The logical fallacy of female attraction

A commenter at Susan's place raises a valid and important point:

We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM.

This is good clarification and it's really not a very difficult concept to understand. A woman may love her children and she may love her dog, but she is not turned on by them. She may love certain BETA traits and even seek them out in Long Term Relationships, but they do not turn her on. As a general rule, anything that inspires the same "awwwww" reaction as children and puppies is something that belongs in the BETA LTR box and not the ALPHA juices like wine box.

I believe the primary reason it is hard to get women to understand this distinction between "that which I love" and "that which turns me on" is that for women, sexually turning on is a delicate process that is largely a black box to them. It is so delicate that it can be completely undermined by a man simply phrasing a suggestion in the wrong way, crossing some invisible physical boundary, or even daring to express a modicum of unseemly delight or pleasure in her responses.(1) And, in precisely the same manner it is shut down, sexual attraction can also be triggered without her realizing how or why. Let's face it, none of the women whose bodies sexually responded to video of animals mating was likely to have any idea that one zebra mounting another would turn her on. How could she possibly have known that?

This is why one of the core principles of Game has always been to ignore what women say about what turns them on and turns them off. For the most part, they genuinely don't know because they don't pay close attention to the process or analyze it carefully in the way that men who are interested in the process do. If you want to understand the behavioral patterns of the prey, don't ask the prey, ask the predator.

If a woman denies that she responds sexually to assholes, jerks and Dark Triadists, I would simply ask her if she is physically excited by gay porn. And if she denies it, as most women would, I would simply smile and henceforth ignore her opinion on the matter of what turns her on because there are reasonably solid grounds for considering it to be unreliable. But her inability to identify what does or does not turn her on doesn't mean that she isn't conveying useful information about herself and her sexuality. What she is actually saying is that she does not place LTR value on such men and she has sufficient self-control to prevent her from giving into her less rational impulses, which means that she is likely a woman worth pursuing for LTR rather than STR.

I suspect that the confusion stems from the fact that her actions - not having sex with jerks - are perfectly in line with her claimed opinion that she is not attracted to jerks. The logical fallacy here is the Converse Fallacy of Accident, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.

Argument: I must be attracted to a man to have sex with him and every man with whom I've had sex is not a jerk, therefore, all men to whom I am sexually attracted are not jerks.
Problem: The men with whom she has had sex are not a representative subset of the entire set of men to whom she is sexually attracted.


(1) This may help explain why narcissists and sociopaths do inordinately well with women. They never undermine the process of a woman being sexually turned on by reacting in an unseemly manner to her responses because they could not care less about them. There are few things that shut down the female sexual response faster than a stupid BETA smile or expressing verbal satisfaction at her responses. Showing no emotion and saying absolutely nothing is an excellent way to avoid interrupting the process.