Sexual Strategies For Men: Female Sexual Mate Selection (FSM)

What is Female Sexual Mate Selection (FSM)?

Female Sexual Mate Selection (FSM) is a procreative condition where procreation occurs between a man and woman who are sexually attracted to each other.

What is a summary of a sexual strategy which optimizes for female sexual mate selection (fsm)?

1. The objective of a sexual strategy which optimizes for FSM is to maximize probability for sexual acceptance (i.e. optimize for sex as a "number's game").
   1. You must accept you must approach women.
   2. You must accept the chance of any woman finding you sexually attractive is random.
   3. You must accept you cannot "change" any woman's sexual attraction towards you.
   4. Thus, you seek environments with lots of women to approach lots of women.
2. The ideal environment of a sexual strategy which optimizes for FSM lacks consequences for sexual actions.
   1. You operate in a manner independent to force, prestige, etc.
   2. You interact with women in an environment where there are not consequences for their sexual actions.

What is a sexual strategy which optimizes for female sexual mate selection (fsm)?

A man who pursues procreation via FSM must approach women who are sexually attracted to him.

The strategy is optimized by optimizing each action.

1. You must approach the woman.
2. You must determine whether she is sexually attracted.
3. You must have sex.

1. You must approach the woman.

Why must you approach the woman?

You must approach the woman because women are not likely to verbally approach a man even when the woman is sexually attracted to the man.

Here is the science.

Studies confirm women use non-verbal solicitation behaviors (e.g., tactical proximity and sustained eye contact) to prompt a male approach [1].

Men must process these spatial cues and execute a physical approach because women in an FSM environment maintain leverage over men during sexual selection and use this leverage to minimize social consequences [2].

You can view an example of this behavior in a digital form by analyzing data from capitalist dating apps.

Here is a logical deduction which explains this data:

• Premise 1: Capitalism is an economic process which prioritizes solutions with the least monetary cost.
• Premise 2: Monetary value is correlated with a society's energy yield (e.g., calories from food, power from oil). So, Capitalism is an economic process which prioritizes solutions with the least energy cost.
• Premise 3: Dating apps which succeed under Capitalism contain features which appeal to consumers seeking solutions to "dating" with the least energy cost.
• Premise 4: Dating apps which succeed under Capitalism contain features which shift the energy cost and risk of approaching (by sending a message first) onto men.
• Premise 4.1: Dating apps which succeed under Capitalism contain features which allow either gender to message first, but statistically, men must message women first.
  • This feature — which gives women the ability to message first even when the woman does not use it — mirrors real-life environments.
  • The alternative to this feature — which only lets the man or woman message first — is not preferred by women (as indicated by dating apps which had to pivot this feature to stay profitable).

So, this behavior in dating apps — where men must "verbally" approach first in an environment which is plausibly deniable for the woman — is not a reflection of corporate design, but rather a response to natural human behavior [3, 4].

You can't expect a woman to approach you (when she is sexually attracted to you), but you can expect her to make it easier for you to approach her (when she is sexually attracted to you).

Which women do you approach?

You approach any woman you feel like approaching.

Here is why.

Sexual Selection Theories shows how a woman's sexual trait preferences can be derived from a set of variables which include

• Her ancestral genetic line and their procreative conditions [5].
• Her childhood upbringing [6].
• Her cultural origins.
• So on and so forth.

However, you cannot derive a woman's sexual trait preferences immediately since you do not have all of these variables when you meet the woman.

Furthermore, these sexual trait preferences do not always align with colloquial stereotypes about sexual trait preferences (e.g., height, weight, facial structure) [6, 7].

• Studies may show there are certain configurations of a trait which determine whether you can be sexually attractive (e.g., weight tolerance), but these configuration preferences cannot be generalized to every woman.
• Studies may show there are certain configurations of a trait which are preferred (e.g., height), but these configuration preferences do not operate in a pure FSM environment. So, PSC and FSC environments also influence these studies.
• Studies show a single undesirable trait can act as a deal breaker, but possessing a desired trait is never an automatic guarantee of attraction [7].

Therefore, analyzing a woman's traits to determine whether she is sexually attracted to you is more costly than approaching the woman when you find her sexually attractive.

People may argue for a man to approach a woman without analyzing her body language for non-verbal solicitation behaviors (e.g., tactical proximity and sustained eye contact) because body language is not universal and subject to noise: These people optimize for approach volume.

Others opposed to this argument may suggest a man read the body language of a woman for non-verbal solicitation behaviors (e.g., tactical proximity and sustained eye contact) before approaching her because it lets him spend less time approaching women: These people optimize for approach quality.

Where do you approach women?

You should approach women in an environment with a relatively high volume of women who are receptive to procreative intercourse.

Here is why.

You must approach multiple women to maximize the chance of finding a woman who is sexually attracted to you.

• You cannot determine whether a woman is sexually attracted to you (i.e. her sexual trait preferences are 'random' from your perspective) prior to your initial approach. So, there is a chance you approach women who are not sexually attracted to you.
• A woman is either sexually attracted to your traits or she is not [5]. You cannot perform any action — which does not align with your social traits — to "change" a woman's sexual attraction to you.
• Any procreative sexual attraction a woman expresses towards you when she was initially sexually unattracted is her expressing a desire for a Provisionally Sexual Coercive Contract: This contract is not an action which aligns with a sexual strategy optimized for FSM.

This logic is why any sexual strategy which optimizes for Female Sexual Mate Selection is labeled a "number's game".

You increase the mathematical probability of meeting a woman whose sexual trait preferences match your traits by maximizing the number of women you meet within certain environments.

Here is the science.

The "numbers game" is observed in human migration and social dynamics as a way to reset competitive environments.

Studies show that individuals who move away from their immediate hometown circles or tightly locked local hierarchies avoid social bottlenecks where their reputation or background is fixed. This migration helps them experience higher reproductive success by lowering the energy cost of finding receptive partners [7, 8].

2. You must be 'tested' by the woman.

You are "tested" by a woman before she has sex with you.

1. You propose your traits non-verbally and verbally to a woman.
2. She evaluates your traits according to her sexual trait preferences [5].
3. She makes a decision based on risk-aversion.
   1. "Rejection by uncertainty" is when you are rejected because the woman does not have enough information about you to make a decision: This rejection is not final ("no now, not never").
   2. You can reduce "rejection by uncertainty" among risk-averse individuals by displaying every trait prior to a sexual proposal, whereas using the same strategy may reduce your chance of sexual acceptance among risk-taking individuals (when your competition has hidden their undesired traits).
   3. A woman's decision is final when she understands your traits.
      1. A rejection due to one trait is a full rejection ("never") even when you have not displayed every trait [7].

Here is why.

A woman is a selector in a selector-selection dynamic who evaluates her options before selection occurs [5].

The evolutionary concept which address this dynamic is strategic interference in mate assessment testing [7].

Here is an analogy.

A consumer who is searching for a new phone asks questions to various vendors (e.g., iPhone, Samsung, Google Pixel) about the phone.

• What is the operating system?
• How much storage does the phone have?
• How much RAM does the phone have?

The consumer may even test the phones in an environment where the consumer understands that their usage of the phone does not require them to purchase the phone (e.g., in the physical store).

The consumer selects a phone with the information they have when the environmental conditions which urge them to purchase a new phone are met (e.g., their phone broke and their work requires a phone).

Here is a comparison of a realistic environment and the analogy.

A woman who has an urge to have sex searches for men by positioning herself in proximity to them.

The men approach her and she filters them by subconsciously

• comparing their physical traits to her physical sexual trait preferences [5]
• comparing their non-verbal social traits to her non-verbal social trait preferences [1].
• asking questions to the men (colloquially known as "testing" them) to reduce uncertainty in her decision [7].
  • Colloquial dating resources often reference questions which address a male's psychology insecurity for their physical traits (i.e. the "shit test"). However, these tests are not the only tools a woman can use to evaluate a man's qualities.
  • Risk-averse women prefer to deny men who have not proposed enough information to reduce uncertainty (i.e. "rejection by uncertainty").
  • Other women prefer to test men who have not proposed enough information to reduce uncertainty.

A woman has sex when when the environmental conditions (e.g., her emotions) urge her to have sex. This environment makes makes her act upon the information she has collected about each man.
- Risk-averse women may not have sex.
- Other women may make a decision to have sex with the perceived best option, or have sex for further evaluation without risk by using contraceptives.

Here is the science.

Studies show that women utilize prolonged interaction and social testing as a defensive filter. This filter weeds out low-investment or deceptive males by forcing them to display behavioral consistency under pressure [7].

3. You have sex.

You have sex with the woman when you sexually desire her and she sexually desires you.

Women can be attracted to more than one man so chances are she may prefer to have sex with other men based on debated theories about human genital shapes and sperm competition [7, 9]. So, sex is another 'test' in this context.

What is the optimal environment for a sexual strategy based on female sexual mate selection (fsm)?

The optimal environment for a sexual strategy based on FSM must

1. let any man approach any woman without consequence (e.g., physical or social harm).
2. let any women accept or deny any man without consequence (e.g., physical or social harm).

The realistic environment for a sexual strategy based on FSM contains consequences for sexual actions due to

• Male Interference (Intrasexual Competition): Men actively block other men from accessing women [7, 10].
  • Men use physical force to manage a woman's sexual access to other men (e.g., by fighting the man, by coercing the woman).
  • Men use legal systems — backed by physical force — to limit the areas other men can access (e.g., by ordering a security guard to trespass a competitor).
  • Men use social systems (e.g., spiritual, prestige) to punish males who breach social agreements which include proactive or non-competitive terms about a woman's sexual availability to other men.
• Female Social Shaming (The Spam Filter): A woman socially shames men who execute unsuccessful approaches. The woman does this because unsolicited, non-targeted approaches cost them energy to filter .
• Female Intragroup Shaming (Social Enforcement Policing): A woman socially shames another woman who
  • accepts a male that the shaming-woman does not find sexually attractive (to impose her standards on the environment).
  • accepts a male that the shaming-woman found provisionally attractive (because now his resources cannot be allocated to the shaming-woman).
  • does not adhere to behaviors which increase the shaming-woman's position in a provisional-sexual market.

What is required to execute a sexual strategy that optimizes for female sexual mate selection (fsm)?

You must be able to approach women without consequence and also be sexually attractive to a set of women.

How do you approach women without consequence?

You approach women without consequence by operating

1. in a way which can not affected by the force of other humans.
2. in a way which can not affected by a loss of prestige from other humans.

e.g., Reproductive Dominance among Chieftains and Leaders

Anthropological and cross-cultural data prove that human mating has occurred within the context of intrasexual competition and social enforcement policing. Male coalition dominance hierarchies use force, institutional laws, and prestige systems to gatekeep reproductive access and control territorial resources [7, 10].

Historically, political leaders, tribal chieftains, and dominant elites have the highest number of biological offspring on average. They maximize their sexual approaches and access without interference while imposing laws on the community to limit other mens' sexual approaches.

This trend is explained by approach volume maximization in the context of FSM: A man who does not fear consequences can execute an exponentially higher volume of approaches across varied social environments.

e.g., Short-Term Mating and the Dark Triad

Studies show individuals who display Dark Triad traits (such as narcissism or psychopathy) report higher numbers of casual sexual partners.

This higher body count is driven by extreme assertiveness, low social anxiety, and a complete disregard for social risks or group shaming, allowing them to maximize mating opportunities .

This correlation can be explained by approach volume maximization in the context of FSM: A man who does not fear consequences can execute an exponentially higher volume of approaches across varied social environments.

Historically, individuals who relied heavily on deception or anti-social behavior faced high infant mortality rates, physical retaliation, or permanent social ostracization from the tribe, which damaged their long-term genetic fitness.

The modern world contains legal systems that prevent physical violence or tribal banishment, which defend short-term mating strategies from these historical consequences. However, modern contraceptives negate this defense by preventing conception from short-term sexual encounters.

Sources Used

[1] Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology.

[2] Acton, G. S. (2004). Game theory models of mate search and costly signaling thresholds. Journal of Theoretical Biology.

[3] Bruch, E. E., & Newman, M. E. (2018). Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Science Advances. (Documents the energetic asymmetry where men send the vast majority of first messages to women out of their league, absorbing high rejection rates).

[4] Bloomberg / LinkedIn Media Data (2026). Bumble Platform Structural Shifts and Feature Reversals. (Documents Bumble's removal of its women-message-first paradigm due to user burnout, shifting back to standard real-world male approach asymmetry).

[5] Wedekind, C., et al. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. (Shows ancestral genetic boundaries driving female trait preferences independent of standard stereotypes).

[6] Saxton, T. K., et al. (2017). Facial resemblance between women's partners and brothers. Evolution and Human Behavior. (Validates childhood imprint variables forming highly individualized female preferences).

[7] Buss, D. M. (2016). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. Basic Books. (Covers strategic interference, dark triad volume, sperm competition, deal breakers vs preferences, and female defensive filtering).

[8] Evolutionary Game Theory & Dispersal Studies (2015). Environmentally Driven Migration in a Social Network Game. Scientific Reports. (Demonstrates migration between local groups as a foundational human mechanism to reset cooperative and competitive social boundaries).

[9] Shackelford, T. K., & Pound, N. (Eds.). (2006). Sperm Competition in Humans: Evolutionary Facts and Fantasies. Springer Science & Business Media.

[10] Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior. (Documents cross-cultural data proving ancestral male competition relied heavily on dominance hierarchies and physical force to gatekeep mate access).