. I think Game is great inasmuch as it helps men of substance learn to stand out from the crowd, but Game totally on its own is the sizzle without the steak.

BeijaFlor said...

"Game totally on its own is the sizzle without the steak."

Love that insight, Bellita. That is utterly classic. Thank you.

Glad my own "peacock tendencies," my own urge to come back to a thread and see what follows my earlier comments, brought me back to THIS.

Anonymous said...


Thank you kindly :)

ad Mystery:

I got a hold of "The Mystery Method" book after reading your comment, and boy, what's in there is one of the most convoluted ways of meeting women I've ever encountered (but there are a few other interesting bits in there which do make sense). Far too complex in my opinion. I always found it much easier to just talk to women, and if I sensed they were interested, asked them to go to my (or her) place. They knew what was going on and either accepted or didn't.