341»

How to Alleviate Suffering From Female Hypergamy

Females are Hypergamous

Today we have a guest post by longtime reader and active commenter Anacaona (formerly known as Stephenie Rowling). In this post, she tackles the beast of female hypergamy, and offers some strategies for wrestling it to the ground. First, an introduction:

 

The first time I heard the phrase female hypergamy, my mind went straight to a visual of a pair of ginormous cankles.

“I’m sorry Ms. Walsh, but you’re suffering from a chronic condition known as female hypergamy.”

“Oh my God! Is it curable?”

“No, not curable, but with patience and the right treatment it can be managed.”

“No man will ever love me with these cankles!”

“Some fellow might. But I think you can safely rule out the Brad Pitt types. You need to accept reality and live with it if you expect to find peace.”

 What is the dreadful female condition known as hypergamy? From Wikipedia:

Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as “marrying up”) is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher socioeconomic status, or caste status than oneself.

The term is often used more specifically in reference to a perceived tendency amongst human cultures for females to seek or be encouraged to pursue male suitors that are higher status than themselves

According to evolutionary psychologists, females have evolved a preference for higher status males because they offer their prospective children both “better” genes and greater resources, e.g. food and security. Men, who invest less in their children, have less reason to prefer mates with high social status. Some have even argued that men “marry-down” to ensure that their mates have a higher incentive to remain faithful.

Some evolutionary psychologists believe that women exhibit mate-selective preferences for spouses who are greater than them in terms of attained physical attractiveness, educational level, job status, social standing, and capital accumulation. In comparison, males would tend to place higher emphasis on the value of physical attractiveness in a woman alone.

Eve’s Illness

by Anacaona

Eve is the symbolic mother of our entire species. She lived in the Garden of Eden where all her needs were fulfilled and there was plenty of pleasure and love.

But Eve, being a woman, had a trait that many of us XX carriers have as well: She wanted more. Women believe and hope that things can always improve. This is a wonderful trait to have – without it, women wouldn’t have been able to achieve so much in a world with so many biological disadvantages, but it’s a fatal flaw to have if you happen to already live in Paradise.

In modern society Eve’s desire for more, always more, is seldom a fatal flaw, but it’s an illness that has infected the relationship between women and men.

The old saying “I can do better” is practically taught since birth to women as a way to empower them: you can have a better job, a better car, a better home and better, better, better… The problem is that modern society doesn’t say to women that they could also “do a lot worse” and more often than not they have no idea how to change a pattern that keeps taking them to the same failed place. Sadly, many do not realize their self-destructive choices until it is too late.

Eve is whispering in your ear, telling you to look for the “better” man. But what is better in terms of mating? The tallest one, the handsomest one, the one that seems confident and strong? This is where Eve is still eating the forbidden fruit.

You think you know everything you need to know but you don’t understand your own desires, and so cannot guard against them.

The temptation is a base urge, lodged in your reptilian brain, that still hears the drums of the past and thinks that a strong, aggressive man will kill a mammoth and bring the meat to your cave. But that was a million years ago, and we no longer live in caves. Today, any guy strong enough to hold a hamburger should be able to provide you with the food you need. Thus we are heeding a completely obsolete instinct, because our culture and technology advanced faster than our bodies did.  Biological evolution is a painstakingly slow process.

When you look at the man that has twenty other women making a beeline for him, you want him even more. That is you are going for the quick reward of the “better” genes, but this man will be looking at a long line of women wanting a piece of him. Given that he knows there are many women like you listening for Eve’s tempting offer, he won’t be singling you out as a “better” woman. He’s more likely to say, “Better have someone else next in line!”

Eve probably thought that Paradise was boring, that she was seeing the same plants, the same streams and the same animals. She craved something new and different.  But she was lazy. Instead of trying her hand at inventing a sport or learning how to sing like a bird, paying attention to the wonders of paradise, she took the easy route of breaking the rules because it looked like the best way to improve her life immediately. She selfishly destroyed a good thing for the chance to have a better thing.

I’m not saying women shouldn’t try to pursue happiness or get the best possible mate they can, but if Eve had asked herself a couple of questions she might have resisted temptation:

  • How will I feel about this tomorrow?
  • What is this serpent after?
  • Can he be trusted?

 So next time you see a handsome man at a party, happily enjoying the attention of many women, instead of taking that last drink and hooking up with him ask yourself some questions:

  • Are you being tempted by a serpent?
  • Do you lose more by taking a pass or giving in?

Maybe you should pay attention to the shy guy in the corner. He may not look “better” at first glance, but he might just be paradise.

The Dichotomy of Reproductive Success

Women and men didn’t evolve in the same way. Life is designed to perpetuate itself by any means necessary. It doesn’t have to be fair or egalitarian, just effective in selecting genes to pass on under hospitable conditions. So, even if hypergamy isn’t applicable to all men and women it was a successful strategy for our forebears. Today’s men and women inherited that legacy. The genes for hypergamy, and the male response to it, are present in all of us in different proportions. The majority of people reveal this in their behavior.

Men produce abundant sperm and only need one good swimmer to fertilize the egg to make sure their genes are passed on. They are wired to seek fertile women, i.e. young and healthy, to procreate. Furthermore, they have their entire adult lives to do so.

Women, on the other hand, not only need suitable eggs, they also need a suitable environment for them to grow and develop into a viable infant, capable of carrying their genes into the next generation. Add to that the fact that our big brains make human young completely defenseless without the assistance of adult humans and you have a recipe for diverging mating strategies between men and women.

In the past it made total sense for men to try and mate with the youngest, healthiest and largest number of women possible. (The universal standards of beauty are actually indicators of fertility. This is why men place so much importance on good looks.) But a gene passed is a gene passed. Since men also took physical risks routinely, if they had an average looking woman available and willing, they wouldn’t waste the chance given that five minutes later they might be slayed by a saber tooth tiger. (Today’s extreme risk seekers are the unfortunate product of that instinct.) A competing drive, though, was to stay around to help raise his young, giving them a chance to further propagate his genetic line. It was necessary for males to balance these different strategies to be evolutionarily successful.

Women had to maximize their chances to pass on their own genes by getting the best prenatal care and the best resources and protection available from men. This meant that many women selected the genes of the physically strongest men to mate with. Sadly, many women learned the hard way that a prize physical specimen also has plenty of other women looking to mate with him. And the more kids he fathered, the more mouths he had to feed, and the less he could share with any one child. So women had to balance physical strength and prowess with good partnership traits.

So males balanced their desire to impregnate many women with the responsibility of caring for offspring. Women balanced the desire of having the strongest male’s offspring with the need to select a worthy partner (or several partners in case the primary died). And of course, women had a relatively narrow window of fertility.

Evolution is a real bastard.

Some men went the seed-spreading route. They are today’s alpha males (players, cheating bastards, Charlie Sheen), and they probably have the minimum amount of bonding potential – their reproductive strategy is one of quantity. Other men inherited desirable security traits: nurturing, family-oriented, diligent, intelligent, etc. to be more attractive to women in the long run. They are today’s betas (Nice guys, Adorkables, Denzel Washington).

Studies show that women are most attracted to very masculine, testosterone-filled men during ovulation. The rest of the month she prioritizes partnership traits.

Many women gamble recklessly by banging alphas only (sluts, impulsive women, J Lo), hoping one of them will stay. They may rely on societal support in case of single motherhood. Others secretly bang the alphas and some betas to make sure they get the genes of the former and the care for the offspring of the latter. (Of course, this was something that they could choose to do secretly before the technology of paternity testing was available.) Finally, the ones that didn’t trust alphas to stay around or didn’t want to reproduce alpha traits primarily chose beta guys (smart ladies, long-term focused women, Rita Wilson).

In short, men are not selective about having sex but they are very selective about committing their emotions and resources. They need to be selective to make sure all their childrearing efforts are fruitful in propagating their own genes. Women are much more selective (or should be) about sexual partners because every sexual encounter could lead to pregnancy (theoretically, birth control notwithstanding).

Of course, genes and human behavior lie on a spectrum. Society, culture and morals were created to regulate our instincts to make sure the best strategy for the group worked in the long run. This prevents us from doing silly things like killing each other competing for mates, or breeding with close family members. Consequently, when we started to build civilization, human groups were stable and not constantly worried about passing genes or mating. They capitalized on that stability by doing important things like invading the neighbors, conquering lands and laying waste to them. 

To maximize the chance that all of us can be successful in passing our genes in the most safe and effective way, we developed cultural norms such as marriage, monogamy and societal shame for things like divorce and infidelity. Even polygamous societies were trying to make sure that the most desirable Alpha males had enough variety within their marriages to avoid trying to steal or cheat with someone else’s wife, cuckolding another man into raising a kid that didn’t carry his genes.

Over time, societies found monogamy most beneficial and orderly. Imagine a small village – we’ll call it Moralia: 100 men and 100 women. Twenty percent of each sex is the most desirable (the Brad Pitts and Angelina Jolies). If the two most desirable members get married early on, and this society punishes adultery and divorce, then the rest select from among themselves and pair up with the best mate they can get. Yes, men love variety but if they know they will have access to one and only one, then they will be happy to get laid and will provide for a family in exchange. Women are hypergamous, but if they know that if they don’t take one of the better available men off of the market fast, one of her sisters will do it.

So in Moralia, even the ugliest and least capable will end up paired. Thus, we get tons of gene variation (wider variety of men procreating), and social stability.  Now people have time for science and art. Everyone wins!

Now imagine the village next to them: Libertalia with the same demographics. However, in Libertalia, men are encouraged to freely engage in sex, or at least to delay marriage. Women are indoctrinated to pick the best men and taught that they can use their pussies to turn these alpha males into love slaves. There is no sense of urgency because they have so much to offer, and men aren’t really zeroing in on having kids anyway.

What happens? The majority of women will go after the strongest 20% of men and ignore the men with the best partnership traits. The ones that carry babies from their alpha liaisons will have to do most of the childrearing themselves. The alpha is too busy banging every available woman he can to provide emotional, financial and logistical resources for his own kids. The betas are hurt because they were ignored them during the years of peak female desirability (and their years of peak sex drive). Some would rather stay single and “play” rather than find a life partner. Many women won’t have a family because that’s very difficult to do as a single parent. In Libertalia, there is no pride in their civilization and caring about the common good is oppressive.

In the end which village is most successful in passing along its genes? Which village will be more stable and productive? Of course you know the answer, you always knew it, but is hard to hear it when you are having so much fun, isn’t it?

You might ask, “Why do I have to sacrifice my personal freedom for the betterment of our society?” Well, unless you are an outlaw, then you are already following a set of rules designed to make society a habitable place. But just because it is habitable today doesn’t mean it will even exist in the future.

The modern feminist idea that if sex is culturally regulated, and if we suppress our sexual instincts we are being denied a human right, is a social construct. Feminists claim that women deserve to “have sex like men.” But even in the most patriarchal societies there were rules for sex: no adultery, not having sex with a girl before she had her first period, not having sex with another’s mans wife, if you had sex with a virgin you had to marry her, and so on. The idea that sex was unregulated for men is a fallacy. Men who restrained their own sexuality for the common good were rewarded with social success, such as loyalty in time of war and career advancement. Arranged marriages allowed alliances for the purpose of gaining and consolidating resources and power.

The modern sexual marketplace, post-Sex Revolution, marks the first time in history that we have viewed sex as something people should be able to have without limit. It’s quite a mess. Our less evolved forebears understood the dynamics better than we do today. They created marriage, made divorce hard to obtain, and monogamy was neither derided nor ridiculed. (Admittedly, they committed other atrocities that harmed civilization.)

This doesn’t mean that fundamentalists are right in trying to regulate marriage, but that all of us should try to work together to regulate sex in a way that is best for society.

Searching for a truly “better” man.

Now you know why are you attracted to men who ignore you, play games, don’t call and are chased by other women, men who are mysterious aloof and distant. But what can you do about it?

1. Revisit your relationship with the males in your life while you were growing up.

Whether a father, a stepfather, an uncle, a family friend or even a teacher. Try and make the effort to remember how they shaped you. Like it or not, when you were a little girl your contact with these men shaped your romantic future. If your father was a faithful man but your mother cheated on him, chances are you see nurturing traits as weak and undesirable.

If your father was the Alpha cheater, chances are that you are still looking for a dad figure that loves you enough to stick around. Maybe your father abused you, maybe he ignored you. The point is, the ways in which a man might exaggerate your natural attraction to Alpha males are endless, so try to fix this in yourself.  Whether through counseling or self-help books, address this before you try to date or have a relationship. And do not have sex until you’ve got this figured out! You need to learn to live without men in order to find your natural attraction to good men instead of losers. It is there in every woman, it is just a matter of finding it.

2. Redefine empowerment.

It’s no surprise that women who hate or distrust men have the highest divorce rate. It doesn’t matter who initiates divorce, it is still a failure. These women focus on what they’re getting out of the relationship. They’ve been convinced that unless they get at least 50% in the relationship all the time, they are being oppressed, and they want to convince you of this as well.

  • “Men are not trustworthy, they always hurt women.”
  • “Being selfish is your right.”
  • “If a man doesn’t do everything you ask he is not respecting you and you should leave.”
  • “If the spark is gone, and you are bored, you should leave and find yourself.”

Do you think that a man that expects the worst from you because you are a woman is going to have a nurturing, successful relationship with you? Of course not! Well, it works the same way for women too. Repeat this to yourself:

  • I’m not better than men and men are not better than me.
  • All men are innocent till proven otherwise.

Focus on whether you feel loved. If you are well treated, consider yourself lucky. Don’t worry about who’s giving more than 50%. If everyone is giving there’s plenty to go around.

 3. Redefine what it means to have high standards.

Which is easier?

  • To give in to temptation or to resist it?
  • To use drugs or not to use them?
  • To hit a person in anger or to resist and walk away?
  • To show a person you care or to show them that you don’t care?
  • To have casual sex or to make a commitment?

Every time you see an unstable guy playing games ask yourself if he’s taking the easy way out. That makes him weak, not strong or desirable. Take a pass. 

 Character is the trait that you should prioritize the most in a mate also, because is what makes people successful in long-term relationships. We live in an age of self-indulgence where our happiness is always just a “purchase away.”

 A good man of modest means is a far better choice than a wealthy womanizer. A stable home of any size is worth a lot more than a mansion where unhappy people live.

4. Reflect on your own character.

You can’t demand strength of character in someone else unless you have it yourself. Having sex with the first guy that makes you horny displays weakness. You are showing poor impulse control. People say they want a test run before committing, and that’s fair. But modern society defines the test run as sex, and that’s wrong. Anyone can have sex. Having sex is not a mystical art only mastered by those with the largest number of partners, but an instinctive activity that anyone with enthusiasm can learn. Real, mindblowing sex happens in a love relationship, not with a stranger.

The real test run you should be offering is the display of qualities that will make you a good partner in the long-term.

Sex is not empowerment, it doesn’t make you stronger. 

Sex is not a self-esteem elixir.

 Whether you are a strong, independent woman or an insecure one, the number of sexual partners you have will not change it. Thinking you are hot stuff because a guy that has slept with many women also slept with you says more about what you expect from sex than what he expects from it.

 5. Before having a hookup or one-night stand ask yourself four questions:

  • Would I do this completely sober?
  • Will I feel badly tomorrow if I find out this guy placed me on a list of women he’s had sex with, and gave me a score?
  • Will I feel regret if this guy pretends I don’t exist the next time I see him around?
  • Will I feel upset if a good guy rejects me after finding out I was doing this while younger, or if I have to lie about this to someone I plan to spend the rest of my life with?

If you can honestly answer these questions with a no, then go ahead! You are wired to have casual sex without experiencing negative emotions. But be honest; don’t pretend all this is meaningless and then get all hurt if any of the above happens.

6. Redefine social and moral norms.

Many people are angry at others. They buy into the idea that if you are unhappy it is someone else’s fault. Of course, many things are beyond our control, but most of this is fabricated. Instead of thinking “Society doesn’t allow me to do this, that is why I’m so miserable,” ask yourself what would happen if everyone was allowed to do anything they pleased. Anarchy, anyone?

There are many injustices in the world that deserve your anger and energy. The right to have casual sex without consequences is not one of them. Thinking you’re a goddess because you had a gang bang last night is an illusion. You are not bettering the world, you are contaminating it. If you die tomorrow and you are primarily remembered for your promiscuity, your life has been meaningless.

The sad truth is that life is short and in the end we all are dust. Leaving a string of broken hearts and a broken family is not a legacy, it’s a tragedy, and that will be true whether you’ve won an Oscar, had a brilliant career, or hundreds of contacts but no real friends.

The small moments with the people we love are the ones that matter. That is what makes us human and immortal. Hedonism doesn’t have any witness, any memory, or anything to share.

The toughest battle you can fight is not battling society for the right to have more pleasure in your life, it’s the knowing and fighting your own nature to share real love with others. That is the only true source of control and power.

 

5 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Some Handle

    Yes, men love variety but if they know they will have access to one and only one, then they will be happy to get laid and will provide for a family in exchange.

    It wasn’t just getting laid. He was “The Man of the House” and a “Town Father” in many cases. He would belong to a local club(s) where his wife would bring treats for the members.

    When the neighbors visited, they would see a clean, fine home with homemade goods and adorable children. His wife would likely know how to play a musical instrument. She was charming, intelligent, nurturing, wholesome and virtuous.

    She was his better half.

  • Some Handle

    Women are indoctrinated to pick the best men and taught that they can use their pussies to turn these alpha males into love slaves.

    Right, if it wasn’t for the indoctrination, all of those girls would have been getting wet for the “Nice Guys”. Jeez, if only the Cosby Show had not brainwashed them into being whores.

    I understand that Madonna and Brittany were absolutely desperate to be the sweetest little girls in the musical world, but those evil producers forced them to act otherwise.

  • Ted

    Brilliant post!

    @ Some Handle – Madonna and Brittany where absolutely desperate to make lots of money, and sex sells.

  • Isabel

    This is a very reasonable and awesome post. I laughed when I read the Moralia/Libertalia parable. Such a Steph way of looking at things haha.

    I object to this though:

    All men are innocent till proven otherwise.

    That’s what I used to think in my pre-Manosphere days (i.e before this summer) but the relentless insistence on AWALT and essentially being punished and accused for the choices of other women has put me off. I don’t really see the need to extend an unappreciated courtesy so for now, all men are ‘meh’ until proven otherwise. Fair’s fair.

  • Some Handle

    “Yes, I am sure that if Madonna thought wholesomeness would have sold, she would have been right on board.”

    Ted, do you honestly believe that?

  • Ted

    @ Some Handle – yes I do. The arts (music, art, movies, dance, etc) is all about money and very little about actual art. I am a musician and although I am not a rock star, I have had dealings with agents on occasion and know some folks that actually make a living in music. For the most part, everything an artist does is carefully crafted to make more money. For a woman, slutting it up is an easy way to get fortune and fame in the music business. And if we are talking about Pop/Rock artist, this is truly the norm.

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    A woman always waiting for a stronger man is like a man always looking for a hotter woman.

  • Some Handle

    Ok. Do you realize that when Britney Spears was initially being promoted it was as a wholesome “good” (i.e. virginal) girl. And when they started shooting the her first major video, “…Baby, One More Time”, it was initially meant to be a cartoon. After Britney insisted it be live action it was she who chose to wear the shirt tide up in a bow to show her mid section.

    Now, you can say that she was only doing these things because she knew, regardless of whatever producer might want, that this would sell better than wholesomeness (and that may very well be true). But, I doubt that you think Madonna and Britney are naturally wholesome and modest.

    I have a different theory for you: The Britneys are pursuing life in the way that they want and the Patricia Heatons are pursuing life in the way that they want (in general).

  • Some Handle

    <blockquote>For the most part, everything an artist does is carefully crafted to make more money.</blockquote>

    Van Morrison
    Eric Clapton
    Bruce Springsteen
    Bob Dylan
    John Lennon
    etc.

    The list goes on. Feel free to explain that these guys were doing “everything” they could to “carefully craft” their careers to make more money.

  • dami

    I am a long time lurker of this blog and had just had the courage to post. I find the discussions about female hypergamy quite interesting. I am a college student (or rather university student since I am from the United Kingdom) and  I am currently  abroad as an exchange student. I go to a class where I had to learn the language of my host country. During this class I had the opportunity to interact with other exchange students. I am quite the introvert but I am observant about the surroundings around me. There are quite a large group of exchange students studying in the same place as I am. During the break we interacted with each other. It was truly international with people coming as far away as the other side of the world. I did notice that there were a couple of beautiful girls in the class. I also noticed that many guys gravitated towards these beautiful girls. I made friend with one girl and a guy was asking me for information about her. Then there was this other girl who was always stopped in the street whenever we go out. So what I have noticed instead of female hypergamy is that many guys go for a select few women. They almost ignored the others or put them in the friend zone. I have also noticed that many so-called beta guys are worse perpetrator of this phenomenon. When they get rejected many of them become bitter and blame all women for their woes. Similarly to women who only go for the bad boys only and then wonders whether all men are bad and don’t take the time to do some introspection on her choices. So, I have come to the conclusion that in 9 times out of 10, guys and girls are not that different in their choices in partners. I mean, who wants to go for the boring reliable guy/girl who has long term prospects than the hottie who has our hearts in a flutter.

  • Ted

    @ Some Handle – I disagree.  The reason they initially wanted to keep Brittany low-key is because she had a “Disney past” and Disney, once upon a time, was very concerned with their public image.  However the desire to sell more won out.  And, I honestly believe that Britney herself wanted to rebel against her “good girl past” and show the world she was now a woman, not a Disney girl.  Again, the easiest way to do that?  Show how sexually attractive you are!

    I notice you left Madonna out of your reply.  Have you noticed how she has “reinvented” herself a few times over the years to remain popular and current?  She was slutty for a long time, but once she got older and became a mother, she toned things WAY down and got more spiritual (for lack of a better term.  In short she stopped selling)  Why?  She got older and realized that Britney would wipe the floor with her if she tried to compete with sex, so she switched to something Britney wasn’t pushing.

    Again, movie stars, singers, bands, etc, are all about image and what sells.  If you want to find real artists, go listen to music that doesn’t sell.  Those folks are in it for the art, not the cash.

  • Ted

    @ Some Handle – OK

    Van Morrison – I honestly don’t know anything about Van Morrison.  I don’t want to guess so I’ll skip him…
    Eric Clapton – I’ll give you this one.  Eric is a real musician that happened to find an audience for his work. I would like to point out that even though his music is popular, it was never “Pop/Rock”.  He is much more inline with blues than popular music.
    Bruce Springsteen – Totally sold out to the “blue collar” crowd.  He knew he would have a following there because he “was one of them”.
    Bob Dylan – Ummm, 60′s love and drugs culture?  He was practically the poster child!
    John Lennon – Now, here is a good one.  The Beatles came on the scene and pushed the limits.  They were new, different, and exciting in a way America hadn’t seen.  They sold an image!  How do I know? How many of them kept the same image once the band broke up?  None of them.  Now, after John Lennon went solo, he seemed to get much more to what I believe was his true self, but by then he had made enough money to kick back. But he wasn’t ever as popular alone as he was when he was with the Beatles.  None of them every were, although they all rode their success to different degrees for the rest of their lives.

    Listen, I’m not saying none of these people are talented.  Even Britney has talent, and Madonna is not only talented but from everything I’ve read about her, highly intelligent.  None of that matters though, because the bottom line is they are in it to make money!  I can throw out some examples that contradict the norm.  Taylor Swift anyone?  But that doesn’t change the basic point.

  • Some Handle

    Van Morrison – I honestly don’t know anything about Van Morrison.  I don’t want to guess so I’ll skip him…

    Good, because he is terrible for your theory.

    Bruce Springsteen – “everything an artist does is carefully crafted to make more money”…Nebraska, The River, going out of his way to try to sell tickets at more reasonable prices (at least for the first 15 years of his career…he may have given up the fight).

    Bob Dylan – Umm, do you really, REALLY, think that everything he was doing was carefully crafted to make more money? The Basement Tapes? Going AWOL for seemingly years at a time. All of that religious music? Really?

    John Lennon – “..Now, after John Lennon went solo”, and after they stopped touring (less money) and after Sgt Pepper (where they refused to release any of the songs as singles…i.e. less money)

    Dude, your theory sucks. There are tons and TONS of examples of people in the music business who very obviously were making decisions that they knew full well would mean less profit and less exposure.

  • Ted

    One more comment relating to music Susan!  I know I’m sidetracking again…

    @ Some Handle – You brought up Britney and Madonna, who are both pop/rock musicians.  None of the musicians you listed were/are in the same genre, and pop/rock is the music equivalent of TV’s Jersey Shore and the Enquirer for printed publications.  You will find that image is far less important in other forms of music, as it is far less important in other forms of art.  Also, most of the musicians you listed came decades ago, so making a comparison between John Lennon and Britney is almost pointless.  Do you really see them as equals? (and I don’t mean equal as man or women, I mean as deep and intellectual artists)

  • Ted

    Truthfully?  I’m not sure Bob Dylan can remember what he had for dinner some days.

    I really love this discussion, as I am an avid music listener.  But we are totally derailing this post.  If you honestly want to carry on, let me know.  I would be more than happy to discuss further, but I really don’t feel like this is the place.

    Susan – if SH wants my email address, feel free to send it.  Sorry to make you the messenger, but I don’t know how else to take this offline.

  • Some Handle

    None of the musicians you listed were/are in the same genre

    Who gives a shit? This is what you said,

    “…everything an artist does is carefully crafted to make more money…”

    It is absolute horse shit.

    Yes, you can find tons and tons of examples of musicians/singers/artists doing various things that would obviously, or hopefully, increase their sales and profits. Absolutely no argument.

    But the idea that there are not musicians who so very obviously made decisions that would likely limit, or reduce, their popularity is ridiculous.

  • Some Handle

    Ted, DougRisk at GMail

  • Ted

    Sure there are, but none of them are stars on the level of Madonna or Britney! I believe I said if you wanted to find real artists, listen to music that doesn’t make so much money.  The poorer the artist, the more likely they do it for the love of the craft.

    Seriously, I’m going to drop this line of thought.  Not because I don’t love the debate, but this isn’t the place.

  • C

    I think that men and women both tend to focus on a certain small percentage of people when looking for a partner. Average looking women and men are invisible. The betas are not mad about being ignored by average women for commitment so much as they are mad that they didn’t get to have no strings sex with a variety of attractive women like the alphas. I don’t have much sympathy for them, as I don’t think that being promiscuous or having a really attractive partner is some kind of inherent right, and that you’ve been shortchanged if you didn’t get to participate.

  • Some Handle

    I believe I said if you wanted to find real artists, listen to music that doesn’t make so much money.

    That was after your one statement and nullifies nothing.

    The Beatles (a star on the level of Madonna) absolutely made major decisions that had an impact on how much money they would make…including starting Apple and all of the money they poured into it.

    The poorer the artist, the more likely they do it for the love of the craft.

    The poorer the artist, the less popular they are (i.e. Van Morrison, various others of differing talent). The wealthier the artist, the more popular they are (i.e. The Beatles, various others of differing talent).

  • Ted

    @ C – maybe some betas are angry that they didn’t get lots of easy sex.  I for one am angry because pop culture is promoting casual sex as the next great thing, and in doing so severely limiting the choices I have for a woman of decent moral beliefs.  It is also greatly increasing the chances that any marriage I have will end in divorce.  It also greatly increases the number of single mothers that end up on government support, that comes out of my tax dollars.

    I can go on, but I think I got the idea across.

  • Höllenhund

    So what I have noticed instead of female hypergamy is that many guys go for a select few women. They almost ignored the others or put them in the friend zone. I have also noticed that many so-called beta guys are worse perpetrator of this phenomenon.

    Utter BS. Men find the vast majority of women sexually attractive to one degree or another. There’s no such thing as male hypergamy.

  • Anacaona

    <i>Except for the Pamela Andersons and Scarlett Johanssons who instinctively knew that they could “have their fun” throughout their teens and twenties and still marry a darn good prospect at some point in their thirties.</i>

    This is a feminism indoctrination IMO, women that marry the best men they can get don’t spent their nights burning themselves on their sheets thinking in all the men they didn’t had sex with. Hypergamy has a natural roof the problem is that in big cities there is always available men and with the internet there is a sense of abundance that colors their attraction triggers. No to mention that I think hypergamy is satisfied when you get a man better than the women around you, in Moralia Scarlet Jonahson would had married George Clooney and given that there were not someone better she would be happy because all her sisters didn’t get to be Mrs Clooney, YMMV.

    I’m off to work guys see you soon!

    PS

    Thanks Susan! :D

  • Some Handle

    Stephenie, that was not my point. You are saying that no one loses in Moralia. Well, I am saying that Pamela Anderson really wanted to party and that Moralia would have actively prevented that.

    Will she have the opportunity to marry a decent man in Moralia? Very likely.

    But that does not mean she would not have prefered a different set of choices.

  • Sandy

    2 Anacaona
    Excellent post!

    I’d like to point out a weak point in otherwise great work:

    Yes, men love variety but if they know they will have access to one and only one, then they will be happy to get laid and will provide for a family in exchange

    The idea that a man is interested in family only if his sexual options are limited is a wrong one. In traditional societies prostitution was almost always available to wealthy men, and the availability of sex on demand didn’t change the wish of men to get married. The concept that the main and only benefit for men to marry was access to sex, is a ridiculous one and it’s not based on any facts. When traditional marriage is strong, men separate available women with decent SMV into “sluts/prostitutes/unsuitable for marriage” and “marriage material” mental categories. When that separation is clear, men marry girls who are marriage material, families are strong, men provide and protect, everything works well. However when traditional marriage doesn’t exists and it’s hard to categorize women, then men are more reluctant to marry, but not because sex is more available

  • http://rationalmale.wordpress.com Rollo Tomassi

    It’s all fine and well to call for some rational awakening to female hypergamy in the hopes of changing a woman’s breeding methodology to become more humane, but the god of biomechanics is laughing (once again) on his throne.

    This is like telling someone with a genetic disease to rationally reconsider it, act differently and it’ll go away. What you’re failing to consider is that there’s a reason that women and men evolved to be biologically and psychometrically different – it works for the survival of the species.

    The root influence of hypergamy isn’t a social construct, it’s biological. In fact it’s so vitally important to women’s breeding strategies that it had to become a subconscious subroutine running in the background of their mental software. The conscious resources needed to be consistently aware of hypergamy were too debilitating for a woman’s more emotionally wired brain, thus they evolved a peripheral awareness of it, and developed social constructs to better effect it.

    So what’s the answer then? The same as it’s always been; Don’t wish for things to be easier, wish you were better. You can lower the nets in basketball, or you can play your favorite video game with a ‘god-mode’ cheat, but are you really playing the game?

  • Ted

    @ Rollo – but if women are told about this, they CAN make informed decisions instead of just “following their instincts”.  I understand that we can’t change biology, but we are intelligent creatures that can rise above our animal instincts.

  • Sandy

    2 Rollo Tomassi

    This is like telling someone with a genetic disease to rationally reconsider it, act differently and it’ll go away. What you’re failing to consider is that there’s a reason that women and men evolved to be biologically and psychometrically different – it works for the survival of the species.

    This argument is faulty. You can use the same logic to say that every man is a rapist, because a man wants to have sex with an attractive woman (biology! and genes!) and a man usually can overpower the woman using his greater upper body strength (biology again! and genes!). So if biology reigns supreme, then rape should happen all around us and should be about as frequent as consensual sex

  • jack

    The book that needs to be written:

    “He’s Out of Your League”.

    Subtitled:

    “Meeting a man’s sex threshold proves nothing”.

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com MuleChewingBriars

    Ted points out a salient fact.  Human sexuality is far more fluid than that of other species.  At this point in our development, as the stories of Moralia and Libertalia show, cultural evolution has become as crucial to the survival of our genes as biological evolution, and it is exponentially faster.

    The challenge facing our species at this juncture is that the most desirable human females, the ones who have the least incentive to change their behavior, are still hard-wired to respond to relative displays of material abundance, and males are still are hard-wired to attempt to obtain it for them.  If we don’t deviate from this algorithm relatively rapidly (speaking in biological terms), we may find ourselves approaching the carrying capacity of the Earth.  Then, like that bird that developed tail feathers so exuberant that it could no longer fly, we will find ourselves relegated to the Darwinian dustbin.

    But somehow I don’t think this will be our fate.  We are too open-ended.

  • Ted

    @ Mule – well, if we don’t change our ways in the long term, society as we know it will cease to exist.  However, as a species, I think we would survive but in a state much closer to the stone age.

    At least then our biological mating preferences will make sense again…

  • El Marqués

    Decent essay. Interesting to hear a modern woman’s point of view on the bible story of genesis.

    She craved something new and different.  But she was lazy. Instead of trying her hand at inventing a sport or learning how to sing like a bird, paying attention to the wonders of paradise, she took the easy route of breaking the rules because it looked like the best way to improve her life immediately. She selfishly destroyed a good thing for the chance to have a better thing.

    The easy route of breaking the rules? You’re joking, right?

    Some men went the seed-spreading route. They are today’s alpha males (players, cheating bastards, Charlie Sheen), and they probably have the minimum amount of bonding potential – their reproductive strategy is one of quantity. Other men inherited desirable security traits: nurturing, family-oriented, diligent, intelligent, etc. to be more attractive to women in the long run. They are today’s betas (Nice guys, Adorkables, Denzel Washington).

    You can call alphas, which is a term for the top of the social hierarchy of men asshats, players and cheating bastards all you want, they don’t care. But it diminishes the value of your essay, and always gives the impression that bashing alphas is but a poor impulsive compensation for their unattainability.

    Regarding alpha bonding potential, you’re projecting. Sex and bonding in males is compartmentalised and independent of each other. Alphas are no oxytocin junkies.

    And unless your image of alphas has formed in the trailer park, I would assume their reproductive strategy is one of the highest quality possible, not one of quantity…

  • Mr. N

    AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
    I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
    Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

    We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
    That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
    But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
    So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

    We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
    Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
    But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
    That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

    With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
    They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
    They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
    So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

    When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

    On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
    (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
    Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

    In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
    By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
    But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

    Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
    And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
    That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

    Rudyard Kipling 1919

  • I thought *I* was Bob

    If you are in touch with your animal nature you can find ways to satisfy it without destroying yourself. Your hindbrain has rather simple needs after all. Creative people can find ways.

    I suggest that was at least part of the reason for the Patriarchy ™. It made the man automatically higher status than his wife, which helped tickle her hindbrain.

    You can be equals and still dance the dance. Fitness tests could work that way, if the man knows how to pass them. Getting the big strong man to lift heavy things and fix things would let him display strength and competence. Learn ballroom dancing. The male leads, and the frame is set.

  • I thought *I* was Bob

    Bravo Mr. N.

    Rudyard Kipling is the least appreciated and least understood writers of the turn of the Twentieth Century.

    The Vampire

    A fool there was and he made his prayer
    (Even as you and I!)
    To a rag and a bone and a hank of hair
    (We called her the woman who did not care),
    But the fool he called her his lady fair
    (Even as you and I!)

    Oh the years we waste and the tears we waste
    And the work of our head and hand,
    Belong to the woman who did not know
    (And now we know that she never could know)
    And did not understand.

    A fool there was and his goods he spent
    (Even as you and I!)
    Honor and faith and a sure intent
    But a fool must follow his natural bent
    (And it wasn’t the least what the lady meant),
    (Even as you and I!)

    Oh the toil we lost and the spoil we lost
    And the excellent things we planned,
    Belong to the woman who didn’t know why
    (And now we know she never knew why)
    And did not understand.

    The fool was stripped to his foolish hide
    (Even as you and I!)
    Which she might have seen when she threw him aside –
    (But it isn’t on record the lady tried)
    So some of him lived but the most of him died –
    (Even as you and I!)

    And it isn’t the shame and it isn’t the blame
    That stings like a white hot brand.
    It’s coming to know that she never knew why
    (Seeing at last she could never know why)
    And never could understand.

  • Hope

    Interesting that no one has responded to dami’s comment… so I will! :D

    what I have noticed instead of female hypergamy is that many guys go for a select few women. They almost ignored the others or put them in the friend zone. I have also noticed that many so-called beta guys are worse perpetrator of this phenomenon.

    In one sense I agree with you dami. I am also an immigrant from another country, and from an early age I noticed that guys pay most of their attention to the prettiest girls. They always pay the most attention to the “above average” girl, and the average girl is well, average.

    But just because guys spend more effort on the more attractive girls does not mean that you don’t have a chance at love. It just means you have to develop other aspects of yourself and not expect to land a super high status (at least mainstream status) guy.

    Here’s the deal. Guys always want to date up in looks. Girls always want to date up in status. Hypergamy is the dating up in status. Not sure what the dating up in looks could be called. Hyperfacey? Regardless, guys are not hypergamous. They’re hyperfaceous. :P

    Know this and embrace this. When I started taking a lot better care of my body, I felt a lot healthier inside and out. Health is so important for a woman because we carry the burden of childbearing and childbirth. It’s better to be healthy than to look a certain way (beauty as dictated by the media).

    Most young men’s prime directive is sex for the short term, not necessarily mating for life. So they seek pleasure from the most beautiful girls. They can’t really even help themselves. It’s incredibly difficult for guys NOT to notice and enjoy beautiful girls. But as guys age, they also start looking for more than just beauty. Excitement sucks in high doses. Personally, after all the upheaval I’ve been through, I would love to have the rest of my life be completely and utterly boring.

    You might feel invisible among those pretty girls now, but out in the real world (which you will join soon, like the rest of us), you won’t be compared to other pretty young, 20-something girls. You’ll be compared to ALL other women, those in their 30′s, 40′s, 50′s and beyond. In no time, you’ll be on the pretty end of the scale, at least for a while.

    Just remember, youth is fleeting.

  • Jonny

    Nobody calls her on it so I will. This post’s amateur pseudo scientific analysis from anthropology to evolution to sociology is completely unconvincing. Does she know these subjects or is she making things up? Actually, these assertions of fact are quite common in other commentary as well so maybe she is in the same boat. That doesn’t excuse it. It would have been better to just stay with subjects we do know like recent cultural history that goes back a few thousand or hundreds of years rather than millions. There’s more than enough information there to back her up instead of this nonsense …”The temptation is a base urge, lodged in your reptilian brain, that still hears the drums of the past and thinks that a strong, aggressive man will kill a mammoth and bring the meat to your cave. But that was a million years ago, and we no longer live in caves.”

    BTW, men don’t approach women like a meal although we would like to think so.

  • Rum

    One dimension of hypergamy is that it dictates that the average young man will not be very attractive, sexually, to the average young woman. The underlying biology is not going to change. However, societies that sought to maximize male investment in families and the state in general worked out some schemes to make more young men bearable to the girls.

    1. Send the guys off to a toughening up regime like harsh schools or the military while keeping the girls as sheltered and innocent as possible.

    2. Aggressively mix up mid 20s guys home from the wars with the girls at an early age. In upper class Britain that started in earnest at 18. Roman women were often married in the mid teens to much older men who had in many cases been in combat.

    One thing I have noticed is that when socities are in prolonged life and death struggles -like the early days of Roman expansion or Britain during the period 1760 to 1814- they have invented the idea that virtuous women had little interest in sex at all and tried to mold young women in that direction The Romans and the Brits of those periods did exactly that. . I see that as a scorched earth, desperate attempt to tamp down on the expression of womens real instincts. Which are of course highly hypergamous and therefore deeply corrosive of male investment in the society as a whole.

  • I thought *I* was Bob

    Thanks Hope. I was embarrassed to answer it.

    There is something about a particularly pretty woman that grabs a man by the hindbrain. It can be broken down into a set of cues. Glossy hair, good skin, the right shape, and so on. Even a relatively ugly woman can mess with a man’s hindbrain that way.

    If the setting is inappropriate I get irritated. In the right setting the woman is surprisingly interesting.

    If you are merely average you can still use those cues. It works better if you do it subtly, and merely tug on his hindbrain rather than yanking. Remember that a bright light is a signal, but it can carry more information if you turn it off and on.

    I tell my daughter that if she wants to attract attention, and she will some day, sleek, shiny, well-kept hair works can really catch the eye.

  • I thought *I* was Bob

    Jonny

    You mix metaphors yourself. You don’t write nearly as well in what I assume is your first language as Anacaona does in what is at least her second.

    Furthermore you should read more carefully. The man brought the mammoth meat to the cave as a present. He approached her with a meal, not as one.

  • I thought *I* was Bob

    And I need to proofread my posts better…

  • I thought *I* was Bob

    El Marqués

    Promiscuity does have its effects on men. Once a guy learns the trick to picking up girls for casual sex it can be hard to give up. My brother never did.

  • Jonny

    @Bob

    With mix metaphors, you tend to mix them. The “base urge” that she refers to is men with food and how they usually transfer such instints with their mating ritual with women. This happens a lot. Why bring them up if not for what she is trying to prove?

  • OTC

    C & demi: you confuse “is attracted to” with “confidently approaches”. They are not the same thing.

    Men value looks but we’re not hyperfacey, which is silly.

  • El Marqués

    @ the real Bob

    Of course it has effects. I don’t doubt that at all. Should have been more precise in my argument.

    I was talking about the neurobiological effects of bonding, that’s why the hint on oxytocin was there.This research paper explains it rather nicely, and this Time article supports my assumption that for males, the oxytocin hypothesis can’t explain the inherent desire for sexual variety.

     

     

  • Hope

    “Men value looks but we’re not hyperfacey, which is silly.”

    Women want to date men higher in status than themselves. Men want to date women better looking than themselves.

    Would you really want to date a woman who’s uglier than you? Seriously?

  • Höllenhund

    Women believe and hope that things can always improve. This is a wonderful trait to have – without it, women wouldn’t have been able to achieve so much in a world with so many biological disadvantages

    Incorrect. This is a trait that compels women to manipulate men to overwork and sacrifice themselves, to throw each other under the bus in their effort to “improve” things in ways that women demand.

  • Höllenhund

    @Hope

    Guys always want to date up in looks. Girls always want to date up in status.

    I’d be helpful if you didn’t perpetuate this nonsense about men’s sexual preferences being similar to women’s. Again, there is no male hypergamy. Men’s primary sexual preference is sexual variety, which has nothing in common with hypergamy.

  • Hope

    “Again, there is no male hypergamy.”

    I know. I said that. :P

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Eve is the symbolic mother of our entire species.”

    Only if you believe in that particular mythology.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    Men are definitely hypergamous otherwise many of them would not have traded up once they become rich or more alpha.  Both sexes are hypergamous and polygamous to various degrees, some greater, some lesser, and shift back and forth between the two depending on what their culture allows.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Good post, Anacaona. I didn’t realize you & Stephenie were the same person, just thought there were two insightful Caribbean women on this site.

    “hypergamy is satisfied when you get a man better than the women around you”…this may happen for an individual, but it’s logically impossible for the majority of women to get men better than their peers (at least assuming they are all defining “better” in the same way.) And in a highly-mobile society, even she who gets the best man among those around her may suddenly find herself in a new group. Say her husband is CEO of the biggest bank in town and has many other great attributes–pretty alpha. But now she and her husband the banker go to a social event at which they meet Jamie Dimon (JP Morgan) and Vikram Pandit (Citi) and their wives, and moreover is invited to membership in a special bankers’ club of which they are all members. Suddenly her husbands’ hypergamy-satisfying attributes look less impressive. Whereas in a more-traditional society, they might well have stayed within their small-town horizons.

    Doesn’t have to happen on such a lofty level, of course, for the same principle to be active.

     

  • jack

    Interesting point about the household made further up, about the wife playing a musical instrument.

    I always dreamed of marrying a woman who could play the piano and teach our kids to be musical. Stupid, I know, but a dream nonetheless.

    Now, a woman with any musical ability will simply use it for gaining more attention and status.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    <blockquote>For the most part, everything an artist does is carefully crafted to make more money.</blockquote>

    Van Morrison
    Eric Clapton
    Bruce Springsteen
    Bob Dylan
    John Lennon
    etc.

    The list goes on. Feel free to explain that these guys were doing “everything” they could to “carefully craft” their careers to make more money.

     

    THESE GUYS started out in the 60s, with the possilbe exception of Bruce who may have started in the 70s.  The major shift in the industry started in the 80s.  However its always been a money game.   People, entire teams, are paid a pretty penny to craft images now. 

     
  • wudang

    Great post! Research I have seen showed that while less attractive women were looking for alphas for casual sex they were looking for betas in relationships but only the most attractive women were looking for alphas for relationships. The reason.was.that while.the lesser looking women thought the alpha.would.leave or cheat the more attractive.women thought they were good looking enough to make.him stay. By increasing womens anxiety that a certain type.of man will leave or cheat this type.of evaluation can be manipulated. It is crucial.to remember that this is both concious.and.unconcious.and rests on both fearfully forsaking what you really desire the most and on modifying the desires themselves. Women do not only fantasize.about alphas. They also fantazise sexually about betas. Think of all good looking rather feminine looking movie stars women fantasize about. And while.women are generally more.drawn towards alphas, especially during education, we must remember that they are actually drawn.by their.libidos towards.alphas when not ovulating. The same goes.for the less attracrive women, because of messages received about market.value in one way or another they have more desire for beta.than the best looking ones. And we are talking about desire not just grudging aceptance of options. There often is a fair amount of such reluctant aceptance in many women but there is also the far more preferential redirection of desire. Roissy had a post about some sort.of.insect were the less.genetically fit female insects do very.little to get attention from the top males. They do some.but focus.mainly.on their own level. I.dont.think.these.insects gi arround feeling.alpha desires.all the time but mainly feel.beta desires. Red pill aware women I have talked to.confirm this to me. There is an analogy.for.the male.gender. I can easily live the soft harem.lifestyle.for.the rest of.my life with 7-10s. There would be more raw.sexual.pleasure.involved than monogamy and this is.my genes prefered option.but I have little desire.to do so. I know it would.make.me unhappy. I am also.starting to.reach the level of attracting local 10s as I call them. Meaning that I sometimes get attraction from the hottest women that exist were I live. On an international level.these are 9s because in large metropolitan.cities.i have seen clearly better looking girls. Before I used to think that I would go.on holidays and learn to game those women but now I have deceided against sleeping with anyone.better looking than what I can.get.in a girlfriend and since in reality this will be someone.local and there are no more than international 9s here I will not pursue anything else. The reason is that I have built up understanding of the dangers of having sex with someone above what you can get in a relationship and that this will diminish my satisfaction in a ltr just like it does for a women that confuses her smv with her rmv. beyond these types of decisions and behaviors guided by insight there are waaaaay more possibilities of controlling our primal drives than most people, especially in the west, believe. Really people in the west have no fucking clue what can be done. Researchers, I think at berkley, did tests of the reactions a buddhist monk had to a gun being fired right next to him while meditating. The results showed that while he was fully concious, not in transe, and he did hear and register the noise, he showed zero involuntary reactions ti the gunshot. He in fact, just as he said he would.do, chose.not to respond with getting startled or stressed. This surprised the researchers as this is not suposed to be possible as reactions to.such a loud noise.is controlled.by parts.if the brain that are so.instinctual that although one can calm the response a bit by preparation or getting used to such.noises, no one has been able to just not have any response.at all, in fact even soldiers.have strong.reactions. This tells us that our potential for overriding instinct is far greater than we have thought, at least with expert training. Now I have some experience with mediation. When you mediate often a part of the training is to sit still no matter what and just observe and be present with what ever it is you feel, good it bad, and not respond to it just experience it as it is. When you sit for a loooong time you will often in the begining.exeperience that your feet fall asleep. Normally we all adjust our sitting.position when that happens and the discomfort goes away quickly. But if you keep sitting.for an hour.the.strange.discomfort.can turn into extreme pain. Because the goal is to learn.to experience pain as well.as.pleasure.with full presence you keep sitting with this pain. In the begining it is very hard. But after some time you learn to accept to pain and just watch it. You dont block or.numb.it. You let it be and go into it. When this breaks down your resistance you find that the pain does not bother you. Almost not at all. It becomes like a photo of pain you look at. The key is that it is our resistance that produces.whatever it is in our bodies that really hurt. The initial.feeling we.think.we.are.escaping doesent really mean shit. But the way we are wired.we.have trouble.seperating these two and that is why we are so unable.to resist the pull towards pleasure.and the push away from pain, which in turn.leads to our lack of self control. Now when you mediate eventually all your subconcious emotions come up and your childhood trauma. It all just comes to the surface and feels just as shitty as when it happened, often worse. In the same way as I have sat through physical pain I have say through emotional pain. All my life I have struggled with dealing with emotional pain. If it hurts I have problem dealing so I always used to surpress and feel as little as possible to avoid pain. Over time learning to deal with pain during meditation starts to teach you to do the same in real life. In exactly the same way you feel things fully without resistance but are stoicly unaffected. This allows you to start to control anything you want. Addictive behaviors across the board starts to go away because the pull.of pleasure.does.not hold.so much sway.any more unless you think it is right to allow it and neither does.the.push of pain. This most certainly also applies to resisting sexual and romantic urges. Incidentally once you have developed a lot of this you have also aquired the ultimate masculine ability which is equanimity. Equanimity means.something like.being.of.even and immovable mind regardless of.conditions. Now alphas have a sort if situational equanimity in that they do not get tipped of balance by what happens. This stoicism has an inbuilt weakness though and that is that it is in large part built on not feeling.much. True equanimity is different. It is the fullest possible.feeling with the least amount of reactiveness. When you respond it is through.conciouss choice which means you never fall.over into feminine.reactiveness. This is far stronger than an average alpha frame which is building a wall.of iron because while.the iron can be broken true equanimity.can not. It is as if you punch someone.and instead your body either being strong enough to keep standing or too.weak.so it falls you punch right through the person into the the air without hitting anything. Nothing is more arousing to a woman than.this frame because it is stronger than an alpha frame based on conventional strenght because.the conventional alpha frame has a resistance that can be broken with strenght like a plank. Equanimity is also.mysterious to a woman because she can not quite.grasp it or.figure it out. It has a similar effect as allofness but it is not based on not.knowing what the man thinks or feels but about him.having some sort of ungraspable.core that is equally there even if he reveals all.his secrets. Equanimity also unites alpha and beta traits in that alpha is apealing.for being immovable.but beta because of the emotionally and intimacy. With equanimity a woman notices that you feel but also.that you are non reactive and strong. Women dont mind emotions they mind emotional.reactiveness and most men revert to this when they alow themselves ti feel strongly. But with equanimity you can safely feel and display emotions. emotions filtered by equanimity a woman will experience as passion and a deeper strenght. This post got heavily sidetracked but back on topic. You can also deeply change your reactions to your own desires if you work conciously with cognitive behavioral therapy. I.have reorganized and disciplined a lot of emotions by using it as a self help tool. If you work with it over the course of years you can get remarkable results.not only in terms of self esteem but also in changing.your cognitions and hence emotions about things such as cheating. You can train yourself to feel.much greater aversion to it, much more.fear of consequences and this is key, to feel a deep reward at the thought of remaining faithfull even when it is hard. When you learn to identify living up to the value of loyalty as deeply rewarding and can strongly feel how rewarding it will feel after you have passed on an oportunity you will be much better suited to deal with temptations when they do come. The same can be done to reign in the excesses of hypergamy. After all, cognitive behavioral therapy is used successfully to make alcoholics stop.drinking, drug addicts stop taking drugs. Amongst the tools it uses to do so is precisely to condition your mind to perceve the substance something to avoid even if it feels good.because it ultimately leads to unhappiness, to feel how good it feels to pass on a temptation and teach to not focus on the feelings pulling you to the drugs. Unfortunately I cant figure.out how to split the.text in paragraphs when writing on this phone so sorry for that.

  • http://rationalmale.wordpress.com Rollo Tomassi

    if women are told about this, they CAN make informed decisions instead of just “following their instincts”

    Yes, they can be told this, and they can effect behavioral changes counter to their instinctual impulses, but they are still influenced by their biology irrespective of any degree of rational capacity they have. That biological undercurrent, is ALWAYS in effect. You can tell Catholic priests that they need to adhere to a conviction of celibacy, but that repressed biological sexual impulse is still there, and it’s going to find ‘alternative’ means of expression within it’s particular confines.

    It’s not that impulse can’t be controlled, it’s that it is the prime motivator in the first place.

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    Mrs Robinson,

    Men are definitely hypergamous otherwise many of them would not have traded up once they become rich or more alpha.  Both sexes are hypergamous and polygamous to various degrees, some greater, some lesser, and shift back and forth between the two depending on what their culture allows.

    No.

     

  • SayWhaat

    “Again, there is no male hypergamy.”

    Disagree. Male hypgeramy takes the form of, “I could be with a hotter woman than this one.”

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    SayWhaat,

    Disagree. Male hypgeramy takes the form of, “I could be with a hotter woman than this one.”

    No. You´ve been here enough to know whats the real deal.

     

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    WTF with this. Every time anything gets pointed to women, women come back with “yes but men do that too!”

    In short, no. Men do what men do, and women do what women do, and there are overlaps.

    Hypergamy is about catching the most valuable asset and retaining it. And as soon as a most valuable resource pops up, you drop what you have and trade up.

    While you are busy screening and matching and sorting and evaluating, while you are trying to determine if what you have is what you deserve…

    Men are fucking EVERYONE. Or trying to. Or dreaming to. Men will fuck the pretty, the hot, the super hot, the ugly, the fat, the so so, the whatever, whatever women who is available, whatever women turns you on, in that moment, for whatever reason.

    Got it?

  • Sandy

    2 Mrs Robinson

    Men are definitely hypergamous otherwise many of them would not have traded up once they become rich or more alpha.

    No, you don’t understand what the work “hypergamy” means. Google is your friend in that area

    Both sexes are hypergamous and polygamous to various degrees, some greater, some lesser, and shift back and forth between the two depending on what their culture allows.

    Total BS

  • Sandy

    2 Yohami

    Hypergamy is about catching the most valuable asset and retaining it. And as soon as a most valuable resource pops up, you drop what you have and trade up.

    No, hypergamy is about moving up in terms of social status or maybe in terms of wealth. It’s not about abstract “valuable assets”

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Hypergamy is about catching the most valuable asset and retaining it. And as soon as a most valuable resource pops up, you drop what you have and trade up.”

    Exactly what doctors have done to wives who previously worked to put them through med school once they became the rich alpha doctor. 

    HYPERGAMY

    “Men are fucking EVERYONE. Or trying to. Or dreaming to. Men will fuck the pretty, the hot, the super hot, the ugly, the fat, the so so, the whatever, whatever women who is available, whatever women turns you on, in that moment, for whatever reason.”

    What the same doctor might do on the side after he’s retained the young, hot nurse wife at home.  Its called having affairs.

    POLYGAMY.

    Go back and read my comment.  These 2 approaches to mating are not exclusive and they certainly aren’t hostile toward one another.  some people really can have their cake and eat it too!

     

    :)

  • Sandy

    2 SayWhaat

    Disagree. Male hypgeramy takes the form of, “I could be with a hotter woman than this one.”

    There is no “male hypergamy”. If men were hypergamous the Shwarzenegger ordeal would be impossible. How many very hot women do you know who have sex with old, ugly and poor janitors for free?

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Great post! Research I have seen showed that while less attractive women were looking for alphas for casual sex they were looking for betas in relationships but only the most attractive women were looking for alphas for relationships.”

     Alphas are sexy and can be awesome for short term relationships.  Betas are made for true love that lasts a lifetime.   For everything, turn, turn, turn.  There is a season, turn, turn, turn.  And a time for every purpose under heaven.

     

     

  • SayWhaat

    Men are fucking EVERYONE. Or trying to. Or dreaming to. Men will fuck the pretty, the hot, the super hot, the ugly, the fat, the so so, the whatever, whatever women who is available, whatever women turns you on, in that moment, for whatever reason.

    Got it?

    But they will commit to the hottest. Isn’t that what the real deal is?

    There is no “male hypergamy”. If men were hypergamous the Shwarzenegger ordeal would be impossible.

    Ah, but he was already married, wasn’t he? In which case this isn’t an issue of commitment, it was just a man being horny and fucking everything and anything in sight.

  • Sandy

    2 SayWhaat

    Ah, but he was already married, wasn’t he?

    So what? He had sex with all kinds of girls (some of them are not very attractive) before and after his marriage

    In which case this isn’t an issue of commitment, it was just a man being horny and fucking everything and anything in sight.

    First of all hypergamy applies to sex and feelings. Secondly what do you mean “an issue of commitment’? Most women don’t commit these days at all. They take the best deal they can get and if they are bored or have better deal they threw the old hubby under the bus and move on

  • Sandy

    2 SayWhaat

    But they will commit to the hottest. Isn’t that what the real deal is?

    In societies where multiple wives are allowed, men who can afford them don’t marry just one hottest girl, they marry several or many

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “There is no “male hypergamy”. If men were hypergamous the Shwarzenegger ordeal would be impossible. How many very hot women do you know who have sex with old, ugly and poor janitors for free?”

    That’s polygamy (affairs).  Who he married – now that’s an example of hypergamy.

    See my above comment about how the 2 mating stragegies can be used simultaneously for different purposes.  Polygamy is used for getting variety.  Hypergamy is used in spouse selection. 

     

  • Sandy

    Also men in traditional societies won’t marry a slut or a prostitute, no matter how hot she is.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “in societies where multiple wives are allowed, men who can afford them don’t marry just one hottest girl, they marry several or many”

    see my comment above about how to what degree we use hypergamy, polygamy or a combo of both is dictated by the norms of our culture.

  • Esau

    SayWhaat: “Male hypgeramy takes the form of, “I could be with a hotter woman than this one.””

    Sorry, you are missing the point.  Hypergamy is not when someone says “I could be with someone hotter”, it’s when someone says “I insist on being with someone hotter than myself.”  The difference between “prefer” and “insist” is the key, as is the thresholding.

    Similar to what Rum said above, here’s the perfect, closed-form definition: simply observe (if you believe this to be the case) that if we introduce the male at the mid-point, ie at the 50th percentile, of generalized sexual attractiveness to the woman at the same 50th percentile, from some SMP cohort, then the man would be much more likely to agree to some kind of involvement with that woman, than would the woman with the man — and this remains true for whatever your definition of “involvement”, ie ONS, FWB, LTR, etc.  It’s also true over a wide range of percentiles, probably from the 20th up to the 80th at least.  Whatever the criterion, the typical woman is much more likely to insist on a man being above her percentile level in overall attractiveness, and she simply won’t consider anyone below her; field reports indicate that this is simply not nearly as true for men.  All clear now?

     

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    College hook ups get the Kinsey treatment…

    Furthermore, in part because of excessive drinking, we have a sex problem, which I would describe as a spectrum of unwanted intercourse along the lines of a Kinsey scale: 6 = unambiguous felony rape; 1 = being really impaired and having some spurious form of consent winkled out of you because you fear being called a c0cktea$e and/or you once “hooked up” with this same person (under our regulations 1 is still sexual assault.)

    But in addition to sexual assault, drinking leads to a big, messy, dangerous and budget-sappingly expensive category of behavior on all campuses which is often mistakenly described as “campus culture.” I say expensive because, when I was working at Ben Franklin University twenty years ago, BFU was said to have budgeted $500K a year for what was generically called “frat damage.” But this too is a spectrum of behaviors dangerous to self and others that I would not call “culture,” but The
    Doing Of Stupid Things. Teenagers are famous for Doing Stupid Things even when sober and living with one or more competent adults: dip into the field of popular psychological writing about parenting adolescents if you don’t believe me. But when they get to college, are living with each other, and drinking, these activities can often include one or more of the following: vandalism, hiring strippers, ending up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning, throwing up on people, theft, contracting STDs from willing sexual partners, driving into trees, breaking arms and legs, sending nude pictures to each other’s cell phones, and insisting that first-year students who have very little acquaintance with alcohol learn to drink like idiots too through drinking games and hazing practices.
     
     
  • Brendan

    It’s always amazing how the difference between mating strategies is often denied by women.

    Men like variety, women like *the best*.  There are outliers in both sexes, of course, but by and large this is the case.  If more men could pull off pulling women like silverback alphas, they WOULD DO IT.  Women can pull men fairly easily for sex, yet they do not do it.  Yes, in part that is due to pregnancy risk, but that is largely mitigated (and yes there are STD risks, but men are exposed to these to almost the same degree as well).  The main reason is that women do not desire *variety* as such, they desire *the best* they can get as *one* lover.

    This is reflected not only in the mating marketplace, but also in patterns of cheating, and even homosexual mating patterns.  Married men and women both cheat, but each does it quite differently and for different reasons (again, generally, leaving aside outliers).  Men tend to cheat having no intention to leave their wives, and do it because they want sex “on the side” (i.e., variety).  Women cheat because they are dissatisfied in their marriages and are looking for someone to give them the satisfaction that their husband cannot (i.e., to replace the husband as “her lover”).  If you at gay men as compared with lesbians, you’ll find far, far higher partner counts among gay men, because they are not dealing with female sexuality *at all* — so you have overdriven promiscuity/variety-seeking.  While lesbians tend to be characterized by serial monogamy — the norm for women, one lover *at a time*, the best they can get *at the time*.

    That’s the key difference.  Saying that any given man prefers a woman who is prettier over one who is not prettier, and then declaring that this is something akin to hypergamy is missing the point.  Even the guy with the pretty wife may cheat on her for variety’s sake, with less attractive women (see: Schwarzenegger, Hugh Grant, etc., etc.).  Of course men prefer prettier women, but more than that they prefer *variety*.  Most men cannot act on that preference for variety (other than paying for it), because they are constrained by female preferences (unlike gay men).  However, if they *could pull it off”, most men (other than the deeply religious) would be quite promiscuous, whereas with women many can pull it off, but only a small number bother to try, because it isn’t what they *want*.

    Totally different things.  Men –>  want variety (promiscuity based on variety-seeking).  Women –> want the best they can get at any one time (serial monogamy based on hypergamy seeking).  Again, because the average guy’s ability to variety-seek is severely constrained by female sexual preferences, women observe these men beauty-seeking — that’s because the men have no power to variety seek and, given that constraint, some switch to trying to maximize whatever opportunities they *do* get.  But the guys who *can* variety seek (i.e., alphas who light up female hypergamy wiring), do so with gusto, for the most part, with some pretty and some less pretty women, but a huge variety (and no, not all with the prettiest girls, not at all).

  • Anonymous

    2 Mrs Robinson

    see my comment above about how to what degree we use hypergamy, polygamy or a combo of both is dictated by the norms of our culture.

    Your comment doesn’t make any sense. Men are not hypergamous, no matter what culture is.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Your comment doesn’t make any sense. Men are not hypergamous, no matter what culture is”

    Wrong.  The doctor who trades up for a younger, hotter, tigher wife once he achieves rich alpha doctor status is hypergamous.  No. Doubt. About. It.

    Nothing against docs.  I’m using them as an example because I remember my parents having some friends whom this happened to.  Mind you, these men do not choose to have affairs on the side.  Nope.  They want a wife accompanying them to all those hospital staff events that reflects their new found status.  They divorce the first wife who very often worked her tail off to put them through med school.  Once they get the new trophy wife, if they have the newfound arrogance and “balls” enough they might also slum it on the side for variety every now and then, but the wife who gets all the photo ops with them will always be the best socially that they can find.

    That’s both hypergamy and polygamy at work right there.

    To everything, turn, turn, turn.

  • Anacaona

    Take two! Erase the first one please Susan

    @Jonny

    Citation needed? Really? When Susan needs sources for every guest post I would be happy to provide it. Meanwhile I recommend you to read more here, Athols’ Badger and Dalrock. They had talked about this in different essays with a lot more articulation that I could ever aspire too.

    @El marques

    If you noticed I also called out the J-lo’s so people that are in touch with their inner animal too much are in the same boat IMO. Bashing is more an stylistic choice. Why a problem with that? I mean I know they don’t care so they are not affected by my personal choice of words no harm no foul.

     

    @Hollelund

    Maybe you had never experience the kind side of females but many women work hard to get better things for them and their loved ones not relying in a male to provide for them as part of the plan.

    @Sandy

    Sorry I didn’t meant that way. The impulse for variety exists in every man but of course like women men are more than their impulses and reproduction was also important as was social cohesion and rewards.

    So what’s the answer then? The same as it’s always been; Don’t wish for things to be easier, wish you were better. You can lower the nets in basketball, or you can play your favorite video game with a ‘god-mode’ cheat, but are you really playing the game?

    Err wasn’t this the whole point of my essay?

    Decent essay. Interesting to hear a modern woman’s point of view on the bible story of genesis.

    I studied comparative theology

    Regarding alpha bonding potential, you’re projecting. Sex and bonding in males is compartmentalised and independent of each other. Alphas are no oxytocin junkies.

    Someone already answered you men might have a higher level of resistance to lack of bonding but there is a breaking point in wich they can’t fall in love and pair off permanently with any woman. Athol’s has some studies about this, as Susan had at some point. But you can check on many PUA’s site and count how many of them could quit when they want to. Sexuality is maleable but it comes to a point when the brain adapts to whatever you are using more frequently and is getting you more sex. Sex can have the same effects in the body as a drug, with variation but it does happen.

    I suggest that was at least part of the reason for the Patriarchy ™. It made the man automatically higher status than his wife, which helped tickle her hindbrain.

    I also think the rites of passages where a kid could officially become a man by surviving a set of societal tests of manhood were a good aid to make him visible as “a man” to the girls in his community. Even the whole isolation part where he was taken for days away from the tribe looks a lot like the advice given to guys to get out of a girl’s friendzone.

    Promiscuity does have its effects on men. Once a guy learns the trick to picking up girls for casual sex it can be hard to give up. My brother never did.

    I often commented my cheating friends getting married thinking they will get cured and not cheat more…yeah right all of them failed miserably one of them decided to more or less open the marriage in order to preserve all them divorced at this point and I know men in their 7th marriage…really is playing with fire.

    Only if you believe in that particular mythology.

    Well the myth is worldwide known at this point I could had gone with something more obscure but if you search Pandora and Epimeteus vs Adam and Eve guess who gets you more results? No to mention is part of occidental culture whether you believe or not you probably hear it enough to be part of your psyche at this point.

    Good post, Anacaona. I didn’t realize you & Stephenie were the same person, just thought there were two insightful Caribbean women on this site.

    Now that you mention it I need to confess that Stephenie is MY EVIL TWIN!!! She just need to work in the evil part a bit more. :D

    Doesn’t have to happen on such a lofty level, of course, for the same principle to be active.

    Actually I did considered this but this essay was already long enough what you forget is that in ancient societies women didn’t though they kept their youth and sexual power forever like we are thaugh modernly an ancient woman wouldn’t risk trading up after achieving the best position she could get at the peak of her sexual value, knowing that it was very likely not to work given that she was not as young and as pretty as they were when they got married. That was another societal way to stop the hypergamy for going to far, but you are right about the implication that our society has done everything within its power to destroy the mechanisms to regulate sexuality among our genders. To disastrous results of course.

    @Wudang

    I respect you, please separate in paragraphs, is  painful to ready like that and I’m sure what you said was educational and interesting.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Regarding alpha bonding potential, you’re projecting. Sex and bonding in males is compartmentalised and independent of each other. Alphas are no oxytocin junkies”

    What about vasopressin?

    Anacaona, which theologies did you compare in your studies?

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    Sandy,

    The instinct behind the hypergamy does that same thing with everything, not just with males, so thats what Im talking about. Its about resources and value.

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    What Brendan said.

  • Sandy

    2 Yohami
    “Value” is a fuzzy word. It can mean a lot of different things to different people. On the other hand hypergamy is a concrete and well-defined term. Whe are trying to clarify things here, so I think terms like “value” don’t help

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    I know PUA-World gets totally lost in that word, but Im not trying anything funky. Value:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value

    –noun

    1.relative worth, merit, or importance: the value of a collegeeducation; the value of a queen in chess.
    2.monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade: Thispiece of land has greatly increased in value.
    3.the worth of something in terms of the amount of otherthings for which it can be exchanged or in terms of somemedium of exchange.
    4.equivalent worth or return in money, material, services, etc.:to give value for value received.
    5.estimated or assigned worth; valuation: a painting with acurrent value of $500,000.
    ——————————-
    So Im saying women want the best deal. That instead of many deals. Want to capture and retain and squeeze value, and making the best business out of it, which is usually, not giving anything back. All for nothing is the best deal and if left to their devices, thats what women would be doing. And that instinct is what controls hypergamy.
    See how women chitchat and assert value and judgement about everything, the super emphasis in the micro now and the endless drama etc. If it happens in the now, if its current, its hot. If its not current hot etc, its not worthy of attention. The best deal NOW is all that matters.
    Its a very nice intelligence if you ask me. In comparison, the male intelligence gets lost in abstractions and atemporal obsessions.
  • Pingback: Saw Wife Cheating with my friend - Page 9

  • Jonny

    @Anacaona “Citation needed? Really?”

    Actually not really. I don’t need it because I believe to be made up and at best, non-essential. The stuff about evolution and reproductive success makes no sense especially in the cultural environment we have today. Even in the context of history, no one mates in this fashion. That it is a necessary part of your argument is ridiculous. Yes, men seek younger women who are more fertile, but fertility was assumed. He married her because she is hotter as well as other advantages.

    To focus on biology while the issue is really women’s emotional immaturity is the fault of your post.

  • Desiderius

    Beautifully done, Anacaona.

    “I studied comparative theology”

    It was called the Queen of the Sciences for a reason. Alpha females are finally remembering that they’re the ones who invented religion in the first place. Not one moment too soon.

    Monogamy is an alliance between alpha females and beta males to restrict the alpha males to the alpha females. As Rollo notes, alpha males are a force of nature not to be controlled, so the only effective means of achieving that restriction was to give alpha males better things to do than to chase pussy.

    This was called Western Civilization.

    To get back there (sorry, backs right now are your only choice; the feminist alternative is back to the stone age), perhaps some thought should be given to the plight of the beta females as well.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Anacaona….it would be interesting to compare the character of Eve with the character of (Goethe’s) Faust.

  • Brendan

    Monogamy is an alliance between alpha females and beta males to restrict the alpha males to the alpha females. As Rollo notes, alpha males are a force of nature not to be controlled, so the only effective means of achieving that restriction was to give alpha males better things to do than to chase pussy.

    This was called Western Civilization.

    Or an alliance between alpha males and beta males in some kin-bonded patrifocal tribes for competitive advantage (by spending less time and energy fighting each other for access to sex and more time and energy focusing on kicking the rival tribe’s butt) vis-a-vis Mosuo-like matrifocal tribes.  In any case, it seems to have been an alliance of some sort aimed at restricting the sexuality of alpha males and non-alpha females for the benefit of the tribe, I very much agree.

    To get back there (sorry, backs right now are your only choice; the feminist alternative is back to the stone age), perhaps some thought should be given to the plight of the beta females as well.

    Well, there’s the rub.  The laissez-faire, deregulated SMP benefits non-alpha women in the short-term.  Coupled with economic independence, it may even be argued it benefits non-alpha women in the medium and long term as well, because many of these women seem to prefer being alone than being with a less than hypergamously attractive mate … not that they are “happy” with this outcome (they would mostly prefer to be mated up with a hypergamously attractive mate), but many seem to prefer it to the dreaded “settling” with a SMV peer.  Some of these women are beginning to see that this is not a great outcome for them (and we are seeing that reflected in articles here and there), but it will take quite some time for that to become a more widely-spread meme, not because women are addicted to their independence (although some undoubtedly are), but rather because settling/hypergamy makes alternative decisions less attractive.  This regime will stand or fall based on what the non-alpha women decide to do in the decades ahead.

  • VD

    Wrong.  The doctor who trades up for a younger, hotter, tigher wife once he achieves rich alpha doctor status is hypergamous.  No. Doubt. About. It.

     

    You’re totally wrong.  As others have pointed out, you don’t know what hypergamy is.  You appear to believe it is synonymous with “trading up”.  It is not.  It is concerned with limiting one’s partner-seeking to those of greater value than oneself, not exchanging a lower value partner for a higher value one.  For example, the hypergamous woman will attempt to trade up regardless of any changes in her status.  Since the trade-up you postulated was based on the change in the man’s status, it clearly has nothing to do with hypergamy, it merely involved a consequent response to the change in his Sexual Market Value.

    And the only reason there is any “trading” involved in your scenario is due to the anti-polygamous legal regime.  The doctor would naturally prefer to keep both women.  But the hypergamous woman doesn’t want the lower-value man, she only wants the higher-value man and she ceases to be attracted to the lower-value one.

  • Sandy

    2 Mrs Robinson

    Wrong. The doctor who trades up for a younger, hotter, tigher wife once he achieves rich alpha doctor status is hypergamous. No. Doubt. About. It.

    Now you are making a fool of yourself. If a doctor is hypergamous, he would look for an old rich widow/female CEO with money, power and connections, not for
    a young girl with lower social status

  • Anacaona

    It was called the Queen of the Sciences for a reason. Alpha females are finally remembering that they’re the ones who invented religion in the first place. Not one moment too soon.

    Karen Armstrong is one of my favorites but I don’t think the manosphere will call her Alpha female, unless you have a different definition of it

     

    @Mrs. Robinson

    I don’t understand the question. Comparative theology studies religion or philosophy aimed to understand the world through the supernatural. We might had missed a couple but we discussed mythology, Abrahamic religions, Asian religions and philosophy, animism… pretty much every time an individual took a rock and called it God to atheism. Of course I was better at certain things than others and my particular interest was symbolism but I have at least notions of them.

    In any case, it seems to have been an alliance of some sort aimed at restricting the sexuality of alpha males and non-alpha females for the benefit of the tribe, I very much agree.

    I agree with this. One of the things of the theory of the males “forcing” monogamy to women is that stinks to feminism indoctrination assuming that men are this eternal tyrants and that women are their eternal victims, which is not true and doesn’t take in account that women benefit a lot from monogamy so it has to be both genders working together, YMMV.

    To focus on biology while the issue is really women’s emotional immaturity is the fault of your post.

    The focus is biology is because both genders have this basic impulses but in first world women are not aware of them, they assume “their feelings” are right. I’m mostly attempting to use their superior brain to “tame” this feelings because in the end the impulse is obsolete in modern society and sadly genetic engineer is not advanced enough to get it removed. The role of culture in making impulses acceptable or not shouldn’t be dismissed, neither something called free will, YMMV.

  • Rum

    Robinson

    It is so easy to get lost when trying to understand the concept of “hypergamy”. The best way to keep from getting confused is to always remember that it is about one thing – sexual desire. Desire to have actual sex with someone- or not.

    Subjects like marriage, compatibility, child raising, etc. just muddy the water. All of these things can be present without either party feeling lust for the other. Indeed, this is a hint at what is the darkest aspect of the meaning of hypergamy. It dictates that widespread monogamy would require most men to commit to life with a partner that is incapable of feeling any sustained sexual desire for him. And feels repelled by his advances. Only alphas would ever have enthusiastic partners.

    OTOH, nearly all the husbands would at least get it up and enjoy getting off with the wife. Quite enthusiastically. Any time of the day or night.

    Would the husband enjoy doing a hotter woman? Probably;  but he would still enjoy doing the wife. On the other hand, the typical wife in monogamy would only enjoy sex with a guy hotter than her husband. And that guy, by definition, would be of a higher sex desire-ability rank than her-on average. It is an issue that was not talked about much in the past, for all sorts of reasons.

    Hypergamy is about who people would enjoy having sex with. Stay with that concept and everything makes sense.

  • Petruchio

    “Karen Armstrong is one of my favorites but I don’t think the manosphere will call her Alpha female, unless you have a different definition of it”

    So what?

    It’s not all, or even primarily, about men.

    That said, in a different era I have no doubt that Armstrong could turn her prodigious talents toward drumming up more than a few suitors. Options are what make alpha, and the likes of Armstrong and Bolick have so many that they often have trouble deciding among them.

    Betas don’t.

     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Wait! Are we talking about the Karen Armstrong who was a nun? I think she has had loftier, more spiritual concerns than suitors.

  • Petruchio

    Rum,

    “On the other hand, the typical wife in monogamy would only enjoy sex with a guy hotter than her husband.”

    And that is why she used to work hard to make him hotter every day than he was the previous. Such were great men made, or even the vast armies of good ones that got us here.

  • Petruchio

    Brendan,

    “Or an alliance between alpha males and beta males in some kin-bonded patrifocal tribes for competitive advantage”

    The or is superfluous. The most effective alpha female-beta male alliances were those, like our own, that recruited the alpha males to join them, with the fruitful results you note.

    As long as effective family formation is the goal, I think monogamy’s is an easy case to make. The problem is that there are now enough alphas worried about the carrying capacity of the earth that they no longer share that goal, at least for other people (for themselves and their class, its full socon steam ahead).

    Then again, as the man said, “Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle forever.”

  • jrc

    I haven’t read all of the comments, so I apologize if someone has touched on this possibility already.

    Many have heard the phrase, “The grass is greener on the other side.” However, most people would have greener grass if they fertilized and watered it. I believe that female hypergamy, as typically discussed in these types of blogs, may be largely due to corruption of the hope/desire that things can improve and/or nurturing instinct. Nurturing and cultivating greener grass takes time and effort with the payoff in the future, but the payoff is likely more rewarding and long-lasting. Green grass can be obtained more quickly and easier if you just leave the old grass to get the new, if no one else takes it first or pushes you out. However, the greener grass is likely to get trampled somewhat and the not-so-green grass will be neglected and never get greener. The naturally green grass may also never be as green as fertilized/watered grass. There will be less green grass for everyone.

    A woman can find a good man with potential and nurture him. He may not be super fit, or have a hot career or be very charismatic/dominant. However, a good woman can show him kindness, encouragement, affection and love and help him grow to be the kind of man most women want or at least she wants. Nagging/criticizing/complaining/withholding/throwing fits do not qualify as nurturing. Some examples:  “You look sexy after working out so hard”, “I loved it when you stood up to that rude woman”, “You’re so good at (fill in the blank), you should really put more time into that”, etc. Of course, you must truly appreciate his basic qualities that give him the potential in the first place:  intelligent, strong beliefs in certain areas, good looking features, athletic/coordinated, funny, good body frame but maybe a little extra weight, etc. Otherwise, it’s merely seflish manipulation – it will fail. It’s not as fun or immediately rewarding as trying to grab the best man you see out there – which a lot of other women are trying to do also. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy. A good house takes time to dig and lay the foundation, build the frame, finish out, etc. A hut can be constructed quickly on the beach and the party started the same week. Which one will last and be more enjoyable overall? Ask yourself what you really want, and then be willing to do the work it takes to achieve it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @jrc
      Thanks for your comment.

      A woman can find a good man with potential and nurture him. He may not be super fit, or have a hot career or be very charismatic/dominant. However, a good woman can show him kindness, encouragement, affection and love and help him grow to be the kind of man most women want or at least she wants.

      I think this was a characteristic of marriage before the Sex Rev. The lack of that today has got to be tied into hypergamy – women today want total dominance built in from the start. Feminism destroyed all notions of woman as “helpmeet.” That may be a good thing – a woman devoting herself entirely to making her husband successful, but I do think we’ve gone too far in the other direction.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “You’re totally wrong.  As others have pointed out, you don’t know what hypergamy is.  You appear to believe it is synonymous with “trading up”.  It is not.  It is concerned with limiting one’s partner-seeking to those of greater value than oneself, not exchanging a lower value partner for a higher value one. ”

    Can you qoute a scientist on that?  Part of Jonny’s point to Anacaona, there’s a huge difference between hard science like biology and soft or pop science like we get with social studies, evo psych and other psychologies. 

    I agree with you about the legal thing.  People should be legally allowed to form any kind of marriage they want from polyandry to polygyny to whatever.  Monogamy isn’t neccessarily the best fit for everyone, and it certainly is not the only fit nor should it be our only legal choice.

     

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “A woman can find a good man with potential and nurture him.”

    Ladies, never fall in love with a man’s potential.  What if he never reaches it?

    Love a man for who he is now.  If you can’t, move on. 

     

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    someone mentioned if the doc was truly hypergamous he’d be divorcing his ordinary wife for the old, wealthy, CEO lady.  Not true.  He’ll divorce his ordinary wife for someone hotter than he is and someone more socially presentable than his wife who worked 6 years straight at a working class job (waitress perhaps?) to put his ass though med school.

    Anyway this is all splitting hairs.  Human beings are just ruthless is what it all comes down to.

  • Rum

    JRC

    You make the same kind of point I tried to make. There are many things that societies and individuals can do that increase the satisfaction that the typical woman experiences in the relationships she will realistically get to have over the long term. Those things look to be 1. Helping guys develop their alpha, gina-tingling  qualities, 2. Helping young women to develop realistic assessments of their SMV for LTRs, 3. Inspire a generalized cultural appreciation for masculinity. I am sure there are many others.

    Since our culture has been taken over by forces that are energetically doing the exact opposite of these things there should not be much surprise that so many average folks are losing out.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “2. Helping young women to develop realistic assessments of their SMV for LTRs”

     Sandy, take note.

    “3. Inspire a generalized cultural appreciation for masculinity”

    Hip hop and thug culture is already appreciated.  Be careful what you wish for.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Mrs. Robinson (Comment #96)

    Are you saying that because we’re discussing a soft science, the terms can mean whatever you want them to mean?

  • http://kaneadvice.wordpress.com Kane

    Striving to do better is always good, but most women leave out an important element; they don’t strive to be better.

    Women hold a privileged position in our culture and girls are brought up to think they’re special princesses who deserve the best.  Most girls are not good enough to get what they’re after.

  • Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

    Female hypergamy makes sense, but it’s only half the story.

    I’m convinced that every aspect of actual gender relations that people criticize or complain about, there exists symmetry thatis a balances everything more than people believe. Wheras powers or priveleges become responsibilitiies or burdens depending on how you look at them.  When one side of the gender divide has watched the other envying those “benefits”  they have seldom fairly examined all the sides of the issue.

    I’m a man here, and it’s safe for me to say that I can observe in my own instincts a kind of inverse / complementarity of hypergamy.  Ladies may be dreaming of their prince charming, but I’m dreaming of finding that hidden jewel that nobody’s recognized as being in demand (isn’t that the exact opposite of preselection?).  I don’t know if that’s a natural biology instinct or the result of years of my brain being cooked by western pop culture i.e. Disney cinderella etc.   

    But then again this drive to search for the hidden gem is perhaps just an expression of my bargain hunter nature – hoping to find a deal that is acually better than my single market value would ordinarily entitle me to.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ladies may be dreaming of their prince charming, but I’m dreaming of finding that hidden jewel that nobody’s recognized as being in demand (isn’t that the exact opposite of preselection?).

      I’m not sure what to make of this, but I find it very interesting.

  • jklm

    Rum, based on your 3 things above, I think you should run the relationships part of society for a while and see if things get better (no, I really mean that, I think they might!).

    With regard to what I see as a really accurate description (your comment at 12:15) of marriage generally in which women are stuck forever sleeping with a guy to whom they are NOT attracted, while the husband actually is turned on by her, I have one huge open question. Why isn’t it ok for women not to go for that? (Unless the species literally dies out as a result, but let’s set that aside.) I mean, they can’t force tingle-inducing alphas to marry them, but if they’re unwilling to settle for less, shouldn’t they at least get the option of die lonely and single vs. marry someone who doesn’t make them tingle? I’m not saying either option sounds enticing, but while we’re waiting for 1. and 3. to be implemented here–and I’m doing my small part on a grassroots level–I don’t see why there should be attempts to shame/force women into “settling” for what their value can “buy.” If marriage and family are a woman’s priority, then she will in fact marry someone she can get. If tingle is her priority, she’ll presumably sleep around for a while and then end up alone. So what? In fact, lots of women choosing to just remain single, darn it, would probably help force 1. out of desperation. Meanwhile, it’s not like the women would be rewarded for what I’m sure some would see as bad behavior, because after all they’re still dying alone. Heck, they’d be alone starting at age 30 in most places.

  • Mike C

    I don’t see why there should be attempts to shame/force women into “settling” for what their value can “buy.” If marriage and family are a woman’s priority, then she will in fact marry someone she can get. If tingle is her priority, she’ll presumably sleep around for a while and then end up alone. So what?

    jklm,

    Who is doing this?  In fact, I’d bet  MOST men don’t want a woman for marriage who is “settling” for them.  The shaming is on the other side with these articles by Bennett and Penny for men in their 20s to “man up”, “grow up”, and find a woman to marry.  I”m always astounded by the number of comments that seem to me to be clearly a case of female projection.

    I and I suspect most men could care less about shaming or forcing women to “settle” for what their value can “buy”.  I think you are mistaking that for what many are accurately identifying as women grossly overestimating their value and simply pointing it out:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/all-the-lonely-feminist-spinsters/

    Truth be told, I think some of the piling on Kate Bolick is getting a bit much, but I certainly understand where the schadenfreude comes from.  I think a generation of women…perhaps only a minority grew up with absolutely ridiculous notions of their SMV and MMV and now that it looks like they are sort of getting there comeuppance in a manner of speaking some people want to call attention to it.  But I don’t think anyone wants to shame or force Kate Bolick into anything, but try to highlight to many of these women your “value” isn’t anywhere near what you think it is.

  • Mike C

    People should be legally allowed to form any kind of marriage they want from polyandry to polygyny to whatever.  Monogamy isn’t neccessarily the best fit for everyone, and it certainly is not the only fit nor should it be our only legal choice.

    Yes, I think people should be allowed to marry their dog as well.

  • jklm

    Hey Mike,

    Ok, I’m not attached to calling it “shaming.” I guess I just don’t see the point of anyone, and I agree it’s frequently guys like Dalrock, trying to tell women their self-value or at least their expectations are too high. Many of them say it quite angrily, as though these women are injuring them (the guys). But as you rightly say, what guy wants to think his wife is settling for him? So if anyone, these women would only be injuring themselves.

    I’m sorry, I can’t find the specific comment that triggered mine between the debate about the definition of hypergamy and the one about the music industry :-) I resolve to be better about quoting.

     

  • jklm

    Also, I’m completely in favor of telling guys who do want a relationship to “man up” if what they mean is “act more alpha to attract women,” for the simple reason that we can only control ourselves.

    However, women talking amongst themselves about how guys need to “man up” is not productive, and if what these writers mean is “there are girls out there who want to get married and they can’t find a man, so you all should step up and propose!” then for me that’s the female equivalent of the guys I was talking about, ie huge thumbs down. Do they want a guy they had to tie down and force to marry them? (Well, who knows, maybe they do, but I wouldn’t…)

  • Mike C

    Also, I’m completely in favor of telling guys who do want a relationship to “man up” if what they mean is “act more alpha to attract women,” for the simple reason that we can only control ourselves.

    Well, that is NOT what the social policy commentators/pundits are referring to when they say “MAN UP”.  They are not talking about cultivating masculine/alpha personality characteristics.  ”MAN UP” is codespeak for implying that single yioung men have specific  DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES to society and single young women, and the problem with that view is as follows as articulated by the brilliant Brendan in perhaps the pithiest expression that captures the exact essence of it:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/outstanding-reader-comments

    /As for Bennett et al, they would do well to understand that the reason why men are underachieving is because they can. If liberation for women meant liberation from accountability to men, liberation for men meant liberation from responsibility to women. Again, these are two sides of the same coin. For some reason the numbskulls who pass themselves off as public intellectuals in this culture can’t seem to wrap their puny minds around that truism.

  • Mike C

    That term “MAN UP” reminds me of when the wrestler the Rock used to say “Know your ROLE, gibroni”.  The underyling message to the young beta male is your job is to be a “productive” citizen, raise a family, be a “good provider” to some woman, and oh by the way there is absolutely nothing in it for you, you can be divorced and ass-raped due to boredom, etc.  Your happiness, contentment and satisfaction with life doesn’t matter for the greater good.  Many guys are waking up and thinking “hey, this doesn’t sound so good”.  And that is where the shaming comes in.  Actually, you don’t really see the shaming of that from the feminist side, it is pretty much just the social conservatives.  The feminist side is less about shaming, but just in total bewilderment why such a great “catch” like Kate Bolick is still single not realizing that the attributes they value in a mate (status, career success, achievement, dominance,) don’t really matter as much to men.  I still find fascinating the reaction that Susan described in meeting her and her young women focus group.  Someone else said it, Game works on women even if iis another  woman.  If Kate had a penis, some of young women sound like they were ready to jump all over her, and she is 40.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I still find fascinating the reaction that Susan described in meeting her and her young women focus group. Someone else said it, Game works on women even if iis another woman. If Kate had a penis, some of young women sound like they were ready to jump all over her, and she is 40.

      Haha, you are right! We all got girl crushes on her. In fairness, though, she was not “alpha” in her demeanor at my home. She was very feminine. Actually, the Gayle King clip is very representative.

  • Rum

    I am not comfortable using words like shame or “should” in this context. However, I do think it is useful to recall that merely maintaining a human population requires more than 2.0 live births on average per female. For most of our history, infant and young adult mortality rates were so high that sustainability required 4 or more per woman. Societal and family structures that could pull it off simply replaced those that could not. That is why we got here the way we are.

    Another big factor is that societies that manage to get ordinary men to care a lot about women and children could easily shove aside societies where they do not.

    Those things together explain why some kind of “marriage” is seen almost everywhere and the more monagamous it is the more likely you are to be able to drink the water and walk the streets at night.

  • jklm

    Mike:

    Well, +1 to that. A society in which everyone just wants what they want and feels like they shouldn’t have to work to get it is a bad place. Or at least it’s not a society populated by adults.

  • jklm

    “The underyling message to the young beta male is your job is to be a “productive” citizen, raise a family, be a “good provider” to some woman, and oh by the way there is absolutely nothing in it for you… ”

    What’s in it for a woman either, if you put it that way? Why would anyone get married these days if both parties are bored with the arrangement? Rum points out the importance of being a productive citizen, but it’s not particularly appealing to a hedonist on either side of the relationship. (I’m guessing the feminists would jump in with the men in hating the idea of a man being the provider, and that part is certainly his choice too these days.)

    I think your previous comment + Rum’s address this. Maybe marriage is actually designed as a grown-up institution in which Adults give up some personal indulgence to shore up society. But now we’re short on Adults, and also marriage is now supposed to be fulfilling. Even if that part is a recent invention… it’s still hard to give the dream up for what sounds like a long dutiful slog.

  • Sassy6519

    Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to choose men of the same value as myself for relationships. People keep emphasizing that women constantly chase after men who are of higher value than themselves. For sex only, this definitely works, but the assumption falls apart when it comes to commitment.

    If high value men are rare, they hold great power when it comes to selecting a woman to commit to seriously. Once these high status males are coupled up, the rest of the females are forced to either date men around their same value or to remain alone.

    The long-term effects of female sexual hypergamy are detrimental in many ways.

    1.Once the hypergamous women face reality by realizing that they can’t snag a high status male for long-term commitment, they consciously settle for men around their realistic value.

    2. The men of lower value than the high status men feel miffed because they have been overlooked the entire time, and only become visible to most women once the women fail to snag the men they truly desire. Being second best isn’t pleasant for anyone.

    I’m not sure what can be done to change things for the better in today’s SMP in regards to female hypergamy. I can only focus on what I do to ensure that I have realistic views/ expectations of myself when it comes to dating/mating.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Are you saying that because we’re discussing a soft science, the terms can mean whatever you want them to mean?”

    It certainly appears that way.  I’ve skimmed this blog for a good few hours and it seems the same stuff is argued and counter-argued over and over again.

    Women dating up.  I don’t see it.  I can’t tell you how many good-looking, nice, smart women I know who date guys beneath them.  Oftentimes guys who are using them for free meals, cash, cell phones and any host of a number of things that adults are supposed to be able to provide for themselves.  All I can assume is that the sex must be out of this world.

  • Mike C

    What’s in it for a woman either, if you put it that way?

    Maybe nothing, although I doubt that.  I think a woman gets 2 things primarily.  I have a relative who just broke up with a boyfriend over “commitment issues”.  I’ve been in a multi-year monogarmous LTR and I can tell you that 100% of the pressure towards commitment has come from her end.  It seems relatively CLEAR to me that women derive “something”…some psychic/mental benefit from having a man committ to them for marriage otherwise you wouldn’t have all this “why won’t he commit stuff”.  If women didn’t get *some benefit* out of the arrangement they wouldn’t pressure so heavily for it.  What that exact benefit is I don’t know as I am not a woman.  I suspect it is  some sort of mental validation of a man publicly proclaiming he chose her.

    Secondly, and this should be fairly obvious, a monogamous committed relationship with heavy male investment is the best arrangement for raising children.  Again, I’m not a woman so I can’t say for sure but EVERYTHING I’ve read, witnessed, heard ,etc. points that *MOST* women (NAWALT) have some deep-rooted, core biological drive to reproduce and be mothers.  I believe men have no such drive.  A man might want to be a father for a number of reasons, but none of them are that his biology is literally compelling him to reproduce.  So for women, marriage gives them the most stable arrangement for fulfilling one of their core biological drives.  Single motherhood is possible, but in many cases not pleasant, and really only possible in modern society due to state redistribution of wealth.

    So net-net the institution is really created for the “female imperative” to use Rollo Tomassi’s terminology, and in Marriage 1.0 men had enough incentives to know it was a good deal for them as well.  After a few decades of Marriage 2.0, many men are questioning how good a deal it is.  It may take a few decades and continuing decline in marriage rates before the mainstream discussion “gets real” so to speak.  The mainstream discussion still dances around the very politically incorrect issues at the heart of the matter.

  • Mike C

    Haha, you are right! We all got girl crushes on her. In fairness, though, she was not “alpha” in her demeanor at my home. She was very feminine. Actually, the Gayle King clip is very representative.

    She brought the alpha by virtue of her status and achievement.

  • Rum

    Susan

    Let me try to explain that comment. Most young guys would like nothing better than to have girlfriend that was very attractive to him but not to other guys. (Nevermind that this is virtually impossible) Think how great that would be. He would not have to compete with all the other guys and he could still have sex with a real hottie – in his eyes.

    For a skinny, confused teenaged boy, that is the best fantasy there is. Because good sex is the goal, not beating the other guys in whatever competition.

  • Rum

    When women imagine that men want the designated “hottest”  women because of the status it confers are basically delusional – and feverishly projecting. It is the bang that matters. Trust me on this.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    The more introverted the man, the more he probably would not care what others think about his girlfriend.  But for many men, and these are probably somewhat extroverted men, it matters.  A few men in my family even broke up with a few girlfriends because of that.  And while they were dating those women, they hardly brought them around.  The dates were mostly indoors at his place.  Obviously for the doc examples I give above, sex wasn’t the only coveted thing or they would have just had affairs instead of divorcing their wives and then moving the upgrade in, showing her off at all the hospital and city funtions, and then creating a family with her. 

    Alot of men feel some kind of good way when they walk into a room with a woman on their arm and all eyes turn to her.  Then you get the congratulatory fist bumps from your buddies.  Feels goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood.  Men and their egos……… pat, pat.

     

     

  • jklm

    Rum – to the degree that I believe men want the status bump from the hottest woman, it’s because it’s what the PUAs actually say. Quite possibly they’re a small and atypical subset, though.

    Mike, about the benefits of marriage, this is kind of a fascinating question. If we’re citing commitment as a benefit to women, then sex on tap is the equivalent that men get. I’d agree that women should theoretically have more of a biological drive to *have* children, although men certainly have plenty of biological drive to *father* them. And given that most of their casual sex is likely not producing children, they ought to have equal incentive to make sure those kids survive and thrive (and reproduce), although their bodies don’t know it.

    Yes, women are at least stereotypically the ones demanding commitment versus men demanding sex. It’s probably just because (circular logic) fewer men want commitment and fewer women want casual sex, so supply and demand. It has to go back to the kids thing, unless it’s just an old habit – back when women really couldn’t be the breadwinner, they had to use their bargaining chip to get a committed meal ticket, but that’s pretty defunct here and now.

    Although – maybe the modern case is women who’ve gotten non-exclusively involved with some alpha and the battle cry of “Commit!” is an attempt to secure him exclusively. Which probably wouldn’t work, and then the woman would presumably complain that guys don’t commit. That could make sense too.

  • Anacaona

    So for women, marriage gives them the most stable arrangement for fulfilling one of their core biological drives.  Single motherhood is possible, but in many cases not pleasant, and really only possible in modern society due to state redistribution of wealth.

    Another thing is that a woman can get pregnant easy by any man, just open her legs during ovulation and the deed is done. But for a man to choose her she has no power but her own merit so till recent single motherhood had not status and in many cases symbolized that she could get the sex (giving her precious eggs) but get nothing in return from the man (precious commitment). So women deep down know that being worthy of commitment is actually a great and difficult feat.

  • Abbot

    When traditional marriage is strong, men separate available women with decent SMV into “sluts/prostitutes/unsuitable for marriage” and “marriage material” mental categories. When that separation is clear, men marry girls who are marriage material, families are strong, men provide and protect, everything works well. However when traditional marriage doesn’t exists and it’s hard to categorize women, then men are more reluctant to marry, but not because sex is more available

    Then it follows that if women desire to widen their opportunity for marriage, they must avoid sexual behaviors that disqualify them from being categorized as “marriage material”

  • Richard Aubrey

    Crabb, in “Men, Women, Enjoying the Difference” will make your teeth hurt..    But he’s a good writer and contradicting his views takes some intellectual effort.

    One of his points, addressed in passing by other practitioners, is that a woman can build a man up or tear him down.  Crabb is far more specific in this, and more detailed.  A woman who trusts and appreciates her husband, Crabb says, will find he grows to meet her expectations.  He will be more proactive, more useful to the family, a better citizen, more courageous, more forthright, and better in bed.  If a woman tears down her husband, he will become a smaller man, eventually becoming a passive clod, sitting on the sofa thinking nasty thoughts, useless, and lousy in bed.

    It is not a matter–how did this go to italics and how do I get it back?–of a guy saying to himself consciously, ” If that’s what she thinks, screw it, why bother?”   According to Crabb, it happens on the unconscious level.

    From which it follows that a woman who is in a relationship with a beta might be able to change him to an alpha, if she is willing for forego the power games.

    As an example, some decades ago in a college field project in a dicey area of the country, we had about two dozen students. My immediate partner was a particularly attractive woman.  We each had somebody at home whom we would eventually marry. She, while having an IQ of about four hundred, and being personable and cheerful and forthright, deferred to me entirely in matters of security. If I said I don’ t like this place, she would follow me out without comment.  It combined the effects of making me feel ten feet tall and crushed with responsibiility.  Which I would exert myself to justify.  No idea what she thought about the process, but she got a hell of a bodyguard–I’d been in smashmouth sports and martial arts–for no more price than letting me know that she trusted me with her welfare.

    So, although I have some problems with Crabb–see my Amazon review–I can see his point in this area.

  • Desiderius

    “Wait! Are we talking about the Karen Armstrong who was a nun? I think she has had loftier, more spiritual concerns than suitors.”

    Yes, that was my point, alpha is about influence and options. For males, both translate directly to attractiveness as the influence signals status, and the options preselection*. For females, that translation is more subtle, but also beside the point here, as you note. One option the alpha female has is to focus her influence on those loftier, more spiritual concerns, rather than wooing suitors.

    Graham’s insight explains why she can, indeed should, still be considered alpha. Her lack of suitors is not a flaw in her character, or a sign of low status, it is the direct result of decisions she has made. This is important because it is such alpha females that make the cultural rules (primarily through their influence on other women – see, for instance Oprah). We need to be able to identify who they are.

    It is doubly important because if I’m not mistaken, progressive, feminist icon Karen Armstrong has just switched teams. In true alpha fashion, she’s attempting to do so by changing who’s on who’s team (she puts the fundies on the non-traditional** team so she can still stay opposite them), but it is a significant move.

    * – although as Roissy notes, that can be undermined with beta behavior, whether anti-game or light triad

    ** – an imperfect name. Traditions are collections of innovations that have worked. The alternative to traditional in this sense is a cultural naivete oblivious to what has come before.

  • Desiderius

    Susan,

    “Feminism destroyed all notions of woman as “helpmeet.” That may be a good thing – a woman devoting herself entirely to making her husband successful, but I do think we’ve gone too far in the other direction.”

    The key insight is that the “helpmeet” role wasn’t entirely selfless, but functioned to satisfy her own hypergamy by making her husband hotter in her eyes as his status climbed.

    I believe there is a Scottish play on this theme.

  • Desiderius

    Today’s high-achieving woman often seeks a helpmeet of her own, hence the herb parade, but she’ll need to find ways to admire her husband in that role if she wants to maintain the passion in her marriage.

    Maybe it is the disrespect among feminists for that helpmeet role itself that is unwittingly undermining their ability to lust for their man.

    Of course in a healthy marriage each partner plays that role in different spheres, so there is a great deal of mutuality.

  • http://bloggingbellita.wordpress.com Bellita

    @Mrs. Robinson

    My question referred to your use of the word “hypergamy.” I don’t think it helped your argument that men do it, too, when you didn’t seem to be using the term properly in the first place.

    Women dating up.  I don’t see it.  I can’t tell you how many good-looking, nice, smart women I know who date guys beneath them.  Oftentimes guys who are using them for free meals, cash, cell phones and any host of a number of things that adults are supposed to be able to provide for themselves.  All I can assume is that the sex must be out of this world.

    I knew a woman like that, too, but I also know women who date up and marry up. This is all just anecdotal.

  • King David

    Apectivenacaona, interesting article. As a “beta male in his mid 30″s, you nailed when you wrote about the Libertalia society example

    The betas are hurt because they were ignored them during the years of peak female desirability (and their years of peak sex drive). Some would rather stay single and “play” rather than find a life partner.

    While many women are choosing to stay single these days, many betas (who make up a large percentage of men) are choosing to “opt out” of marriage. I would surmise that a majority of the emerging mens movement known as “The Marriage Strike” or “Don’t Marry” are made up of these hurt Beta’s.

    As a beta male who was rejected in high school and college by women who rejected me as a “nice guy and went after “Alpha Males”, I am hurt. Reading this article helped explain why women choose Alpha males from an evolutionary perspective..

    However, I’m hurt and a bit angry as many men are because we were ignored by woman during our peak sexual drive years. Studies show that mens sexual potency declines as they get older and womens increases as they get older.That is why these artificial and somewhat dangerous drugs such as Viagra are so common.

    I am not saying I am at the point of “opting out” from women (that is why I am on a website such as this, to learn about the opposite sex), but I can understand why these movements such as “The Marriage strike” or “Boycott Western women” have sprang up. I guess the key for Beta men like me who were ignored by women during our peak sex drive years, is to forgive women and persevere through the “dating jungle”. To try to see that NAWALT.

    Also as a human being, if  too many men opt out of relationships with women and just decide to throw in the towel and choose celibacy or abstinence from women, it will negatively affect our society and create a declining population crisis which is not good. I also have young nieces who are around 10 years old and I do not want to see them growing up and lonely due to a “man shortage”. I want them to be happily married if the choose that route. Susan, this is my first time on this blog and I commend you for attempting to mentor young women on morality and helping men understand women better. Too many gender websites just have men bashing women and women bashing men without any civil dialogue and debate.

     

  • Valentin

    King David :

    - “…it will negatively affect our society and create a declining population crisis”

     

    Will? It already has: more and more men are just not putting up with the extreme out of control hypergamy of today.

  • Brendan

    The key insight is that the “helpmeet” role wasn’t entirely selfless, but functioned to satisfy her own hypergamy by making her husband hotter in her eyes as his status climbed.

    Very true, but also it increased her own status.  Even today, a woman’s status is more tied to her boyfriend/husband’s status (in the eyes of the female friend network, at least) than a man’s is tied to that of his girlfriend/wife — and historically this was even more the case.  So, in the context of a marriage, building up husband and increasing his status also builds up herself in status.

    Today’s high-achieving woman often seeks a helpmeet of her own, hence the herb parade, but she’ll need to find ways to admire her husband in that role if she wants to maintain the passion in her marriage.

    I doubt this will happen to any huge degree.  I’ve known a few of these situations over the course of the last couple of decades, but they’re not common and the women I’ve known in them have often (to my face) rued the situation due to the pressure they feel under to be the main breadwinner and having a husband who is dependent on them — a small proportion of women may not mind that, but in my own experience, and based on what I have read as well, many women who find themselves in this situation are not pleased with it — and, even so, fairly few find themselves in it because they do not make this choice.

    Just looking up and down the halls of my workplace, the number of very highly-educated professional women in my cohort (early 40s) who are never married without children (around 30%), or who married later on and have no kids (another 25% or so), vastly outnumbers those who have inverted situations (less than 10%), so, just anecdotally, it seems women are more interested in making choices other than having a helpmeet husband.  I do think that these inverted financial power situations have a better chance of working when the H has some other significant status marker that increases his attractiveness, and he maintains that status marker through the marriage rather than becoming a domesticated “Mr. Mom” SAHD as his primary identity.  In any case, I think the inverted financial power marriages present a significantly higher risk for female infidelity due to the tendency to become unattracted to the helpmeet hubby as compared with more dynamic, dominant, obviously high-status men she comes across in her professional life.  It’s playing with fire, in my opinion, for a man to enter into a relationship like that.

  • Brendan

    This time with corrected formatting …

    While many women are choosing to stay single these days, many betas (who make up a large percentage of men) are choosing to “opt out” of marriage. I would surmise that a majority of the emerging mens movement known as “The Marriage Strike” or “Don’t Marry” are made up of these hurt Beta’s.

    As a beta male who was rejected in high school and college by women who rejected me as a “nice guy and went after “Alpha Males”, I am hurt. Reading this article helped explain why women choose Alpha males from an evolutionary perspective..

    However, I’m hurt and a bit angry as many men are because we were ignored by woman during our peak sexual drive years. Studies show that mens sexual potency declines as they get older and womens increases as they get older.That is why these artificial and somewhat dangerous drugs such as Viagra are so common.

    I am not saying I am at the point of “opting out” from women (that is why I am on a website such as this, to learn about the opposite sex), but I can understand why these movements such as “The Marriage strike” or “Boycott Western women” have sprang up. I guess the key for Beta men like me who were ignored by women during our peak sex drive years, is to forgive women and persevere through the “dating jungle”. To try to see that NAWALT.

    The thing is that, as Dalrock has pointed out, there isn’t really a “marriage strike” going on.  The percentage of men who never marry is still quite small.  It does appear that divorced men are starting to remarry significantly less frequently, based on that data.  Now, it’s possible that the not-yet-married generation will have fewer people marrying of both sexes, but we also need to take into account those who are not married yet who are cohabiting as well.  I think we won’t know for another 10-20 years whether male marriage rates for this generation have really declined or not, and what, if anything, they are being replaced with (i.e., if the rate does really decline a lot, is it MGTOWs or simply people cohabiting without being married).

    As a personal strategy, of course you don’t need to be a woman’s second fiddle once she is done chasing alphas.  You can screen women on their pasts, and Dalrock has a good post about that which is quite useful, I think, for someone in your situation.

  • jess

    Trouble in Paradise….

    Latest news from Moralia….

    Recent studies show that, due to lack of equal experience in their younger years, many men, and some women, are using prostitutes.

    Lots of women are deeply unhappy as they realised they are either sexually or emotionally incompatible with their mate.

    Due to the earl marriage idict, many women are unfulfilled intellectually and creatively as they could not pursue careers.

    Many police depts report a rise in domestic violence as ‘leaving’ is not an option.

    New agencies report regular marches for gay and female rights

    Back to Reality: Neither Moralia or Liberteria are perfect- but I think I would prefer the latter, all things considered.

     

  • King David

    Brendan good point in terms of what Dalrock mentioned that there really is not a “marriage strike” amongst men going on in terms of the statistics. However, one would not know that in terms of the  sheer number of internet websites and blogs from the manosphere such as “Boycott American Women”, “Marriage Strike, “MGTOW”, “Happy Bachelors”, “Zeta Male”,etc.  Perhaps these various male blogs are not representative of the actual statistics that men are “opting out” from women”.

    What is startling is that in Japan, there is a growing movement of young men who are known as “herbivores” and are choosing to withdraw from corporate culture and move to the country to be free spirits. These men are choosing to opt out of sex with women, marriage and dating.

    Whether what is happening in Japan will happen in America or Europe,only time will tell. It is estimated that 60% of young Japanese men are choosing to opt out. This has the Japanese Government concerned inasmuch as Japan has a declining population crisis that is real. Here is a link from You Tube about this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdrF_dAaZO4

     

     

     

     

     

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I also have young nieces who are around 10 years old and I do not want to see them growing up and lonely due to a “man shortage”.”

    Thing is, there’s not a “man shortage,” there’s just a shortage of men women want to marry; the rest are judged as unfit. For Bolick to compare today to periods following wars that killed off a significant proportion of virile men is sophistry and a bit insulting to the true war spinsters and widows.

  • Anacaona

    I believe there is a Scottish play on this theme.

    Heh my husband is a theater major, very funny :)

    @Jess

    I think you need to adjust your antenna receptor that news come from Jessland the land were being with one partner is the certain key to being miserable and unhappy and cheating and being slut is the only way to be  “happy”. God forbids Jess doesn’t have a chance to cheat on her partner when she feels like, her vagina will bleed her to death if she controls it once. The vagina is queen in Jessland.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com/ Byron

    Evenin’ all,

    first time over for awhile. This piece by Steph is AMAAZING.. possibly the best writing on hypergamy ever! Seriously, I’m blown away. So many great passages I wouldn’t know where to start but I like this bit particularly:

    men are not selective about having sex but they are very selective about committing their emotions and resources. They need to be selective to make sure all their childrearing efforts are fruitful in propagating their own genes. Women are much more selective (or should be) about sexual partners because every sexual encounter could lead to pregnancy (theoretically, birth control notwithstanding).

    Really clean, succinct writing.

    If I may I’d like to offer, not as a counter-argument but a tempering additional view, my latest bit:

    http://triggeralert.blogspot.com/2011/10/hogamus-higamus.html

    Took awhile to come together. Hope you like.

    Was planning on my next post getting into the hypergamy topic but after reading this I’m not so sure I should even bother, as there’s little I could think of to say that hasn’t already been covered excellently here.

    Well done Steph, & I look forward to reading more long pieces by you.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

     

    “However, I’m hurt and a bit angry as many men are because we were ignored by woman during our peak sexual drive years. Studies show that mens sexual potency declines as they get older and womens increases as they get older.That is why these artificial and somewhat dangerous drugs such as Viagra are so common.”

    ^This.  My moniker is Mrs. Robinson for a reason ;)

    It may be that the average young man will have to give up holding out for the first preferred stellar woman  and the 2nd choice average gal and settle for the less than average woman.  Fist bumps from his buddies be damned.

  • Anacaona

    @Byron

    Wow I’m very honored that you liked it so much. I still think you should wrote your post on hypergamy the more the merrier. The writing is Susan succinct editing though :)

    I read your post and commented, I hope you can see a bit of why I reacted so strongly to certain behaviors.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anacaona
      Well done, you’re getting rave reviews! The men, who are familiar with the concept, obviously approve. And I suspect that many women are learning about it for the first time. Thanks so much for your post, and I’m sorry it took me so long to get it published. I have learned that I am a terrible editor! I find it extremely difficult to touch someone else’s writing. Anyway, I think you have the makings of a terrific blogger, this is a big success.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Agree with Byron: a really fine piece of work by the Anacaona. I especially like this:

    “Eve probably thought that Paradise was boring, that she was seeing the same plants, the same streams and the same animals. She craved something new and different.  But she was lazy. Instead of trying her hand at inventing a sport or learning how to sing like a bird, paying attention to the wonders of paradise, she took the easy route of breaking the rules because it looked like the best way to improve her life immediately. ” Indeed, much evil is brought on the world by people who are *bored* and are too lazy and/or incurious to fix their boredom in reasonable ways.

    I’ve been thinking about my own question: How does the character of Eve compare with that of Goethe’s Faust (male, of course) who was also willing to break the rules (selling his soul to the devil surely qualifies!) in order to have a more exciting life? Like Eve, Faust could not accept even a minor limitation on his plans: when his great real-estate reclamation project is marred (as he sees it) by the house of an old couple, he cannot accept even this minor change to his plans, and directs Mephistopheles to solve the problem. Which the devil does, brutally.

    The main distinction I see so far between Eve and Faust is in Anacaona’s description of Eve as “lazy”—-whatever else one might say about Faust, his sins didn’t include laziness. Comments from any other Faust-readers most welcome.

     

     

     

     

  • Abbot

    Recent studies show that, due to lack of equal experience in their younger years, many men, and some women, are using prostitutes.

    Here, its now fixed to fit the present reality:

    Recent studies show that, due to lack of experience in their younger years, many men and some women actually have something in common.

    Lots of women are deeply unhappy as they realised they are either sexually or emotionally incompatible with their mate.

    For some odd reason, the study could not identify how drunk fucking lots of men prepares women for sexual and emotional compatibility with their mate. But somehow it does. It just does! Groowwwl!  hissss

    many women are unfulfilled intellectually and creatively as they could not pursue careers.

    Yep, a “job” – and you betchya its in some cubicle – somehow fulfills women intellectually and creatively. A rather sad testament indeed

    Women lurkers know better.  Because they are smart.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot
      I’ll agree with Woman Lurker here. As someone who had a career and was then a SAHM for many years, I can tell you unreservedly that I would not trade one minute of that time at home. However, creative and intellectual it was not. I fulfilled those needs by pursuing other interests, and my husband was very supportive. Writing this blog accomplishes that for me now – it is extremely fulfilling on both fronts. I didn’t start it as a new career, but I can certainly understand why women want intellectual stimulation outside the realm of homemaking.

  • Woman Lurker

    Hey Abbot,

    Thanks! Just one thing. Even jobs that aren’t particularly intellectually or creatively fulfilling (although mine happens to be!) usually offer a chance to get out of the house and interact with adults. Some men certainly find validation and stimulation in their careers – can we at least make having a career an option for Utopian women?

  • Abbot

    Even jobs that aren’t particularly intellectually or creatively fulfilling (although mine happens to be!) usually offer a chance to get out of the house and interact with adults.

    A job or “career” is certainly functionally useful for whatever reason a person decides it is.  But in the past few decades it seems that women place [have been sold] so much importance on careerism that it has launched bizarre cults like “sex positive” feminism. It has also led to the highly unbalanced promiscuity gap between men and women. It has created a dearth of wife material [as defined by men] and thus contributes to the declining marriage rate. It has created a host of workplace rules that do not benefit companies [despite the propaganda] and only benefit one group of workers. It has expanded the workforce beyond jobs available. But as long as the benefits outweigh the costs and in the name of some elusive goal [for most] its all worth it for a crack at intellectual and creative fulfillment. And getting out of the house.

  • Höllenhund

    Seriously, this idea about some sort of male hypergamy needs to be put down like a mad dog.

  • Captain Irrelevant

    Question. I personally would be down with people having less sex. But most men seem to like lots of sex, and those “crazy cults” tell women to Go For It! Shouldn’t the men be happy?

  • Captain Irrelevant

    HH, yeah people seem all kinds of upset about that on both sides. Why though? I’m actually asking. Is hypergamy a huge insult (not so nice if it’s evolution’s fault)? If I have this right, men are jerks by cheating or leaving to sleep around and women are jerks by cheating or leaving for a better catch. Ok fine, everyone’s a jerk in their own different way.

  • Abbot

    most men seem to like lots of sex, and those “crazy cults” tell women to Go For It! Shouldn’t the men be happy?

    If they’re not interested in marriage and are getting laid, sure.

  • Sandy

    2 Jess

    Trouble in Paradise….

    Latest news from Moralia….

    Recent studies show that, due to lack of equal experience in their younger years, many men, and some women, are using prostitutes.

    What does it even mean?

    Lots of women are deeply unhappy as they realised they are either sexually or emotionally incompatible with their mate.

    Oxytocin creates bonding and compatibility for women. Riding the cock carousel destroys the ability of women
    to bond with men

    Due to the earl marriage idict, many women are unfulfilled intellectually and creatively as they could not pursue careers.

    Why is that? Traditional marriage doesn’t mean that a woman cannot do creative stuff. Upper-class
    women always had an ability to play music, write poetry and so on. Nobody prevented them from
    doing that.

    Many police depts report a rise in domestic violence as ‘leaving’ is not an option.

    Rise of domestic violence from men or women?

  • Abbot

    What does it even mean?

    For feminists, its just feels good to spew such bullshit and maybe more women will jump on board and share the misery

    Oxytocin creates bonding and compatibility for women. Riding the cock carousel destroys the ability of women to bond with men

    But somehow, just somehow, fucking lots of men will enable this “sane” woman to know “compatibility” when she sees it

    Traditional marriage doesn’t mean that a woman cannot do creative stuff.

    In cultures today, women go to college and have families very soon after and then pursue jobs to help the family. In the West, “certain” women just want to fuck around and “enjoy their youths” blah blah blah.  Its biologically backwards. How many more decades of obvious pain are needed?

     

     

     

  • jess

    Dear Steph,

    Actually I rate faithfulness as important. I also think people should work very hard to make LTR’s work even in the face of very difficult circumstances.

    However I also accept that in some cases, extreme circumstances can lead to relationship breakdowns. Careful not to be too judgmental- Im sure Jesus said something about throwing stones etc….

    It strikes me that a poor match is more likely to lead to infidelity and I think immature/premature marriage often leads to infidelity or misery for one or both partners.

    I think the inhabitants of Jessland are likely to be far more happy on average and the divorce or misery rates much lower than the 2 citadels you describe. Thats not to say Jessland would be perfect-no state ever is- its the human condition. But we would have a super cool flag for sure.

  • jess

    Sandy,

    - i was hinting that the olden days, when people did appear to follow Dalrocks code there was lots of hypocrisy. Happy marriage on the outside, but husband using prostitutes and wife a secret alcoholic.

    Marrying super young and only knowing one partner is not always the key to eternal happiness. I know older family members who did the traditional thing and by their own admission had a thoroughly miserable life. Allowing a degree of choice can remove this burden for many people.

    - Excessive promiscuity may harm pair bonding. But not having a moderate amount of safe sex whilst young surely?. All my contemporaries, most of which had flings in their youth, have all pair bonded… so I’m not sure if I would accept your point there.

    -Clearly if as a female, you marry very young, education and career suffer, which for some people, but not all, is very important. Also not everyone is upper class and if youare serious, poetry and tapestry etc are not everyones bag.

    - domestic violence? it was an extension of the joke. Back in the day, an unhappy husband, trapped in a miserable marriage could beat the crap out of his wife. Now, she can legally pack her bags. One of my many reasons why I don’t want to return to a situation when divorcees are scorned and the only valid status is early as possible hetero-marriage to the nearest person with equal SMV.

  • jess

    Mrs Robinson

    Super posts if I may say so- I haven’t logged on for a while, on my return here I was delighted to see a new poster with wit and wisdom in abundance.

    J

  • Abbot

    Clearly if as a female, you marry very young, education and career suffer

    as the ol baseless feminist theory sales pitch goes.  Feminists are the only group pushing to get men to accept women who have had

    a moderate amount of safe sex…and flings in their youth [moderate, never modest]

    as marriage material until

    a degree of choice

    is no longer available to desirable men who are OBVIOUSLY in short supply

     

    Lurkers are smart. At least they get this

  • jklm out

    “I suspect most men could care less about shaming or forcing women to “settle” for what their value can “buy”.  I think you are mistaking that for what many are accurately identifying as women grossly overestimating their value and simply pointing it out”

    I’ve figured out what was bugging me about this. A woman grossly overestimating herself means thinking she can get a guy whose value is much higher than hers, right? Well, if she sets her sights on marrying Prince Charming, one of three things will happen:

    1. She does marry Prince Charming
    2. She can’t find Prince Charming, so she realizes she’s set her sights too high, scales back and marries someone else who will have her (if there is literally no one interested, maybe she should think about becoming a more appealing option)
    3. She refuses to marry anyone but Prince Charming, so she stays single

    It seems to be generally agreed that women define Prince Charming by a whole slew of characteristics, genetic looks being only a minor part. Guess what? Most of them can be learned or improved. In other words, if you can’t get a wife you like, put in some work and become Prince Charming. Read stuff. Start a business. Work out. Join the board for something. Learn how to play an instrument. I know that takes effort, but it would actually be effective and is in every man’s personal control. Look, I’ll do this right and look at the flip side, options for a man who honestly wants to get married but can’t find a woman willing to commit (apparently this is a problem):

    1. Become Prince Charming to win the top-tier woman
    2. Realize he’s set his sights too high, scale back and marry someone else who will have him (if there are literally zero such women, maybe he should think about becoming a more appealing option)
    3. Refuse to marry anyone but the best, and therefore remain single

    I’m equal opportunity, by the way. It’s harder for women to boost their value as much since, if I understand what I’ve read around here correctly, it’s pretty much based on looks. But if they really want to land Prince Charming, then self-improvement is much, much more effective than just whiny writing posts telling the opposite sex to “man up” and marry them already. We’ve seen how well that works (not at all, right?).

    By the way, re: “If they’re not interested in marriage and are getting laid, sure.”

    That’s really the crux, isn’t it? Well, Prince Charming would also be getting laid, if that’s what he wanted.

    Men, your destiny is in your hands. Go claim it! Most women are absolutely dying to marry a worthwhile guy, and honestly their standards as a whole are not that ridiculously high.

    Lurkers are smart. At least they get this.

    Abbot, you sound like a smart guy, but you can’t claim the support of the silent masses just because they haven’t finally jumped into the fray this time to disagree with you. Maybe secretly they all think sex should be abolished entirely! Or that what we need is 5 husbands for every woman! Silence could mean anything.

  • Abbot

    self-improvement is much, much more effective than just whiny writing posts telling the opposite sex to “man up” and marry them already. We’ve seen how well that works (not at all, right?).

    Right.  And that improvement [competitive advantage] begins whilst young surely?

  • jklm out

    Well, a head start is always a competitive advantage, although later is better than never. Is this supposed to be a trick question? Anytime is a fine time. But yes, if a girl or boy had started becoming awesome really young, she or he would be more awesome sooner.

  • Mike C

    It seems to be generally agreed that women define Prince Charming by a whole slew of characteristics, genetic looks being only a minor part. Guess what? Most of them can be learned or improved. In other words, if you can’t get a wife you like, put in some work and become Prince Charming. Read stuff. Start a business. Work out. Join the board for something. Learn how to play an instrument. I know that takes effort, but it would actually be effective and is in every man’s personal control. Look, I’ll do this right and look at the flip side, options for a man who honestly wants to get married but can’t find a woman willing to commit (apparently this is a problem):

    I agree with the idea of men engaging in self-improvement, but that isn’t germane to the point I was making.  I was simply making the point that someone like a Dalrock blogs about SMP dynamics and therefore analyzes and draws conclusions.  Unless I misread you, you tried to overlay some type of nefarious motives on top of that.

    Bottom line.  Generally speaking, it is fairly widespread that women overinflate their SMV and MMV.   Really, this is obvious.  That isn’t to say men shouldn’t try to improve themselves.  They should.

    I’m equal opportunity, by the way. It’s harder for women to boost their value as much since, if I understand what I’ve read around here correctly, it’s pretty much based on looks. 

    Looks are far easier to change.  I know.  I”VE DONE BOTH.  I graduated college at about 28% bodyfat and was down to 10% in a year.  Getting your body in shape, and maximizing your natural facial attributes is pretty formulaic and just a question of living a disciplined life on a daily basis (workout, don’t eat shit).  Developing GAME, confidence, personality atttributes is a much more time intensive and difficult endeavor.

    Honestly, whenever a woman complains about her value being tied to her looks (I’m talking generally here, not directed at you), and how difficult that is to change, it strikes me as laziness.  Start working out 4-5 days a week.  Eat salads for lunch.  And spend $500 on dollars on a professional makeover.

  • Mike C

    Most women are absolutely dying to marry a worthwhile guy, and honestly their standards as a whole are not that ridiculously high.

    This is too funny.

  • Mike C

    Seriously, this idea about some sort of male hypergamy needs to be put down like a mad dog.

    It is amusing to see the attempts to say “you men are hypergamous too” with these sorts of contrived nonsensical examples.  The hamster is interesting to watch in action.

     

  • Mike C

    This piece by Steph is AMAAZING.. possibly the best writing on hypergamy ever! Seriously, I’m blown away. So many great passages I wouldn’t know where to start but I like this bit particularly:

    Second this.  Truly a great piece of work.  Good analysis overlayed with some interesting/entertaining writing.  Excellent use of metaphors and storytelling to make a point.  I think for most people that works better than abstract, arguments.

  • jklm out

    Unless I misread you, you tried to overlay some type of nefarious motives on top of that.

    Bottom line.  Generally speaking, it is fairly widespread that women overinflate their SMV and MMV.   Really, this is obvious.  That isn’t to say men shouldn’t try to improve themselves.  They should.

    No, I wasn’t actually trying to impute anything nefarious to these guys, although it was probably my fault for being unclear. All I wanted to say is what I just said, which again is, men can observe away that women are overvaluing themselves but it’s not going to cause those women to lower their sights. Either they’ll get what they want anyway or they won’t. If the only purpose of pointing it out is to laugh at apparent stupidity… then sure, that’s one way to spend your spare time.

    Looks are far easier to change. 

    Yeah, fixing weight, muscles and fitness is kind of an easy win for both sexes, because you can follow a plan with guaranteed results. I *love* guaranteed results. Anyway that’s fine, I have no skin in the game on this one. Not a fan of the “man up” types you mentioned either. Should I add – women, your destiny is in your hands! (?) That too.

  • jklm out

    Most women are absolutely dying to marry a worthwhile guy, and honestly their standards as a whole are not that ridiculously high.

    This is too funny.

    One, I’m a woman and you’re not (ha!).

    Ok, got that out of my system. Two, even if originally all women’s standards would only fit the absolute “best” man on the entire planet, he can’t marry all the women and a lot of women do want to get married. These will go for option 2. If a man isn’t good enough to get a wife at option 2, then he needs to rethink some things. Just as if a woman isn’t good enough to get a husband at option 2, so does she.

  • Abbot

    Should I add – women, your destiny is in your hands!

    Always add it. A woman can only change herself, never a man. After 35 miserable years they’re finally denying that fact less.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com/ Byron

     Excellent use of metaphors and storytelling to make a point.  I think for most people that works better than abstract, arguments.

    And I think for women especially – you can read dry, academic examinations of anthropological concepts until the cows come home (if that’s your idea of a good time) but it only crosses over into mainstream thought once it captures the imagination. I think that might be what is so great about it – Susan & Steph are, I think literally, the only two women I’ve read who really ‘get’ the phenomena of hypergamy, & as a result are in the best position to write of it in a way that can be understood by both men & women. That’s really refreshing.

  • jklm out

    Abbot – You betcha. I meant it in my original post too, but since it wasn’t the focus I didn’t like repeating the line. Loses its punch the second time.

    Have we saved the world yet?

  • Abbot

    Susan & Steph are, I think literally, the only two women I’ve read who really ‘get’ the phenomena of hypergamy, & as a result are in the best position to write of it in a way that can be understood by both men & women. That’s really refreshing.

    And really infuriating for Amanda Marcotte and friends. Its not the existence of the phenomenon. Its that it can be understood by the mainstream public when conveyed appropriately.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com/ Byron

    Seriously, this idea about some sort of male hypergamy needs to be put down like a mad dog.

    I’d never heard anyone arguing for male hypergamy before, that’s pretty funny. There’s a bit I’ve written for that forthcoming post I was talking about that kind of touches on this:

    If we reverse the genders of the Cinderella / Pretty Woman fantasy, we see it quickly falls apart & becomes nonsensical: A poor boy sits & waits for a rich woman to come save him from his poverty? A grey-haired businesswoman picks up a syphillitic rent-boy & promises to provide for all his needs, keeping him in pampered luxury until the day he dies?

    Who would go see that film? There’s nothing in it for women, & men would find it repulsive & emasculating. It may well have taken place in real life at some point, for all I know, but that’s not the point. No-one, male or female, dreams of that template as their greatest fantasy. No-one thinks that being in that film is the best their life can turn out.

  • Abbot

    Maybe those Wall Street sit in folks would have some opinion about this:

    http://bethanylawler.com/?p=5483

     

    .

  • jess

    susan

    I quite agree. I was lucky enough to have had a devoted mother but I know how jealous she is of the younger generation and their career opportunities.

    For me, I adore my kids and enjoy motherhood immensely but I’m quite sure I would go totally tonto if I was locked in a house all day. I adore my work. In fact Im sure I enjoy motherhood so much more because of the variety in my life. Im lucky to have supportive family and friends that allow this.

    I often host the local mums coffee mornings and for some of them its their ONLY social outlet. They would love ANY job just to break up the week,

  • King David

    Susan and Steph I give props to both of you and I really mean that. Truly. I mean as someone who has been enmeshed in the “manosphere” and has regularly read MRA blogs such as “The Spearhead”,  “A Voice For Men”,” MGTOW Forum”,” Pro Male Anti Feminist Technology” etc. it is encouraging to see women align themselves with The Mens Rights Movement.

    I mean it takes a lot of courage for both of you Steph and Susan to have a blog like this. Steph I am sure some feminist and non feminist women would call you traitors or “uncle toms”. I commend you on your courage in not only speaking up for men but also being strong and facing some manosphere men who hate women. Do not worry about those manosphere men who hate women, the manosphere is not monolithic.

    There are many Mens Rights Activists such as Dalrock and men here including myself who are moderate Mens Righst Activists. Steph, you did an awesome job on female hypergamy as good as any blogger from the manosphere. I believe only by men and women engaging in a civil dialogue and looking for solutions as opposed to recounting the problem will healing between genders happen. Again it is encouraging for me as an MRA to have women reach out to us verifying that NAWALT.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @King David

      I believe only by men and women engaging in a civil dialogue and looking for solutions as opposed to recounting the problem will healing between genders happen. Again it is encouraging for me as an MRA to have women reach out to us verifying that NAWALT.

      This is the best part of my day, thank you. I love the phrase “healing between genders.” It sounds touchy-feeley, but it is exactly what is needed. And I think understanding is the way to get us there. That’s why I am so appreciative of the men here. The blog is still oriented towards females. Though this has shifted somewhat over time, I find myself continually addressing female readers. And I do believe they are receiving my message loud and clear. But I also know they are reading the male commentary. This is not a one-woman show, this blog is less and less about me as an individual all the time. And I think that is a good thing. I’m like the person who kicks off the conversation, but the commenters take it from there.

      This blog has some nice traffic, and I’m grateful. But there are many blogs with much, much higher traffic. However, HUS has some of the highest comment numbers in the entire world. I just want to share that. Those of you who read even the MSM blogs know this. I am in awe of this community. There is some natural turnover, and there are readers who pop in every so often, but it’s the commenters who have created this dialogue between the sexes. I love it.

  • Sandy

    2 Jess

    Sandy,

    - i was hinting that the olden days, when people did appear to follow Dalrocks code there was lots of hypocrisy. Happy marriage on the outside, but husband using prostitutes and wife a secret alcoholic.

    How can anyone be a secret alcoholic? It’s about as stupid as a “secret heroin addict”. Marriages before were stable and provided the best known environment for children.

    Marrying super young and only knowing one partner is not always the key to eternal happiness. I know older family members who did the traditional thing and by their own admission had a thoroughly miserable life.

    Marrying younger and not having many partners is a key to very strong chemical bond in marriage (oxytocin), and a strong biological foundation for long lasting love for the spouse

    Allowing a degree of choice can remove this burden for many people.

    Marriage is normally done by consenting adults, so by choice

    - Excessive promiscuity may harm pair bonding. But not having a moderate amount of safe sex whilst young surely?

    What is safe sex? Could you teach me, Oh Great Jess, the secret of safe sex? Here, in the real world we have things like herpes and HPV which are incurable nasty diseases and are not prevented by condoms. In some places, like New York City almost 50% of unmarried women have herpes. Unleash the secret of safe sex on us, Great Jess, and large unwashed masses of the USA will be forever in your debt.

    -Clearly if as a female, you marry very young, education and career suffer, which for some people, but not all, is very important.

    You can marry young, but you don’t have to have children immediately. I don’t see how monogamy ruins education or career.

    Also not everyone is upper class and if youare serious, poetry and tapestry etc are not everyones bag.

    You mentioned the fallacy that women before were prevented by doing creative stuff by Evil Patriarchy. I showed you that it was a lie. Lower class men and women didn’t have time for that due to high workloads, but women in upper classes were not artificially restrained in creative aspirations in any way

    - domestic violence? it was an extension of the joke. Back in the day, an unhappy husband, trapped in a miserable marriage could beat the crap out of his wife.

    You can also say that a husband could take a knife and kill all of the children, wife and parents. Some people are mentally ill. In the US, for example MA, beating a wife was against the law since at least about 300 years ago.

    Now, she can legally pack her bags.

    Before no-fault divorce in the US, the wife could legally pack her bags too, abuse was a valid reason for divorce. Also keep in mind that beating people (relatives or not) is against the law.

    One of my many reasons why I don’t want to return to a situation when divorcees are scorned and the only valid status is early as possible hetero-marriage to the nearest person with equal SMV.

    Nobody talks about “as early as possible”, I’m talking about “as early as sensible”

  • jess

    sandy

    1. people can hide addiction for years. my point was that in the past, there were a lot of very unhappy marriages. and the law and disapproval of ‘leaving’  meant they lasted till death. Also many marriages were virtually arranged.

    2. for some sure- but it has its disadvantages. and you still have the scores of people that buck your theory.

    3. choice- that wasn’t quite what i meant- these days you don’t have to marry young and have kids straight away. there is a myriad of choices now. on the whole i think thats good although I accept that not all the choices are ones i would make or that lead to happiness or a better society. But i maintain the old ‘only’ choice made for a lot of individual misery.

    4. Certainly. Herpes infection can be stopped by a combination of barrier methods and abstination during an outbreak. (nhs.org). HPV can be tested for and barrier methods and vaccines can be used. All the diseases associated with HPV can be treated if caught early. (nhs.org).

    5. Agreed. if there are no babies, there is no reason why a women couldn’t follow her career. I can’t see how monogamy or not  directly effects careers either.

    6.  i rather think you proved nothing of the sort. My own family, highly traditional, has men who had stimulating careers and work related rich social lives. All whilst their wives were stuck at home. If one goes further back it was often the working class guys that would spend an evening or 2 in the pub whilst the womenfolk were at home. Im not saying there were not exceptions- but as a general theme it holds true.

    7. marital ‘discipline’ by the husband is an artefact of several western histories. as to the history of anti women rules within catholism for example and particularly the rules regarding marriage and divorce, bear in mind I come from a catholic family.

    8. bags- not in all countries, but even in those that it was allowed there was still the disapproval and stigma.

    9. sensible- ok whats your version of sensible? Of course, the earlier you have kids, the less time you have to find out if you are truly compatible with your other half. Once kids are on the scene, there is a good case for staying together for their sake regardless of your personal anguish and dissatisfaction.

  • Mike C

    Mike, about the benefits of marriage, this is kind of a fascinating question. If we’re citing commitment as a benefit to women, then sex on tap is the equivalent that men get.

    The most attractive, highest SMV men don’t need to get married to have sex on tap.  Heck, from what I gather (I’ve been out of the market since 2006), a beta can get sex if he runs beta provider game on a suitable market (the 30+ women looking for a beta provider and maybe not quite as physically attractive).  I remember a commenter on a Dalrock thread mentioning he specifically targeted women “looking to settle down”.

    I’d agree that women should theoretically have more of a biological drive to *have* children, although men certainly have plenty of biological drive to *father* them.

    I can’t speak for all men…I can only speak for myself, but I’ve never really experienced any core biological drive to father children.  I think the desire for men to have children operates at a higher level than the sleep, eat, fuck type level.  If you are saying that men have a core biological drive to fuck…well…yeah…but that is different than what I am suggesting in that most women have a core biological drive to have babies.

     

     

  • Anacaona

    However I also accept that in some cases, extreme circumstances can lead to relationship breakdowns. Careful not to be too judgmental- Im sure Jesus said something about throwing stones etc….

    Jesus also said go and sin no more…

    It strikes me that a poor match is more likely to lead to infidelity and I think immature/premature marriage often leads to infidelity or misery for one or both partners.

    Data Jess, Data. All you are doing is parroting feminism bogeyman that cheaters are just unexperienced people that were forced by society to cheat, with no data but “I feel is right”

    I think the inhabitants of Jessland are likely to be far more happy on average and the divorce or misery rates much lower than the 2 citadels you describe.

    Haven’t divorce, depression and unhappyness skyrocketed in post feminism? How can Jessland being any better?

    Clearly if as a female, you marry very young, education and career suffer

    Data Jess data. My mother married right out of HS, raised four kids, is still married and aside from her two degrees she has enough certifications to cover the Washington monument, and she was also a virgin like me when she married. So career and education are not related to marriage but poor choices.

    Looks are far easier to change.  I know.  I”VE DONE BOTH.  I graduated college at about 28% bodyfat and was down to 10% in a year.  Getting your body in shape, and maximizing your natural facial attributes is pretty formulaic and just a question of living a disciplined life on a daily basis (workout, don’t eat shit).  Developing GAME, confidence, personality atttributes is a much more time intensive and difficult endeavor.

    Cosign this. I was the brainy non feminine girl all my life but once I decided to try another strategy in three months I was already stopping the traffic. Is really not that hard, good make up, good colors, letting your hair grow, flattering clothes. Is indeed easier than learning to be more confident but I will say is related once you see yourself better is easier to take the initiative because you gauge that you have more chances of success.

    Well done, you’re getting rave reviews! The men, who are familiar with the concept, obviously approve. And I suspect that many women are learning about it for the first time. Thanks so much for your post, and I’m sorry it took me so long to get it published. I have learned that I am a terrible editor! I find it extremely difficult to touch someone else’s writing. Anyway, I think you have the makings of a terrific blogger, this is a big success.

    I’m sure a huge portion of this reviews is thanks to your writing. I will make sure to learn how to edit better myself for the blog. Heh funny thing is that I’m now thinking on writing something about shaming cheating for both genders being a good strategy for society given Byron mention of that. We know how that ends up for the guys. Why do I hate me so much? Stupid brain

    I will like to thank Susan, everyone in HUS, also Athol, Badger and Dalrock. I did observed the phenomenon of hypergamy in my country but I didn’t knew the name I had a gay friend that was also fond of analyzing people and we often commented on this of course he often said that it was because women are inferior so they need superior gender to complement themselves ( he is very mysoginist), but I did knew there was something deeper going on, glad the manosphere helped me to finally get the pieces I needed to complete the puzzle. It also helped me to understand my own brand of Hypergamy. You are great! :)

  • jess

    Anacoana,

    1. but i dont consider sex a sin….. (gosh i got a catholic guilt twinge whilst typing that!)

    2. I’m happy to see others data and have asked for others observations of their peers. I have worked with dysfunctional london families where the parents have married young and quickly grown to hate each other. I have often heard the phrase “I or we or they married too young”. Have you really never enountered that? Wasn’t it in a Bowie song?

    3. its true REPORTED depression etc has increased. Its certainly true that divorce has increased. But that doesnt mean that all those marriages 100 years ago were bliss. This doesn’t even touch upon the gay/lesbian & trans issue of course. Jessland argues for knowlegable compatibility being more important than virginal marriage. This would increase average happiness and reduce current divorce. And i hereby commit to lower base tax for everyone!

    4. well done your mum. i hope you would accept that for most women, having children makes it harder to follow education and career. obviously if you have babies after your 2nd degree then you have….well….2 degrees. But if you have a baby at 20 that 1st degree is a lot harder to obtain- on average.

    I did like your imaginary townships by the way- it was a nice way to illustrate your points.  I was just debating in a similar fashion with the bogus news report as an extension of your vision.

  • Abbot

    All you are doing is parroting feminism bogeyman

    Hey, whatever it takes to convince lurkers here that “its perfectly reasonable and average conduct”

  • Anacaona

    1. but i dont consider sex a sin….. (gosh i got a catholic guilt twinge whilst typing that!)

    The woman in the parable your mention was an adulterer which is a sin, you don;t get to quote Jesus only when he is saying things you can use against me, you know?

    2. I’m happy to see others data and have asked for others observations of their peers. I have worked with dysfunctional london families where the parents have married young and quickly grown to hate each other. I have often heard the phrase “I or we or they married too young”. Have you really never enountered that? Wasn’t it in a Bowie song?

    We had provided you with data, but you keep ignoring or rationalizing it with “I was a slut and I only cheated once and it was his fault” or “all my friends had fun and are still happily married” so I take that you had never meet people that married young and is happy then?

    3. its true REPORTED depression etc has increased. Its certainly true that divorce has increased. But that doesnt mean that all those marriages 100 years ago were bliss. This doesn’t even touch upon the gay/lesbian & trans issue of course. Jessland argues for knowlegable compatibility being more important than virginal marriage. This would increase average happiness and reduce current divorce. And i hereby commit to lower base tax for everyone!

    Jess if feminism was indeed to increase happiness women will be reporting it…how can that fact not even register in your fantasy land. Women are more miserable than ever complaining about the jobs they fought so hard to get and the men they fought so hard not to need not marrying them. If feminism brings unhappiness to most women (I can’t get married) and men (I can’t get laid) and patriarchy brings happiness to the most women are married and men can get laid in their marriages, who in their right mind would think feminism is better?

    4. well done your mum. i hope you would accept that for most women, having children makes it harder to follow education and career. obviously if you have babies after your 2nd degree then you have….well….2 degrees. But if you have a baby at 20 that 1st degree is a lot harder to obtain- on average.

    If you are saying that my mother,a poor orphan raised in the third world, is smarter/better than any modern woman raised with all sorts of “choices” and privileges in the first world to manage for achieving “the unthinkable” I can only tell you that she will totally agree. :D

    I did like your imaginary townships by the way- it was a nice way to illustrate your points.  I was just debating in a similar fashion with the bogus news report as an extension of your vision.

    Hey Jessland could be the town between Libertalia and Moralia. I warn you though Moralia having all the spare time not consumed by cheating and seeking mates has the best war technology and will invade all the nearby towns stealing their resources and making their inhabitants their slaves. Don’t worry Jesslanders and Libertalians can still have all the sex they want after doing all their chores for us. :D

  • Abbot

    feminism brings unhappiness to most women (I can’t get married) and men (I can’t get laid) and patriarchy brings happiness to the most women are married and men can get laid in their marriages

    What we have here is a failed experiment that played on people and created a big mess. Patriarchy, like capitalism, works because it reflects human nature and how people think and operate.

  • anonymous

    @ Mike C

    MAN UP” is codespeak for implying that single yioung men have specific  DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES to society and single young women

    Hasn’t this been done for ages? The pushing of both young men and women to marry is old, the only difference is that more people are resisting marriage.

  • jess

    anacoana,

    1. jesus says don’t sin—- in this modern age i don’t consider sex a sin, same with homosexuality.

    jesus says don’t be judgmental- still applies in the modern age.

    so I’m happy to go along with both idicts

    2a. never said it was his fault.

    2b. yes i know people who married young and were happy. its just i know more that weren’t.

    2c the only data here that i have seen was very incomplete (last years). it was impossible to tell how many were from deeply religious couples and/or how many were happy. (not being divorced does not always = happy)

    Other than that I have asked for more data about direct observations about poeples peers. in this day and age of Facebook etc it cannot be that difficult.

    3. I’m happy to have a middle ground between extreme feminism and patriarchy. In terms of malcontent, that often comes with increased expectation of happiness. I still say I’m a happier bunny than my mum. And my mum is WAY happier than any of the women before her in our family. Of course there are examples of the polar opposite. but on average we have it better than our elders id say.

    4. quite seriously i think your mum is an outliner- you both are right to be proud

    5. surely the moralisists would be too moral to indulge in empire building?. instead I think they would build a tunnel to Libertainia for illicit visitations & sexual kicks. Then Jessland will fall into the collapsed tunnel and we will sue your asses.

  • Sandy

    2 Jess

    sandy

    1. people can hide addiction for years. my point was that in the past, there were a lot of very unhappy marriages. and the law and disapproval of ‘leaving’ meant they lasted till death. Also many marriages were virtually arranged.

    You don’t have a point. You need to show stats about a lot of unhappy marriages before. Right now divorce rate in California is about 66%, and some of the existing marriages are not happy. For children it’s nightmare.

    2. for some sure- but it has its disadvantages. and you still have the scores of people that buck your theory.

    Good luck arguing against science. Do you think your hamster is more trustworthy than scientific research?

    3. choice- that wasn’t quite what i meant- these days you don’t have to marry young and have kids straight away. there is a myriad of choices now. on the whole i think thats good although I accept that not all the choices are ones i would make or that lead to happiness or a better society. But i maintain the old ‘only’ choice made for a lot of individual misery.

    You are wrong, “the only choice” is a myth. Spinsters always existed, some women dedicated their life to religion and became nuns, women married at different ages and so on.

    4. Certainly. Herpes infection can be stopped by a combination of barrier methods and abstination during an outbreak. (nhs.org).

    You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Please provide a specific link to a 100% effective method of protection against herpes for P in V sex. I can tell you the following things:
    1) Many people don’t know that they have herpes
    2) Many people who know that they have herpes, don’t know when they have an outbreak, or don’t care
    3) Barrier methods are not effective, since herpes can be transmitted through skin contact (full-body condom, anyone?)
    If it was so easy to protect themselves against herpes, then it wouldn’t be so widespread

    HPV can be tested for and barrier methods and vaccines can be used.

    1) There is no test for HPV for men
    2) Vaccines can only protect from several strains of HPV out of many

    All the diseases associated with HPV can be treated if caught early. (nhs.org).

    It looks like you are a big fan of genital warts and cervical cancer. Yeah they can be treated, but the underlying reason – HPV cannot be treated. So who wants to deal with all that stuff? Untreated viral infections damage health, seriously decreasing quality of life and reducing immune response to other diseases

    When you made your claim about safe sex, Jess, you clearly showed that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. To make a complete clown out of yourself you linked nhs.org web-site. Which is a web-site for Alltech National Horse show in Kentucky. Do you get your information about VDs from horse show web-sites, Jess?

    7. marital ‘discipline’ by the husband is an artefact of several western histories. as to the history of anti women rules within catholism for example and particularly the rules regarding marriage and divorce, bear in mind I come from a catholic family.

    8. bags- not in all countries, but even in those that it was allowed there was still the disapproval and stigma.

    You introduced wife-beating angle for no reason, just to create some distraction. Monogamy has nothing to do with wife-beating.

    9. sensible- ok whats your version of sensible? Of course, the earlier you have kids, the less time you have to find out if you are truly compatible with your other half. Once kids are on the scene, there is a good case for staying together for their sake regardless of your personal anguish and dissatisfaction.

    I think three years in sufficient time to figure out if you are compatible or not

  • anonymous

    Why is hypergamy assigned to females only when in arranged marriages, fathers often were/are involved in the practice?  Don’t they try to marry off their daughters to the highest bidder? So, are fathers hypergamous when it comes to their daughters?

    Is it because the daughter refuses to marry a man with less resources, or is it that the man is willing to get the most for his status?

    Perhaps this was a perfectly good practice that allowed both parties to get the most satisfaction, only nowadays it’s been completely  turned upside down.

  • Sandy

    But that doesnt mean that all those marriages 100 years ago were bliss.

    Who said that all mariages were bliss? Are you arguing with yourself? We are not talking about creating paradise on earth, we are talking about more efficient SMP and MMP than exists right now.

    This doesn’t even touch upon the gay/lesbian & trans issue of course.

    It’s good that it doesn’t touch LGBT issues, because they are completely separate from hetero issues. Whatever happens in LGBT SMP has no effect on hetero SMP, because they are separate spaces

    Jessland argues for knowlegable compatibility being more important than virginal marriage. This would increase average happiness and reduce current divorce

    You argue for exactly the same system which exists today. In today system marriage disappears in the West, SMP is disfunctional and children are suffering. Way to go Jess

  • anonymous

    @ Mike C

    That term “MAN UP” reminds me of when the wrestler the Rock used to say “Know your ROLE, gibroni”.  The underyling message to the young beta male is your job is to be a “productive” citizen, raise a family, be a “good provider” to some woman

    This isn’t new, what’s changed are the divorce laws and people’s commitment  to marriage. Most people pushing the old agenda are oblivious to the changes. so use the opportunity to educate them.

      Your happiness, contentment and satisfactio’n with life doesn’t matter for the greater good.  Manty guys are waking up and thinking “hey, this doesn’t sound so good”.

    In the past people married for many reasons (and worked in jobs for survival), but personal happiness wasn’t necessarily one of them. Seeking haaaapiinessss is a recent trend.

     And that is where the shaming comes in.

    Well people should mind their business, but I’m sure they think they’re helping you out.

  • anonymous

    correction at message 191

    and people’s commitment  to marriage.

    insert “lack of commitment”

  • anonymous

    @ Mrs Robinson

    But for many men, and these are probably somewhat extroverted men, it matters.

    Alot of men feel some kind of good way when they walk into a room with a woman on their arm and all eyes turn to her.  Then you get the congratulatory fist bumps from your buddies.

    Hence the term “trophy wife.”

  • Sandy

    2 Anonymous

    Why is hypergamy assigned to females only when in arranged marriages, fathers often were/are involved in the practice?

    It’s because men are not hypergamous. Hypergamy affects sexual attraction. Fathers of females are not sexually attracted to their potential husbands.

    Don’t they try to marry off their daughters to the highest bidder? So, are fathers hypergamous when it comes to their daughters?

    When we are talking about one person caring for another, concepts of monogamy, polygamy or hypergamy do not apply do not apply to caregivers. Arranged marriages lead to monogamy with assortative mating (opposite of hypergamous(F)-polygamous(M) mating)

  • Anacaona

    1. jesus says don’t sin—- in this modern age i don’t consider sex a sin, same with homosexuality.

    jesus says don’t be judgmental- still applies in the modern age.

    so I’m happy to go along with both idicts

    Adultery is a sin is not sex, Jesus was not talking about an unmarried woman but a woman that was having a sex with a man that was not her husband again you are applying what you think Jesus will say which is the opposite of what he says, you are committing blasphemy BTW.

    2c the only data here that i have seen was very incomplete (last years). it was impossible to tell how many were from deeply religious couples and/or how many were happy. (not being divorced does not always = happy)

    How can you meassure the level of happiness in a marriage them? If being divorced not always = happy what makes you think that being single or a slut is always =happy?

    Other than that I have asked for more data about direct observations about poeples peers. in this day and age of Facebook etc it cannot be that difficult.

    We all did that too Jess Mike and Yohamy had gotten sick of telling you examples, we also linked you to all the posts of unmarried single 30 something crying to heavens above to be married and not having any takers…what else do you need?

    3. I’m happy to have a middle ground between extreme feminism and patriarchy. In terms of malcontent, that often comes with increased expectation of happiness. I still say I’m a happier bunny than my mum. And my mum is WAY happier than any of the women before her in our family. Of course there are examples of the polar opposite. but on average we have it better than our elders id say.

    I’m happier than you, still the stadistics are a growing unhappiness for the majority of women. Data is data

    4. quite seriously i think your mum is an outliner- you both are right to be proud

    Okay thank you.

    5. surely the moralisists would be too moral to indulge in empire building?. instead I think they would build a tunnel to Libertainia for illicit visitations & sexual kicks. Then Jessland will fall into the collapsed tunnel and we will sue your asses.

    What? sexual morality doesn’t mean that you are not trying to expand and propagate your culture and that was done by war and empire, check Rome history.

    @Sandy

    Welcome to the club of trying to make Jess make some sense. I can only warn you that many had tried (Mike C, Yohami, Jesus…) and all had failed. I mostly answer when I feel like it and for the benefit of the lurkers I expect Jess to make any sense as much I expect my cat to learn to fetch me the newspaper.

  • Anacaona

    Don’t they try to marry off their daughters to the highest bidder? So, are fathers hypergamous when it comes to their daughters?

    Actually this was monogamy at work, originally in “the time before writing” women were choosing lovers with no guidance, the culture created a set of expectations and behaviors to aid men to keep themselves attractive to their wives. Patriarchy and monogamy was so successful that 99% of cultures on Earth adopted it and we grew in numbers, civilization, technology in incredible ways out of it.  Matriarchal cultures barely survived because they were too weak against the strong patriarchy, if you notice most of the matriarchy cultures are in isolated places were they couldn’t be reached by civilization, survival of the fittest and all that jazz.

  • anonymous

    @  Anacaona

    Don’t they try to marry off their daughters to the highest bidder? So, are fathers hypergamous when it comes to their daughters?

    Actually this was monogamy at work, originally in “the time before writing” women were choosing lovers with no guidance, the culture created a set of expectations and behaviors to aid men to keep themselves attractive to their wives.

    So, you’re saying that originally fathers who arrange their daughters marriages tried to find the man with the most status in order to ensure that their daughters would be forever satisfied? When do you think it changed into a practice of monetary gain?

    I’ve read of fathers/brothers in this day and age who sell off their daughters/sisters in order to pay off their family debt.

  • Abbot

    You argue for exactly the same system which exists today. In today system marriage disappears in the West, SMP is disfunctional and children are suffering

    Its the typical sex pozzy and feminist status quo maintenance position. To sacrifice all that is good and all that has worked well for the greatest number of people just to undermine and destroy every last vestige of the “Patriarchy.”  Collateral damage be damned.

  • Anacaona

    So, you’re saying that originally fathers who arrange their daughters marriages tried to find the man with the most status in order to ensure that their daughters would be forever satisfied? When do you think it changed into a practice of monetary gain?

    Nope that men in general were raised in a set of behaviors that will make them attractive to their wives regardless of the choosing done by the parents. This were men that did rite of passages and were capable of exercising violence to protect them and have societal authority over their family and so on, also women that were not attractive understood the limitations so having a decent man that was a dominant was more than what they could had done by themselves, in this day and age mediocre women are hoping that a highly desirable man will choose them for a relationship just because he was willing to have sex with them, that would had never happen in patriarchy because any man interested on a woman will have to first talk to her family so unless the woman really picked his interest she was out of his realm so women didn’t hoped that high for a man that will never commit.

    The fathers arranged their marriages with several expectations and I’m sure many of them tried to do the best, of course some of them were just doing it out of money but still many fathers will try to strike a good deal marrying their daughters with a good man that also will bring some advantage to the family. Again all this I heard from my muslim friends that had a set of ways to reject a suitor they didn’t liked without embarrassing any party involved, YMMV.

  • jklm out

    I’m happy to have a middle ground between extreme feminism and patriarchy. In terms of malcontent, that often comes with increased expectation of happiness. I still say I’m a happier bunny than my mum. And my mum is WAY happier than any of the women before her in our family. Of course there are examples of the polar opposite. but on average we have it better than our elders id say.

    Yes – why does this trigger such blind anger? Although I have no statistics, I do believe there were women, maybe even lots of them, who were very happy being homemakers back when it was their best viable option [not to say only]. Apparently including your grandmother, Anacaona, which is wonderful. Likewise, even today there are plenty of women in America who voluntarily choose to be homemakers, permanently or temporarily (Susan, it sounds like this is you!). Sometimes they’re ridiculed by their peers, and sometimes they’re dumped all over by the manosphere too (one example: http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/01/dont-cater-endlessly-to-sahm.html). By the way, with that link I’m NOT supporting wives who don’t work and sleep with the pool boy, I’m talking about all the commenters complaining about SAHM wives who don’t cheat and are raising children/taking care of the house.

    Anyway, the old system happened to work for some but didn’t offer good options for the rest, whereas the current system allows husbands and wives to choose whichever they prefer. The happy homemakers have a chance to do that, because the option has not been erased, and the career-minded women have a chance to do that instead. For those who like statistics, the US census says: “In 2010, 23 percent of married-couple family groups with children under 15 had a stay-at-home mother, up from 21 percent in 2000.” I am intentionally not going to write a treatise here about the widespread need for two incomes, which obviously is a huge factor.

    Adultery is a sin is not sex, Jesus was not talking about an unmarried woman but a woman that was having a sex with a man that was not her husband

    This may be confused by the fact that the original article was about hypergamy, but I haven’t seen Jess at any point say she believes in the right to be adulterous. Correct me if I’m wrong, Jess. She seems to be talking about females having sex before they ever marry anyone, in which case it really is just sex, not adultery.

  • moderation

    I’m happy to have a middle ground between extreme feminism and patriarchy. In terms of malcontent, that often comes with increased expectation of happiness. I still say I’m a happier bunny than my mum. And my mum is WAY happier than any of the women before her in our family. Of course there are examples of the polar opposite. but on average we have it better than our elders id say.

    Yes – why does this trigger such anger? Although I have no statistics, I do believe there were women, maybe even lots of them, who were very happy being homemakers back when it was their best viable option [not to say only]. Apparently including your grandmother, Anacaona, which is wonderful. Likewise, even today there are plenty of women even in America who voluntarily choose to be homemakers, permanently or temporarily (Susan, it sounds like this is you!). Sometimes they’re ridiculed by their peers, and sometimes they’re dumped all over by the manosphere too (one example: http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/01/dont-cater-endlessly-to-sahm.html). By the way, with that link I’m NOT supporting wives who don’t work and sleep with the pool boy, I’m talking about all the commenters complaining about SAHM wife = lazy good fer nuthin.

    Anyway, the old system happened to work for some but didn’t offer good options for the rest, whereas the current system allows husbands and wives to choose whichever they prefer. The happy homemakers have a chance to do that, because the option has not been erased, and the career-minded women have a chance to do that instead. For those who like statistics, the most recent US census data says: “In 2010, 23 percent of married-couple family groups with children under 15 had a stay-at-home mother, up from 21 percent in 2000.” I am intentionally not going to write a treatise here about the widespread need for two incomes, which obviously is a huge factor.

    Adultery is a sin is not sex, Jesus was not talking about an unmarried woman but a woman that was having a sex with a man that was not her husband

    Maybe it’s because the original article was about hypergamy that this is apparently confusing, but I haven’t seen Jess at any point say she believes in the right to be adulterous. Correct me if I’m wrong, Jess. She seems to be talking about females having sex before they ever marry anyone, in which case it really is just sex, not adultery.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’m talking about all the commenters complaining about SAHM wife = lazy good fer nuthin.

      I suspect this reflects the personal experiences of some men whose wives were, in fact, lazy. My husband and I made that decision together when our son was not thriving in day care. It was a serious issue, because it meant that we’d be cutting our income in half. For my part, I felt that it required me to keep something close to a perfect home. Clean, neat, excellent food, children well cared for, etc. My husband has never done a load of laundry in 22 years. I handle the dry cleaning, food shopping, everything. He does the handyman stuff, trips to the hardware store, etc. Basically, I worked very hard, in appreciation of this enormous gift from my husband. He feels very strongly that it was the right call for our family.

  • Jennifer

    Brilliant article! But seriously: Eve wasn’t “bored”. Let’s talk about her in Biblical terms: life was perfect. She was tricked into wanting something more, a temptation that can snare any healthy, happy person. And Adam wanted it too; it wasn’t just her. Men too have been snared by the “do better” slang, but they were forced to deal with it practically sooner or more often than women due to their breadwinner roles.

    “Women are much more selective (or should be) about sexual partners because every sexual encounter could lead to pregnancy (theoretically, birth control notwithstanding).”

    They’re also more emotionally monogamous and needy.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    Most women have never been sahm’s because they had to work to eat.  Only the artistocratic and later, the wealthy middle class had that luxury.  Lower middle class and low income women?  Extremely rare.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    In cultures where divorce is higly stigmatized there are high % of unhappy but nevertheless married couples.  Unfortunately even divorce in the case of severe abuse is also stigmatized so people will tolerate abuse for decades, often until they are killed.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Oxytocin creates bonding and compatibility for women. ”

    Oxytocin creates temporary feelings of bonding but it does not create compatibility where there is none.

  • Anacaona

    Yes – why does this trigger such anger?

    Well Jess says she is middle ground, but if a woman chooses to abstain for sexs she quickly shames her saying she is missing out and she will ended up cheating out of not having experience, she also shames men that don’t want to marry promiscuous women, and so on for Jess moderation means being a slut and cheat and not get any consequences for it, thus she just talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. That is why she has few supporters.

    This may be confused by the fact that the original article was about hypergamy, but I haven’t seen Jess at any point say she believes in the right to be adulterous. Correct me if I’m wrong, Jess. She seems to be talking about females having sex before they ever marry anyone, in which case it really is just sex, not adultery.

    Jess is using the quote that Jesus used in the case of Adultery so it bears the fact that she picked a quote that was not aplicable to sex only but adultery as to mean what Jess feels,Jesus means.

    In cultures where divorce is higly stigmatized there are high % of unhappy but nevertheless married couples.

    Data please. Measure of happiness in marriage were divorce is easy vs divorce is not.

  • Anacaona

    Oxytocin creates temporary feelings of bonding but it does not create compatibility where there is none.

    How many times had you heard the expression “I don’t know what I saw on him/her?”,  given the chance between a powerful chemical reaction and compatibility people has the very annoying habit of picking the oxytocin over anything else, wasting years till the effects wears out and they realize there was nothing there but physical attraction. So dismissing this effect is really unpractical for anyone that wants to safely navigate the shark infested waters of modern relationships, YMMV.

  • Sandy

    Oxytocin creates temporary feelings of bonding but it does not create compatibility where there is none.

    Oxytocin creates a bond between a mother and her child. Are you saying that mother-child bond is a temporary feeling?

  • Sandy

    2 Mrs Robinson

    In cultures where divorce is higly stigmatized there are high % of unhappy but nevertheless married couples.

    That is a feminist myth which has no basis in facts or statistics

    Unfortunately even divorce in the case of severe abuse is also stigmatized so people will tolerate abuse for decades, often until they are killed.

    Riiight, that’s why in traditional societies streets were always littered with thousands of women killed by their husbands

  • Jennifer

    “Welcome to the club of trying to make Jess make some sense”

    Jesus Christ, you mean? I’m sorry you think He doesn’t.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Jess Christ..

  • Anacaona

    Jesus Christ, you mean? I’m sorry you think He doesn’t.

    ??? I mean Jess our rabid feminist commenter. The lord has nothing to do with this except when she misquote him.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Anacaona/Sandy….oxytocin and temporary (?) feelings of bonding

    Strictly as a hypothesis: maybe the initial rush of oxytocin is from sex, or nursing, or whatever, but it becomes self-sustaining—ie, the lover or the child is imprinted in a way which results in oxytocin production without the need for the original stimulus. Kind of like the way you launch a rocket into orbit with vast amounts of energy but need no energy whatsoever to *keep* it in orbit.

    BTW, there was an interesting TV program about dogs & humans last week…it seems that dog-petting increases oxytocin for both the human and the dog.

    Susan, sometime a post summarizing the actual research on oxytocin and other hormone effects could be very interesting. I suspect there’s often a pretty big disconnect between (a)the actual research, and (b)the press release from the university’s PR department, and (c) the interpretation of (b) by scientifically-illiterate media types who write the articles most people see.

     

     

     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @david foster
      That’s a good idea re oxytocin. I’ve learned (the hard way) that feminists despise oxytocin, and deny its effects. It really would be good to do an objective assessment. I have read before that it is so significant that it can cause a woman to “catch feelings” for a man she’s had sex with, even if she doesn’t like or respect him. If you think about that, it explains some of the dysfunction in the SMP.

  • jess

    Prince Regent: “Did not our Lord give a fish to a lonely worm?”

    BlackAdder the III: “Nope”

  • jess

    Mrs Robinson & jklm,

    Thank you so much for pointing out the flaws in some of the others arguments here.

    Would you believe some here consider themselves debating experts? even going as far as flinging out accusations of straw men etc?

    pair bonding- quite right Mrs R- fundamental compatibility is key to a happy LTR

    adultery- yes jklm, you are right, I only mentioned sex in of itself. In the 80′s little catholic Jess was taught in no uncertain terms that non marital sex was a sin and divorce just as sinful. There were also some illuminating biblical ‘passages’ on anal sex. (sorry – terrible joke- Im so not gonna meet St Peter)

  • jess

    moderation,

    sorry, I have had trouble scrolling the pages here and have missed comments left, right and centre.

    You make fantastic points and I also appreciate your pointing out the somewhat unfair misrepresentation of my comments.

    FYI, for the past 2 years I have made comments about the history of anti- female discrimination and I’ve been met with a lot of hostility and denial here. From domestic violence to voting to land rights- apparently its a feminist conspiracy cooking up fictions to dupe the world into sympathy! So don’t be too surprised at the posts that will likely follow…

    Jx

  • jess

    Sandy

    A little commen sense may be applied here.

    Reliable data for unhappy but stable marriages isn’t always going to be easy to collect is it? It tends not to be a standard census question. Only when a couple divorces does it become a statistic.

    However there was a time when divorce was almost nil, now you say divorce can be over 50%? My guess is that if you were to go back in time a 100 years and make divorce accessible and socially and economically viable/acceptable, the divorce rate would rocket.

    In terms of how many LTRs are in trouble that have actually tried to get help- I suggest you call ‘RELATE’- they will give you all the data you like.

    As for domestic violence- go look it up and also the police estimations for under reporting. All of these cases are in LTRs that are not exactly happy.

    If this is really is all such a myth, please pop along to your local crown court gallery and sit in on the domestic abuse cases- it may be enlightening.

  • Jennifer

    “??? I mean Jess our rabid feminist commenter”

    LOL! I could have sworn you said Jesus :P

    Jess Christ, that’s funny Byron, like she’s a feminist messiah.

  • Jennifer

    “From domestic violence to voting to land rights- apparently its a feminist conspiracy cooking up fictions to dupe the world into sympathy!”

    I get you there. Thing is, many men are so tired of hearing it that their minds switch it off automatically. Kind of like me and severe patriarchy in certain religious branches.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “That is a feminist myth which has no basis in facts or statistics”

    Which countries are you personally familiar with and which countries have you researched the relevant facts and statistics of?

  • jess

    Jennifer, are you aware of a Viz character called “Milli Tant”

    it was from a uk satirical comic in the 90s

    oh and it you want extreme patriarchy then you should meet my family elders- you would love em’

    now please will you excuse me whilst I attend to my hand and feet wounds and chat to my apostles, St Marcotte, St Freidman and St Dworkin.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Susan, sometime a post summarizing the actual research on oxytocin and other hormone effects could be very interesting. I suspect there’s often a pretty big disconnect between (a)the actual research, and (b)the press release from the university’s PR department, and (c) the interpretation of (b) by scientifically-illiterate media types who write the articles most people see.”

    Exactly what you see in the comments on blogs like these.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “ given the chance between a powerful chemical reaction and compatibility people has the very annoying habit of picking the oxytocin ”

    Is that oxytocin or dopamine or adrenaline or testosterone or any number of sex hormones, or, or, or…..?

  • Sandy

    Sandy

    A little commen sense may be applied here.

    Reliable data for unhappy but stable marriages isn’t always going to be easy to collect is it? It tends not to be a standard census question. Only when a couple divorces does it become a statistic.

    So you don’t have a point and don’t have data, I get it.

    However there was a time when divorce was almost nil, now you say divorce can be over 50%? My guess is that if you were to go back in time a 100 years and make divorce accessible and socially and economically viable/acceptable, the divorce rate would rocket.

    SMP right now and SMP before were very different.

    As for domestic violence- go look it up and also the police estimations for under reporting. All of these cases are in LTRs that are not exactly happy.
    If this is really is all such a myth, please pop along to your local crown court gallery and sit in on the domestic abuse cases- it may be enlightening.

    I don’t have any crown courts in thousand miles around me.

  • Anacaona

    If this is really is all such a myth, please pop along to your local crown court gallery and sit in on the domestic abuse cases- it may be enlightening.

    As soon as you go to family court, go and spent a year or two in the third world that might enlighten you.

    Is that oxytocin or dopamine or adrenaline or testosterone or any number of sex hormones, or, or, or…..?

    Do you know the difference between the chemists released during arousal and the ones released during bonding?

  • Jess

    Anacoana,
    I had no idea chemists were being kept in captivity.
    If they are being released I’m sure they are more keen on chemical bonding.

  • Anacaona

    @Jess

    Sorry I meant chemicals.

  • Abbot

    she also shames men that don’t want to marry promiscuous women,

    Because its exclusively a male option that controls women in the present and leads to unhappiness for them in the future. It also infuriates feminists knowing that men can direct women’s behavior with their views. There is is no effective or plausible defense against it. Laughable attempts at shaming is all there is.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “That’s a good idea re oxytocin. I’ve learned (the hard way) that feminists despise oxytocin, and deny its effects. It really would be good to do an objective assessment. I have read before that it is so significant that it can cause a woman to “catch feelings” for a man she’s had sex with, even if she doesn’t like or respect him.”

    It appears that Abbot also thinks it can make someone “compatible” with you when they aren’t.

    “As soon as you go to family court, go and spent a year or two in the third world that might enlighten you.”

    Been there, done that.

     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It appears that Abbot also thinks it can make someone “compatible” with you when they aren’t.

      I don’t think anyone is claiming that oxytocin makes people compatible. What it does is increase the chances of your staying with someone who is incompatible, based on the chemical bonding experience you’re having during sex.

  • Will

    People, as a scientist with a good bit of experience with evolution I need to say slow it down a little and take some time to understand what you are talking about. Evolution of course dose work on people’s behaviors, but in fairly limited ways. Evolution effects GENTIC variation. Dose genetics affect behavior? Of course it dose, dose it predetermine behavior? Absolutely not. First behavior or phenotype meaning it is determined by genetics + environment. Since humans are a remarkably homogeniouse genetic background and since there are extremely large variations in mating behavior between humans this means that the environment part of the equation is the dominant one. This means that culture and society are the more important factor. In fact humans big evolutionary breakthrough is that we have a neocortex and can therefore change our behavior faster than evolution alone would allow for. Look at all of the changes that have happened in the last 100 years in the way men and women interact, we have not evolved those changes, we got those by using are brains to come up with different ways to behave. That means stop blaming our behavior today on misplaced evolutionary cues, most of these have little affect compared to our sociatl cues, and the ones that do are mostly for good reasons, ie strong men may be better at killing buffalo (not useful), but they also tend to be healthier with more balanced metabolisms and immune systems (very useful). A couple other points, oxytocin is a incredibly new field that is very poorly understood. It is definitely interesting, and almost certainly important, but it is way to early to be ascribing complex behavior to small changes in oxytocin levels. Last thing get over the alpha, beta, gamma thing. It is mostly pointless in our society, in a small tribe of 20-80 individuals there would be a clear “alpha” male, in massive societies with constantly shifting interactions it is an antiquated notion. I will use my self as an example, I am terrible at going into bars and picking up women, I feel uncomfortable and shy (sounds like a beta). But when i go to a scientific conference I am reasonably close to worshiped by my pears and have 0 problem scoring any single woman I want (sounds like an alpha), which am I? Neither because we don’t live in a small migratory heard/pack. Think of it like this look at a pack of wolves and you can pick out the alpha male no problem, look at a colony of emperor penguins and tell me which ones are the alphas. You wont be able to because there aren’t alphas in the way that people here are using the term. Sorry for the length of the rant. Once again chill out on the evolution, behavior and neuro stuff, it is all real and all there, but it is not the true explanation for any individuals behavior.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Will
      Thanks for that awesome comment. I don’t know if genetics is your thing, but I am very interested in research looking at the impact of genetics on behavior, e.g. DRD4 dopamine receptor.

      Also, some researchers have suggested that women who “have sex like a man” are very possibly higher in testosterone than most women. In other words, they are like a man, at least in that regard.

      Although we may all be extremely similar, obviously key differences do exist, as demonstrated by personality traits, which are usually observable from birth.

      Finally, I have heard there is research that shows that you can change your genes over time. The example I saw was that a slim woman will pass on “slim” genes to her baby, but if she gains 100 lbs. and has another baby, that baby will get her “obese” genes.

      I don’t mean to burden you into tutoring here, I’m just extremely interested in this particular field of inquiry.

  • GudEnuf

    “The example I saw was that a slim woman will pass on “slim” genes to her baby, but if she gains 100 lbs. and has another baby, that baby will get her “obese” genes”

     

    It’s called epigenetics. Pretty cool huh?

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “pair bonding- quite right Mrs R- fundamental compatibility is key to a happy LTR”

    Jess, I’d also wager that people in unhappy, dysfunctional LTRs are also pair bonded.  Its called “co-dependency”.   Its a negative sort of compatibility where they feed off of each other.  One is an enabler and of course the one enabled feels he or she is compatible because the enabler enables him or her.  A non-enabler who would not put up with dysfunctional bullshit would be considered “incompatible with me”.

    The same co-dependency is found in appearantly functional LTRs where the couple grow dependent on each other despite not having any compatibility or even attraction on a personal level.    Some arranged marriages are like that, as well as other marriages for convenience.

  • Will

    @ Susan Walsh

    Hi Susan, for the record I am an immunologist by training so I have a good background in evolution and tracking evolutionary changes and population diversity (the immune system is probably the most genetically plastic system in the body). This ties in somewhat with behavior since allot of data suggests that much of what we find attractive in other people at the “chemical” level has to do with how different our immune systems are. But for the most part most of my knowledge of behavior and human reproductive behavior comes from being personally interested in it, not being professionally interested.

    For some of your other points/questions.

    With the obese women GudEnuf is correct that one possible explanation for this is epigenetics which is a pretty cool field at the 30,000ft view (it is mind numbing to watch a talk on it). It basically studies how genes are turned on and off and under some circumstances environment can appear to permanently turn genes on and/or off inappropriately, this is definitely heritable between cells, ie when a cell divides its daughter cells will have the same epigenetic traits. I don’t think (although am not sure) that epigenetic changes that happen after birth can be heritable to a woman’s children since I believe that eggs don’t undergo epigenetic changes when other cells in the body do. However I do know of one concrete example along the lines that you are talking about but it is not genetic. It turns out that allot to do with how we uptake and use calories has to do with the bacteria that live in our intestines. It has been shown that diet influences the composition of these bacteria and that certain types of bacteria seem to promote being fat or skinny. What really sucks is that the bacteria that promote you getting fat are enriched by the type of diet that makes you get fat so it is something of a vicious cycle. This is heritable from mother to child since a baby is first colonized by its mothers bacteria during birth (this is one of the problems with c section is that baby’s often get improperly colonized). This means that an obese woman will likely colonize her baby with bacteria that promote obesity and that a skinny woman will will colonize her baby with bacteria that promote being skinny. But a cautionary note is that obesity like sexual behavior is an incredibly complicated process with dozens in not hundreds of genes and environmental factors contributing. It is easy and nice for us to think of one certain problem being the problem (I got colonized with fat promoting bacteria or men are pigs because we are the progeny of stone aged players), but it is never really that simple.

    For the behavior stuff you probably know more about dopamine receptors and reward pathways than I do so I won’t comment there. Obviously as you said there is diversity between people in how they socially function that almost certainly has a genetic component. But the point I would like to make is that the evolutionary psychology thrown around allot that women like men who can provide and that men want to have sex with lots of different women because we are the children of those men and women is intellectually lazy. After all it that were the case all men would be “alpha” men and all women would only find NBA players sexy (tall, strong and fast) but we all know this isn’t true. I think the authors point 1 on finding a better man with re evaluating the relationships with men that you have had is far more on point, for any given woman how her dad treated her has much more to do with how she will relate to men than what type of men human women chose to have sex with 200,000 years ago. At some point latter I will try to write about the testosterone thing since that is interesting but complicated.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Will,
      That is so helpful and fascinating, thanks very much for providing your insight. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on testosterone.

  • Doug1

    Hope –

    You’re right that men aren’t hypergamous.

    However it’s not the case that men don’t care about a woman’s social status at all, at least if it’s marriage we’re talking about or a serious monogamous LTR.  For casual sex or flings, yeah her social status makes no or only a slight difference to most guys.  However most guys who went to Ivy League schools or newer and more western equivalents usually want to marry a girl that at least went to a good college.   Most guys who were raised in even the lower upper class wouldn’t want to marry a girl from the working class unless maybe if she was an actress or model, which confers status right there, but upper middle class origins would be just fine for most if she’s real pretty.

  • Doug1

    Most guys I think want to marry a girl that has at least slightly lower status than himself, and definitely makes at least somewhat less money.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “Most guys I think want to marry a girl that has at least slightly lower status than himself”

    A woman’s social status is based largely on her looks.  Most guys would prefer to marry a girl that has at least slightly higher looks than himself.

  • http://www.yesmrsrobinson.com Mrs. Robinson

    “I don’t think anyone is claiming that oxytocin makes people compatible. What it does is increase the chances of your staying with someone who is incompatible, based on the chemical bonding experience you’re having during sex.”

    Yes.  That’s why I pointed out to Abbot that oxytocin is temporary and has nothing to do with actual compatibility. I’d even wager that sometimes the most compatible people do not pair bond because they don’t do oxytocin producing things together.

  • jess

    Will,

    Fantastic post- and you make great points at the end there.

    I must say I do love your typos.

    dose=does?&  ”I am reasonably close to worshiped by my pears”

    I have a vision of an oversexed bowl of fruit chasing you around a scientific gathering.

    I guess they would be ‘conference pears then?’

  • jess

    Mrs R

    Indeed- seen co dependancy many times

    In a previous career I worked with vulnerable families.There have been times when I ditched the handbook and pretty much pleaded with some women to leave their violent husbands. Rarely did I succeed- despite repeated and escalating injuries.

    Somehow these women had fallen into this dependancy- they couldn’t imagine a world without their other half. even when in a hospital bed nor even when their own children were being abused.

    As for arranged marriages- such an awfully cruel and wasteful institution. So terribly sad.

  • jess

    Will,

    I too look forward to your thoughts on Toblerone.

     

     

    (ps just teasing- you write very well and I am the queen of the iPad typo)

  • Rum

    Jess

    Female hindbrains respond to violence committed by men. That is one reason women in these situation always seem to end up with another “abuser” if they lose the one they are with.

    And since when do “abusive” men go without girlfriends?

  • jess

    Rum

    Whilst I have seen that dynamic it isn’t always the case.

    And even when it is, I had soften wondered if its the low esteem of the women that attracts the abuser. rather than her seeking out him. or both?

    as for what abusers do between girlfriends? i suspect they find a different victim- kid, old lady, prosititue?

    as for violence being an attractant?- I don’t think I ever saw that in all the cases I ever worked with…

  • Jennifer

    Brilliant, Will; thanks!!

    “most guys who went to Ivy League schools or newer and more western equivalents usually want to marry a girl that at least went to a good college.   Most guys who were raised in even the lower upper class wouldn’t want to marry a girl from the working class unless maybe if she was an actress or model, which confers status right there, but upper middle class origins would be just fine for most if she’s real pretty.”

    Awesome. Thanks for that insight Doug, I wondered about it.

  • Desiderius

    Conventional Wisdom affirming intellectual drops blatant DHV, progfems fall all over themselves to eat it up.

    Dog bites man.

    P.S. Jess, negs don’t work on guys

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    Looks is not the same as social status.

    Mrs Robinson, still spinning the idea that men are hypergamous?

    Shouldnt it be clear by now that men go by the physical, and women by the social?

  • Anacaona

    Been there, done that.

    ??? This was for privileged Jess and her very first world view of life. But if you think you know more about it…

    I think the authors point 1 on finding a better man with re evaluating the relationships with men that you have had is far more on point, for any given woman how her dad treated her has much more to do with how she will relate to men than what type of men human women chose to have sex with 200,000 years ago.

    I tried to condense a lot of information in a complex matter in a short post (and ask Susan this thing was twice as long) but I think that I mentioned the whole some men in the extremes (total cads vs total dads) with everyone in the middle with different degrees and that culture shapes this people behaviors so your point is taken but the past was also important. Even in society were cheaters were killed and chopped to pieces cheating existed given that the first imperative is survive anyone that can override it for the chance of reproduce most have a strong wiring to do so. Hence is a mix of many factors that do include genetics, YMMV as usual.

     

  • SayWhaat

    P.S. Jess, negs don’t work on guys

    Really? I thought negs by both sexes allowed for nice banter.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      P.S. Jess, negs don’t work on guys

      Really? I thought negs by both sexes allowed for nice banter.

      if by negs you mean playful teasing, which is how guys often rush to defend the use of the neg, then yes, it definitely works on guys. That was always my go-to flirtation, and it rarely failed me. I’m not saying it works on all men, but it definitely works on the smart ones with a sense of humor, which is all I really ever cared about.

      A while back I asked guys here to define femininity and wrote a post about it. One of their top examples was playful teasing.

  • VJ

    I dunno, get pregnant early to aviod these problems?

    http://girl-mom.com/

     

    Cheers, ‘VJ’

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VJ
      That blog by Bee Lavendar is very interesting and well written. I admire her enormously. i can’t believe a professor told her that having the child was anti-feminist. That’s in line with something I’ve observed over the years. Feminists actively promote abortion. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who said that it should be legal, but rare, feminists want abortion to be legal and frequent. I observed this personally at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser years ago.

  • Desiderius

    SayWhaat,

    “Really? I thought negs by both sexes allowed for nice banter.”

    Very rarely does what works on one work on the other.

    Mirroring + apex fallacy = social disaster. Maybe that’s what undermined your party.

    “‘From that standpoint, I don’t have everything,’ West says from the first floor of his lavish home, standing in a room adjacent to both a movie theater and wine cellar. ‘Self-esteem is something I still battle. People look at me and say you’ve got fame, you’ve got admiration, you’ve done this, you’ve done that. As far as I’m concerned, I haven’t done anything. I’ve just fulfilled a dream of competing. I could be special in some ways. Even though I felt at times, ‘My goodness, you’re among the upper echelon,’ there is still a huge void there. A huge void. It is about self-esteem. That’s a thing that has always been a real complex part of my life.”

    Jerry West (the guy on the NBA logo)

    Dads are driven by women that inspire them, that see the best in them. Negging is the opposite of that.

  • Ribbon Butterfly

    So I get that the tendency for women to seek mates of higher social status is called hypergamy.

    What is the tendency for men to seek mates of higher physical attractiveness called?

    Male commenters have been replying with statements that I broadly sum up as, “Men seek variety, and that is not hypergamy.” But anecdotally (and, face it, deep in our black hearts) we know that men will “trade up” for a hotter, younger woman (preferably LOTS of hotter, younger women, I mean, would you want a hot harem or a lukewarm harem?)- just as a woman will “trade up” for a higher-status man.

    If the term “hypergamy” is not to be applied to this tendency in male behaviour, what would be the correct term?

    (This is asked out of curiosity, not for confrontation.)

  • Some Handle

    I observed this personally at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser years ago.

    I would pay you money to hear about that fundraiser. I would pay you money to attend more fundraisers and get some real inside information.

  • Some Handle

    Male commenters have been replying with statements that I broadly sum up as, “Men seek variety, and that is not hypergamy.” But anecdotally (and, face it, deep in our black hearts) we know that men will “trade up” for a hotter, younger woman (preferably LOTS of hotter, younger women, I mean, would you want a hot harem or a lukewarm harem?)- just as a woman will “trade up” for a higher-status man.

    Regardless of whether you agree with these ideas or not, here it is:

    Hypergamy: One person (a man), solely controlling or accessing the sexual delights of multiple people (i.e. girls)

    Trading Up: One person ( a man) dumping one other person (a girl) for another (a hotter girl).

    If you are interested in things like Relational Algebra, you can describe Hypergamy as being a one-to-many relationship while trading up involves one-to-one relationships.

    Note: your trading up example actually has good potential at highlighting female hypergamy. For instance, if the dumped girl, while still angry, remains “in love” with the guy that dumped her and keeps hoping against hope that he will come back to her, well, she has already started down the hypergamous path of multiple girls being “faithful” to one guy.

  • OTC

    Ribbon; that is polygamy. The desire is variety, and if she is hotter then its a bonus. That’s why hugh grant cheated on Liz hurley with a fug.

  • anonymous
    OTC

    Ribbon; that is polygamy. The desire is variety, and if she is hotter then its a bonus. That’s why hugh grant cheated on Liz hurley with a fug.

    Yes, Hugh (Arnold) and others will cheat with any available chick but they won’t COMMIT to a lower status woman.

    What’s it called when a guy (physically a 5) rejects a girl 5 who’s in his same socioeconomic/educational status as he is, but he would commit to a girl if she’s 7+ even if she’s of lower socioeconomic/educational status?

    Now, before you say that guys don’t do this, remember that there have been guys (lower status) who’ve written right on this blog (and elsewhere in the mansosphere) that they rather stick to porn than commit to an unattractive girl of their rank.  Is there a name for this?

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    they rather stick to porn than commit to an unattractive girl of their rank.  Is there a name for this?

    Intelligence?

    Why commit to a person you are not attracted to?

     

  • anonymous

    @ yohami

    Why commit to a person you are not attracted to?

    I totally agree if attraction is what people are looking for and lack of it is a dealbreaker,  even when it means that most people will end up with cats or with porn. Their choice.

    Still, no one’s giving the term for when a guy rejects a same rank female, what’s the name for it?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      People are not automatically attracted to others based on rank. Just because you’re a 7 doesn’t mean you’ll be attracted to all 7s. Nor should anyone feel guilty for that! The problem comes when a 7 is only attracted to 8s and higher. Also, for males the number system doesn’t quite work, since there are numerous components to attraction. There are male 10s who can’t sustain attraction with a female, and “sexy ugly” guys who do extremely well. I have been attracted to extremely handsome men, and also to physically unprepossessing men. There is no predictive value in these rating systems we concoct. Even men will argue on and on about whether so and so is hot or not. We saw that clearly enough on the Kate Bolick thread.

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    Still, no one’s giving the term for when a guy rejects a same rank female, what’s the name for it?

    Is the guy rejecting her BECAUSE of the rank? I… doubt it.

    But I can see that happening if the guy doesnt feel he´s good enough for her / not strong enough to keep her. Women aim up and men aim down. Call it male lowergamy.

  • anonymous

    YOHAMI

    Is the guy rejecting her BECAUSE of the rank? I… doubt it.

    Yes. There’s a lot of pressure from family and their social circle to compete with one another. It’s caused a lot of the men and women in this group to prefer remaining single than to “settle” for their equal. I’m not sure that they’d be this way if the family hadn’t been pressuring them since childhood. Only a few in the group who disregard approval have coupled with anyone.

    Anyway…… then there’s no name for it, right?

  • anonymous

    YOHAMI

    Is the guy rejecting her BECAUSE of the rank? I… doubt it.

    So, yeah, it may not have been natural for him or the other guys to do so, but due to the pressure to outdo their competitors, it’s now in their psyche, kwim?

  • anonymous
    YOHAMI

    Is the guy rejecting her BECAUSE of the rank? I… doubt it.

    But I can see that happening if the guy doesnt feel he´s good enough for her / not strong enough to keep her. Women aim up and men aim down. Call it male lowergamy.’

    Oh, I missed this part.  No, it’s not rejecting equal rank for lower. It’s aiming for higher only instilled by competitiveness in their social circle. It’s not limited to who has the hottest wife, but who has the best job, best house, best cars, best vacations, etc. etc.. Only now that external pressure to get “only the best” has been internalized.

  • Desiderius

    There is research that shows that the happiest pairings involve a slightly higher status male with a slightly better-looking wife.

     

  • Desiderius

    Male negging works because it fits with female attractors (it signals higher status).

    Female negging works when the rest of the market is bringing the strong Doris Day/Donna Reed and a little sass will set you apart. To put it mildly, that’s not this market.

    Sure, some playfulness/sense of humor is necessary for everyone, but look at the online dating profiles. Every woman is trying to claim that’s what she brings. To differentiate yourself today, pay attention to how supportive, encouraging, welcoming, understanding Susan is. Her sassiness is a nice dessert for that meal, but it isn’t the sassiness that ultimately satisfies.

    The better negging works on the guy, the more of a player you have on your hands.

     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The better negging works on the guy, the more of a player you have on your hands.

      Oh, good insight here. I didn’t even think of that. Yes, negging a guy who grins and winks in response means you’re dealing with one cool customer. A lot of beta guys would be mortified. It’s the same with negging women, actuallly – negging was designed to take SHBs down a peg. I’ve heard from women of middling attractiveness getting told they are too fat in a bar by a guy who had just bought them a drink. There are a lot of pathetic PUA attempts, apparently.

      I once had a guy in dental school tell me I should get my teeth straightened. It really pissed me off, so he said, “Never mind, they give you character!” No, just no. Next! A neg is not an easy thing to deliver – if it doesn’t make the woman laugh in a self-deprecating way, it’s a bust.

  • Sassy6519

    There is research that shows that the happiest pairings involve a slightly higher status male with a slightly better-looking wife.

    This makes the most sense to me.

    But I can see that happening if the guy doesnt feel he´s good enough for her / not strong enough to keep her. Women aim up and men aim down.

    This is true for status. Women prefer to aim up and men tend to aim down a little. This isn’t true for men when it comes to looks though. Women prefer to aim up and men also prefer to aim up as well. I highly doubt anyone wants to aim down in the looks department when it comes to looking for a long term partner/commitment. A man will have sex with a woman of lower attractiveness because the sex is the primary goal. Unattractive women can satisfy that urge because men don’t discriminate against vaginas. When it comes to finding “wife material”, however, most men would much rather find a woman of equal or higher attractiveness than himself. Evolutionarily speaking, the more attractive the woman, the better gene quality she has.

     

  • Desiderius

    For an example of how a non-playful neg can blow up in your face, notice the response I got from my original comment regarding Will’s admirers. It wasn’t meant as a neg*, but the result is the same. Also a good example of how not to call someone out.

    Cynicism is anti-game.

    * – at least three things set me off. Two of them could be settled over a beer with Will and are off-topic here (evopsych could use a healthy does of skepticism, so I hope Will sticks around), and the other one, well, there are ways out of the bitter beta penalty box, but explaining/defending oneself is not one of them…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Desiderius

      Really smart guys always complain that women don’t tingle from intelligence, and it’s just not true. If you’re really smart, and you’re not getting mileage out of that, you need to address something else. Your intelligence is not what is holding you back.

      At least for smart women, a guy like Will comes along, establishes himself right out of the box as highly credible (and I can tell you his email address confirms he is highly credible) with a reasoned argument. I’m a real evo psych girl, but Will’s argument intrigued me and made me want to know more. I am in pursuit of truth and knowledge, not some pat explanation to fit my agenda.

      That’s sexy. I’m not saying I was aroused by Will’s comment, I was intellectually stimulated. But the distance between the brain and the clitoris is very, very short, and smart men would do well to accept that and make the most of it. Obviously, YMMV, you’re not going to impress Snooki with this approach :P

  • Ramble

    This is true for status. Women prefer to aim up and men tend to aim down a little.

    I am not sure how many men “aim down” when it comes to status. Yes, I understand that there are not that many plumbers looking to ask out female CEOs, but, in general, I think that most men give her “status” little thought. Or, to quote Seinfeld, “Oh, you work in a slaughterhouse? That’s great. So, you just chop their heads right off?”

    IOW, we don’t care.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ramble

    I do believe that if given a choice, most men would prefer to make more money than their significant other. It’s a matter of pride and masculinity. Whether people like it or not, a man’s worth to a woman is highly tied to his ability to be a provider, just like a woman’s worth is highly tied to how attractive she is.

    That’s why many women are okay with overlooking a man’s physical appearance if he has a lot of money. Wealth is a sign of power, and power is ultimately attractive to women.

  • anonymous

    @ Desiderius

    There is research that shows that the happiest pairings involve a slightly higher status male with a slightly better-looking wife.

    The vast majority of the couples that *I know*  that last long-term are like this. The man makes more money, the woman is better looking.

  • Will

    @Anacaona

    I tried to condense a lot of information in a complex matter in a short post (and ask Susan this thing was twice as long) but I think that I mentioned the whole some men in the extremes (total cads vs total dads) with everyone in the middle with different degrees and that culture shapes this people behaviors so your point is taken but the past was also important. Even in society were cheaters were killed and chopped to pieces cheating existed given that the first imperative is survive anyone that can override it for the chance of reproduce most have a strong wiring to do so. Hence is a mix of many factors that do include genetics, YMMV as usual.

    I completely agree that genetics and history dose matter to a certain degree, you are of course correct that there are a few extremes and a lot of people in between the extremes. But my point is that for most individuals genetics and evolution won’t matter all that much. The reason for this is because behavioral traits are very complex genetically, a change in any one or even several genes is unlikely to read out in a strong phenotype. Now I completely believe that for the population evolution and genetics matters allot. Obviously human men have a predisposition to want sex with lots of women, but for any individual that means nothing. What I am basically arguing against is I think lots of people use the genetics and evolution arguments in a somewhat defeatist way. I was born with the genetics to be a “beta” male so I will be a “beta” male, men were born genetically prone to look for lots of women so they will look for lots of women etc. Personally I completely reject that kind of thinking. I was born dyslexic (hens the typos), that means genetically I was predisposed to fail at school and become a criminal. But I had great parents and circumstances and instead succeeded, the genetics and evolution meant nothing to me personally. So in the end, and based on your post I think you would agree, you can’t change genetics (yet) and you can’t easily change society, but neither of those things needs to dictate anything to you as an individual. If you don’t want a cad, go find a guy who isn’t a cad, you may have to take a trade off on something else, but that is life.

     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Will

      . But I had great parents and circumstances and instead succeeded, the genetics and evolution meant nothing to me personally. So in the end, and based on your post I think you would agree, you can’t change genetics (yet) and you can’t easily change society, but neither of those things needs to dictate anything to you as an individual. If you don’t want a cad, go find a guy who isn’t a cad, you may have to take a trade off on something else, but that is life.

      This is the premise of the blog. I don’t care what the SMP is like – the truth is that 1/3 of college women will not have the opportunity to marry college educated males. OK, well that sucks for women. So what are you going to do? If you have any sense (unfortunately, not a given, even among smart women) you will think about what it’s going to take to get you in the 2/3 that does marry. (Obviously, if you are a sex positive feminist of uncertain gender, none of this applies – I write for women who want that brass ring of husband and family.)

      As I see it, change is really only possible at the individual level. And that change can be immediate. How long will it take to change the culture? Another 50 years? The pendulum is already swinging – there is backlash against hookup culture, and it’s growing. But that will take at least two generations of college students to make a real difference. In the meantime, I suggest individuals split from the pack.

  • Ribbon Butterfly

    @ Some Handle and OTC:

    Looking at your definitions, I see that they are causing some confusion. The terms being used are handled in a very different manner here than I previously understood. So I wiki’d them, using Wikipedia as a proxy for what a reasonable person would take as definitions. For example, Some Handle writes:

    Hypergamy: One person (a man), solely controlling or accessing the sexual delights of multiple people (i.e. girls)

    But we have an anthropological term for “one male solely controlling sexual access to several females,” and that’s polyGYNY. Some Handle’s definition doesn’t describe the behaviour that commenters are talking about, anyway: the tendency of women to date/marry/sex upwards on the social ladder.

    I submit that “hypergamy” is “women aiming higher.” The effect may be that “one man has many women (polygyny)” but the behaviour of “women aiming higher (hypergamy)” is the cause.

    Nor would the behaviour of “men aiming higher” (sexually OR maritally) be captured by the word polygamy. Polygamy just means multiple mating, for either sex. (In humans, it often has an observable result in polygyny, but the term polygamy itself describes multiple-mating behaviour of both sexes. The opposite, “one woman has many men,” is polyandry.) And people on this thread and at this website have been applying the term polygamy to both sexes, which precludes it from being used as a term to describe the behaviour of “men aiming higher.”

    Now, “Trade Up”: If the definition of “trade up” is “One person ( a man) dumping one other person (a girl) for another (a hotter girl),” then how is that any different from “one person (a woman) dumping one other person (a boy) for another (a hotter boy),” which is hypergamy?

    If you removed all the parentheses, that would just be “one person dumping one other person for another,” then… well, men have SOMETHING that results in “aim higher” behaviour, too. They may aim higher for a harem of 8s instead of a harem of 5s, but the word to describe their aiming is not “polygamy,” and not “trading up,” and looks a lot like “hypergamy,” predicated on physical attractiveness. The mere preference for a harem of 8s over a harem of 5s is some kind of “aim higher.”

    To head off the next commenter at the pass: I think one of the next responses is going to be “read Yohami’s comment, men just want to have sex with any woman, hot or not, at any time, all the time. They want variety.” I accept this. I don’t argue it. In line with that, what term describes the behaviour of men aiming to date/marry/sex up with the hottest women? To put it another way, what terms describe “the pursuit of the hottest babes” as opposed to “the pursuit of all vaginas”?

    Is the ideology here that “the pursuit of the hottest babes” doesn’t exist?

  • Will

    @Susan,

    Hi Susan, about the testosterone thing, I can completely believe that women who have more testosterone have a stronger sex drive. Anyone who either has been a teenage boy or has watched a teenage boy go through puberty knows that testosterone will jack your sex drive. But of course extra testosterone will do lots of different things to women since hormones function in extremely complicated cascades and feedback loops were changing one will usually change lots of other ones. Most significantly for testosterone and women, testosterone is a bio precursor of estrogen, meaning that for most women extra testosterone actually means extra estrogen (the exception is if you have extra testosterone because your body is not efficient in making the conversion to estrogen). A cool example I read about a while ago (I have been trying to find the article and can’t track it down, sorry) is that lots of the most statuesque women (think Victoria secret models) tend to have high testosterone, this makes them taller and have a lower body fat percentage, but they then also have more estrogen causing them to have extra feminized faces and bodies. Now if the testosterone hypothesis for extra sex drive is correct I can now fantasize that Victoria’s secret models also like to have sex like men, AWESOME!

    On genetics and sex drive here is a very cool study in PLOS about the genetics of homosexual men. Basically it suggests that male homosexuality should be thought of instead as androphilia because the sisters, maternal aunts and maternal cousins of gay men tend to have many more children and sex partners. This might be the answer for the conundrum of how homosexuality hasn’t evolved out since the androphilia gene/gene’s convey an advantage to the females that carry them. More importantly it means straight men should make friends with any gay men they know so that they can be introduced to their female relatives.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Will

      A cool example I read about a while ago (I have been trying to find the article and can’t track it down, sorry) is that lots of the most statuesque women (think Victoria secret models) tend to have high testosterone, this makes them taller and have a lower body fat percentage, but they then also have more estrogen causing them to have extra feminized faces and bodies. Now if the testosterone hypothesis for extra sex drive is correct I can now fantasize that Victoria’s secret models also like to have sex like men, AWESOME!

      This is a fascinating topic. Several years ago Jeffrey Eugenides wrote the bestseller Middlesex about a hermaphrodite. Although it was a novel, he did a great deal of research and one of the things he included in the book was that several supermodels are actually hermaphrodites. There is a certain kind of hermaphroditism that results in slim hips, long legs and large breasts – precisely the preferred Victoria’s Secret model body type. Apparently, these females have a vaginal pouch rather than fully formed reproductive systems. It has long been claimed that Jamie Lee Curtis is a famous example. I would swear Gisele Bundchen is another, but alas, she has borne a child.

      There is a fascinating website that tracks the loss of femininity over time as a cultural ideal, and claims that Victoria’s Secret models are in fact highly masculine:

      http://www.femininebeauty.info/sexy-fashion-models

      It’s quite compelling. But not as compelling as that research on gay men! Wow! The next 20 years or so are going to be a wild ride, in terms of genetic research. It will be fascinating how all of this goes down politically.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I do believe that if given a choice, most men would prefer to make more money than their significant other. It’s a matter of pride and masculinity.

    It’s not that guys prefer that their significant other to make less money than them. We just know if she makes more money than us, it’s a lot more likely she won’t respect us.

    It’s just playing the odds. Our real preference is that she respects us, and making more money than her is a means to that end.

    You’re never going to hear a guy say “Man, if only she made less money than me she’d be perfect.”  But you will hear “She’s great, but I wish she was a little hotter.”

  • Will

    I think Mr. Hendricks has it right. Money isn’t what matters, its respect, if you make less money than your wife/girlfriend, but are in a position were you command more respect and social status I think most men will be very happy with that. I know lots of professors who have wives that are lawyers, or realtors and probably make more,but it doesn’t really matter because the husband is in a position were he is very highly respected by his peers, and therefore respected by his wife. Unfortunately most of the time in our culture we only really respect people who make lots of money.

  • Desiderius

    The scale is about options.

    Higher #  = more options.

    With the information explosion (internet, etc..) everyone’s options, and awareness of those options, have likewise gone through the roof. Two predictable results:

    (1) Most overrate their # (which after all is inherently relative, not absolute)

    (2) The paradox of choice leads people to fall back on simple decision rules (money = status/looks = attractiveness; the schools I’d like to work for considering only seniority in hiring, not merit, etc…)

  • Lavazza

    Back in the days my favourite line was “What are smiling about? Have you shat in your pants?” Chosing the time and delivery is crucial, as always.

  • Ramble

    I do believe that if given a choice, most men would prefer to make more money than their significant other.

    Money and status are two different things. We all know the girl that is endlessly proud of her starving-artist/wanna-be-rockstar boyfriend.

    Status is (Social) Status and Money is Money.

    However, in terms of money, I agree with you.

  • Ramble

    There are a lot of pathetic PUA attempts, apparently.

    Young red-pill takers have to start some place. Right?

    A neg is not an easy thing to deliver – if it doesn’t make the woman laugh in a self-deprecating way, it’s a bust.

    Yup, it takes practice.

  • Desiderius

    Susan,

    “Really smart guys always complain that women don’t tingle from intelligence, and it’s just not true.”

    That was not what set me off. The opposite in fact. I’m very familiar with the wide variety of women who tingle from intelligence – I enjoy their attention on a regular basis, and them mine. My (perhaps overly greedy) annoyance is with the sort of women to whom I tend to be most attracted when they opt for credentials over merit,  platitudes over actually original thought, appeals to authority over well-constructed arguments, and dark-triad narcissism over the sort of light-triad humility essential to the sort of lifelong learning it takes to actually earn the worship of one’s peers.

    “If you’re really smart, and you’re not getting mileage out of that, you need to address something else. Your intelligence is not what is holding you back.”

    Like I said, bitter beta penalty box, and the futility of trying to dig one’s way out of it. What’s held me back is allowing dissatisfaction with the general to preclude my appreciation of the specific. I got that turned around last year professionally, and recently things have improved markedly romantically. You’ve been a big part of that, I think. Thank you.

    “I am in pursuit of truth and knowledge, not some pat explanation to fit my agenda.”

    I hope that Will can more clearly express in the future his commitment to that approach.

     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Desiderius

      My (perhaps overly greedy) annoyance is with the sort of women to whom I tend to be most attracted when they opt for credentials over merit,

      Ha! I’m glad to see that men fall victim to this too! This is, I think, part of the human condition.

      Thanks for your kind words and support. I remain firmly committed to the idea that game and red pill swallowing for men is in the best interests of women. It’s a perfect example of making the pie bigger, the opposite of a zero sum game.

  • Anacaona

    So in the end, and based on your post I think you would agree, you can’t change genetics (yet) and you can’t easily change society, but neither of those things needs to dictate anything to you as an individual.

    Exactly. That is what I wanted to say.

    If you don’t want a cad, go find a guy who isn’t a cad, you may have to take a trade off on something else, but that is life.

    Yes another important point is that anlyzing costs benefits is important and when in doubt picking the strategy that will give you the long term benefit is usually the best, unless you are in a situation were you could die at any given moment of course.

    I must admit that I do feel it for women that for them this will be harder than for others. I recently got my 23andme reading and it turns out that I have a high resistance to addiction (drugs, nicotine, coffee which I mentioned and I probably got from my mother and my other female relatives given that my mom also quit smoking overnight and never missed it) and I do wonder if is not connected to my monogamy and love for Beta men. For some women not hearing the drums it will take a lot harder I suppose. I do hope that this is the minority though I mean after all this whole douchebag domination is too new, it can’t be that ingrained on their bodies can it?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anacaona
      Very interesting idea there – that addiction tendency is correlated to attraction triggers. Certainly it must be related to impulse control, and I believe that promiscuous women who chase alphas are probably very impulsive.

  • Ramble

    Really smart guys always complain that women don’t tingle from intelligence, and it’s just not true.

    Susan, this has been addressed before and Rum already nailed it. If the hottest girls (or, even the average girl) were tingly for smart guys, the Math and Physics boys would be getting more ass in High School than the Rock Stars, Actors and Jocks…but they don’t.

    The average undergrad at BC and BU do much better than the average guy at MIT. And, I know that you, one time, overheard, some girls say that they wanted to meet some MIT guys, or something, but that anecdote does not take away from the overall obvious plain-to-see truth.

    This does not mean that a smart young man can not use his intelligence in his (sexual) favor. But, in general, very few girls have any interest in storming the Chess Club or Mensa Meeting. (Granted, I don’t blame them for avoiding the Mensa crowd. Talk about a bunch of blowhards).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ramble

      But, in general, very few girls have any interest in storming the Chess Club or Mensa Meeting. (Granted, I don’t blame them for avoiding the Mensa crowd. Talk about a bunch of blowhards).

      I also said that smart men must meet a threshold of dominance to be successful. I actually think it’s lower than what a meathead has to bring. Much lower. This is where the opportunity lies, and where game helps. Very smart guys, learn a bit of game, avoid pedestalizing women, you’re more than halfway there, IMO.

      Also, MIT is a very diverse place. There are different degrees of nerdiness. There’s a bar and burger place nearby called The Miracle of Science, and the guys in there have a sort of hipster cool vibe. I keep telling my daughter to go to happy hour there :-)

      Women are not tingly for IQ in the absence of social dominance. I’ve never said otherwise. I’m just saying that super smart guys who can do a bit of cocky funny or reach a certain minimal level of ease can do more than OK. Of course, they shouldn’t be chasing floozies at bars…know your habitat.

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    I believe that promiscuous women who chase alphas are probably very impulsive.

    Yep.

  • SayWhaat

    if by negs you mean playful teasing, which is how guys often rush to defend the use of the neg, then yes, it definitely works on guys. That was always my go-to flirtation, and it rarely failed me.

    Yep, that’s exactly what I meant. At its best, negging (and shit tests, as a corollary) is playful teasing.

  • Abbot

    Similar to the Western SMP, but with an abundance of marriage material.

    The country’s long-held tradition of marriage hypergamy, a practice in which women marry up in terms of income, education and age, means that the most highly-educated women often end up without partners. Under these conditions, “men at the bottom of society get left out of the marriage market, and that same pattern is coming to emerge for women at the top of society,”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/for-chinas-educated-single-ladies-finding-love-is-often-a-struggle/246892/

     

    .

  • Anacaona

    Certainly it must be related to impulse control, and I believe that promiscuous women who chase alphas are probably very impulsive.

    The funny thing is Susan is that deep down I am impulsive I’m just not sexually impulsive. I used to be very angry for no reason and explode on people for not reason too, (it got so bad that I got a gastritis over my temper) a particularly ugly episode at 14 made me change forever and I can proudly say that no one that knows me after that age even believes I can get angry or even violent (there is a reason I’m a Hulk fan), but I can still be positively impulsive my friends used to call me with no further notice “I want to go to the midnight showing of this movie, come with me?” and I would even in school/work night knowing that I was going to be zombie like but I consider making a friend happy a worth it cost for a couple more coffee cups to keep myself awake, it was still impulsive.So I don’t know I feel like there is a piece in the puzzle of monogamy that I’m missing in my own life.

  • http://gravatar.com/otc1 OffTheCuff

    Ribbon: picking from your best available option, is very different from not feeling any attraction at all. I suppose someone else will be able to explain this better than me since I’m a few glasses into the Cab tonight.

    Women are hypergamous, because they simply don’t feel any attraction for guys beneath their own level. Those men are invisible to them sexually. And when women really bond with a guy, ALL men become invisible. My wife finds the thought of other men revolting.

    Guys are attracted to ton of women, and will pick the best one they think they have a chance with. That doesn’t mean they are NOT attracted to the lower-status ones at all. You can only have sex with one person at a time (ok, maybe two or three is the limit) and so you have to pick at some point. That’s not hypergamy.

  • Ribbon Butterfly

    Thank you, OTC! So the word hypergamous, as used here, is actually based on attraction, as opposed to actual mating behaviour? And really “hypergamy” here means that “women are only attracted to high status males”?

    That makes a lot more sense. I was going on actual sexual behaviour before, where it seemed plain that both men and women would have sex with a higher-rank partner (or partners) if possible.

  • Ramble

    I also said that smart men must meet a threshold of dominance to be successful.

    Susan, this is like saying that dominant men, as well as smart dominant men, are attractive to girls.

    I actually think it’s lower than what a meathead has to bring. Much lower. This is where the opportunity lies, and where game helps. Very smart guys, learn a bit of game, avoid pedestalizing women, you’re more than halfway there, IMO.

    Again, this is like saying that girls are attracted to a dominant man, but if said man is a complete moron (meathead) then that can hurt him. Had he been a little smarter, he could have parlayed more of his dominance.

    There’s a bar and burger place nearby called The Miracle of Science, and the guys in there have a sort of hipster cool vibe. I keep telling my daughter to go to happy hour there :-)

    I notice that it was not her instinct to go there in the first place.

    I’m just saying that super smart guys who can do a bit of cocky funny or reach a certain minimal level of ease can do more than OK.

    Right. But this is far, FAR, from saying that girls go for smart guys. Intelligence, very unlike dominance and (attractive) physical features, is not a turn-on.

    A man can use his brains to his benefit, but being a brilliant mathematician does not get you blowjobs from the hottest girls.

    The sooner that guys realize that intelligence, especially logical intelligence (i.e. STEM), does not in-and-of-itself get them laid, the sooner they can start down the sexy path.

    Whereas a somewhat awkward starving-artist or wanna-be rockstar can get laid quite easily.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ramble

      I do not disagree with anything you are saying. My point is that the dominance threshold is not that high for many women. A general aura of self-confidence is often more than adequate, if the man doesn’t fall into the pedestalization trap. I’ve even seen women tingle for “sweet” or “adorable” when it’s not the primary MO. Passing shit tests is a must. None of this is debatable, IMO, but it’s a far cry from displaying the dark triad traits. There is a spectrum for dominance, both on the deploying and receiving ends.

  • Ramble
    SayWhaat October 19, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    if by negs you mean playful teasing, which is how guys often rush to defend the use of the neg, then yes, it definitely works on guys. That was always my go-to flirtation, and it rarely failed me.

    Yep, that’s exactly what I meant. At its best, negging (and shit tests, as a corollary) is playful teasing.

    Negging and (playful) teasing are related, but not the same. The well known example from Mystery was, to a very hot girl, “Nice Nails. Are they real?” Making her then understand that he assumes that she might be the kind of girl who wears fake nails. Neg.

    Also, think of the female written, and loved, Don Draper on Mad Men. He is constantly negging, sometimes Atom Bombing, girls in his purview.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Right. But this is far, FAR, from saying that girls go for smart guys. Intelligence, very unlike dominance and (attractive) physical features, is not a turn-on.

    I’m pretty sure that this is untrue, as I’ve gotten plenty of attention lately with discussions about literature and world events. It’s not so much that intelligence isn’t a turn on, but that logical thinking in itself isn’t a turn on, I think. But that’s true for guys too, isn’t it? Who’s turned on by algebraic equations? Not me. But i DO know that I find intelligence in a girl sexy. Logical thinking is reflective of only one type of intelligence. There are many.

  • Ramble

    but that logical thinking in itself isn’t a turn on

    Right. Knowledge, in itself, will not turn a girl off. But obvious logical intelligence is not a turn on and girls have little instinct to seek them out as sexual partners. But a clever and witty man can display status with timely quotes of literature or an understanding of history (or whatever).

    But that’s true for guys too, isn’t it? Who’s turned on by algebraic equations? Not me.

    Are girls turned on by demure, feminine guys? Are you turned on by dominant women?

    Because we are not turned on by something does not imply they will not be turned on by that same thing, even if it ultimately turns out to be true (i.e. We are not turned on by obese girls, and they are not turned on by obese guys).

  • Jesus Mahoney

    I was just saying that logic isn’t very sexy for people whether they have a vijayjay or not.

    Timely quotes from literature wasn’t really what I was getting at. I was thinking more like a discussion of who their favorite authors were, what their least favorite book from high school or college was, why I loved the books I love, characters I thought they reminded me of, characters that I wanted to be like growing up, etc…

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Also, think of the female written, and loved, Don Draper on Mad Men. He is constantly negging, sometimes Atom Bombing, girls in his purview.”

    I saw an online dating profile where a woman asked “why do men love Don Draper?”

    I didn’t write back because the rest of the profile wasn’t interesting, but I was going to say “because women love Don Draper.”

     

  • Ramble

    My point is that the dominance threshold is not that high for many women.

    I don’t disagree. But, it is the dominance, not the logical ability, that makes them tingle.

    Passing shit tests is a must.

    Right

    None of this is debatable, IMO, but it’s a far cry from displaying the dark triad traits.

    But, if forced to choose amongst just those two options (and this, I understand, is ridiculous), the Dark Triad is better than a PhD in Physics.

    Brilliant men can get hot blowjobs, but it is not their brilliance that gets them there.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ramble,

    It depends on the context. A PhD in Physics can be at the top of his class or at the forefront of research, or something else that makes him dominant in a given sphere. I’m not saying that all women would be weak in the knees over this, but certainly some might be.

  • Will

    Hmm, I am surprised to here that so many people don’t think that a man can get millage out of his intelligence with women. First it has been shown in studies  that women will not date men who are less intelligent then them for the most part. I remember reading somewhere that you need to check off two of the three of smarter, taller, and the ability to make more money to even get considered. So at the least being smarter should give you a larger field to play. But more importantly think about Susan’s post on what women find attractive, being passionate about something and being able to demonstrate mastery of it (I thought this was the best definition I have ever read). Intelligence can definitely be used in this way show a women that you are passionate about something difficult that requires lots of intelligence to handle and that you have mastered it and you can often use that to your advantage. Also go after smart women, smart women have a hard time because they don’t have a large field to play, so they will be extra appreciative of a smart man. But most importantly and I think this is the crux of the problem is that allot of smart men are socially incompetent, probably to much in there own head. This was definitely me in high school, but at some point I got bothered by this and used my intelligence to figure out how to act socially proper and perhaps dominant. After that I would say my intelligence has been a tremendous advantage to me. The most successful stage in my life with women was being a TA in undergrad, I could walk into my class and show passion for the subject, mastery of it, and do so with a good seance of humor, for what ever reason it sure seemed to work of the girls.

  • Desiderius

    Susan,

    “Passing shit tests is a must.”

    This is what tripped me up so badly with women to whom I was most attracted, but when you get down to it, a shit test is a lie, and a lie is a lousy basis upon which to build a healthy relationship. This is an area where female awareness of their own behavior could do a lot of good.

    You can find out the things a shit test tells you without forcing the man to disrespect you right off the bat to avoid getting friendzoned. Look, my students shit test me, I pass it, and we’re able to survive it fine*, but the stakes are so much higher in the SMP.

    * – there are few more valuable experiences in life than having been a bad teacher. Dominance boot camp.

  • Desiderius

    Will,

    “Hmm, I am surprised to here that so many people don’t think that a man can get millage out of his intelligence with women.”

    I’d be curious about your take on what the men in this thread are actually saying, rather than a conveniently easy to refute misreading of what they are saying.

  • Ted

    I have to admit the one thing I’m having the most difficulty with is the “shit test” otherwise known as a fitness test.

    Why on earth would a woman that claims to love me want to make up some fantasy issue just to see if I call her bluff?  I HATE drama.  In fact, I despise it.  And a shit test is a precursor to lots of drama.

    Even worse, how can I as a man (meaning I don’t even understand WHY you would shit test your SO) tell the difference between a test and a real request?  I obviously can’t deny all her requests, so I’m not sure how any woman expects a man to figure it out.  Of course, most women don’t shit test consciously (or so I am told) so I guess they have NO IDEA how the poor guy is supposed to pass.

    And now I find myself analyzing far too many requests and comments from my SO, because I am not confident in my ability to discern a shit test from an honest request.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ted

      Shit testing is for early days, or should be. You can relax if the relationship is good, and you have said it is. It’s a dominance test, plain and simple.

  • Desiderius

    Susan,

    “Ha! I’m glad to see that men fall victim to this too! This is, I think, part of the human condition.”

    In my case I suspect its unfortunately pangamy, rather than hypergamy. The curse of the precocious kid. I’ve spent too much time concerned about the ones who don’t love me, across the spectrum, and not enough with the plenty who do. My criticism of alpha/career women is often enough “I got it, I spot it”.

    “Thanks for your kind words and support.”

    I didn’t say them to be kind, I said them because they are true.

  • Ramble

    It depends on the context. A PhD in Physics can be at the top of his class or at the forefront of research, or something else that makes him dominant in a given sphere. I’m not saying that all women would be weak in the knees over this, but certainly some might be.

    Right, but it is the dominance that works in his sexual favor.

    Let’s take to extreme examples:

    1. An established Physicist at the top of his field whom other physicists admire. But, with all of the confidence he has at solving Physics problems, he is as beta as can be. Don’t get me wrong…a very nice and sweet man, but Beta to the core.
    2. A junior in Physics at the local State U who, after spending years at the knee(s) of Uncles Roissy, Roosh and Rollo, is just crushing all of the campus pussy.

    Both are probably on the high end of logical intelligence, yet, it is not the smarts that are attracting the girls, it is the game. However, a smart man can use his intelligence to either gain social status or dominance or both. He can use his logical intelligence to his benefit, but it does not act like Height, which is a definite attractor for girls (even though it is possible for some tall, even handsome, man to be completely beta)

    Point being, it is not the logical intellect that gets them wet, it is the dominance and status.

  • Ramble

    I am surprised to here that so many people don’t think that a man can get millage out of his intelligence with women.

    Will, I am guessing that you are, to a degree, referencing me.

    Again, there is a big difference between “getting mileage out of your intelligence” and having the (logical) intelligence itself, like height, be sexually attractive to girls.

    Dominance is a Panty Dropper.
    Looks is a Panty Dropper.
    Status is a Panty Dropper.
    The ability to calculate Integrals is not.

    If someone wants to stretch this so that Dominance means Social Intelligence, then you can make the argument that intelligence gets girls wet. But, that is why I have tried to keep my examples in the logical world, especially since the abilities in Math and Physics and Computer Science are so often objective and not subjective.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The ability to calculate Integrals is not.

      It worked for Will Hunting. :-)

  • Mike C

    <i>I have to admit the one thing I’m having the most difficulty with is the “shit test” otherwise known as a fitness test.

    Why on earth would a woman that claims to love me want to make up some fantasy issue just to see if I call her bluff? I HATE drama. In fact, I despise it. And a shit test is a precursor to lots of drama.

    Even worse, how can I as a man (meaning I don’t even understand WHY you would shit test your SO) tell the difference between a test and a real request? I obviously can’t deny all her requests, so I’m not sure how any woman expects a man to figure it out. Of course, most women don’t shit test consciously (or so I am told) so I guess they have NO IDEA how the poor guy is supposed to pass.

    And now I find myself analyzing far too many requests and comments from my SO, because I am not confident in my ability to discern a shit test from an honest request.</i>

    Amen to all of the above. Honestly, to this day I still have some difficulty with navigating this rocky terrain. I grew up with a very poor role model in this particular aspect so I feel like I always going against years of programming. It is sometimes difficult to know when you have to “maintain hand” versus when the right, good thing to do is simply go along with some request. I know we’ve discussed this with some controversy, but if you aren’t reading Rollo’s blog regularly yet you should be, and I would direct you to two posts specifically on this issue, the one on FRAME and the one on INDIGNATION.

    I think it starts with your SO, in that I think any woman who is constantly throwing out shit tests is unsuitable as a partner in a LTR. Women like that are FB material. Otherwise as a man, you are asking for a constant, drama filled life. Thankfully, my SO doesn’t run too many although in all honestly they’ve ramped up the last month to few months, and I am sort of scratching my head what is going on. I’m very reluctant to get to a point where I have to run some type of “relationship asshole game”. Just speculating but I wonder if increased shit tests could be the result of influence from other women. Sometimes, I wonder if a woman can be perfectly happy and content until someone else perhaps not satisfied with their live starts whispering things in their ear.

    Dalrock had a awesome post today about the “Endless Courtship”. As a guy, you don’t want to live life in the mode of always having to “win the girl”. At some point if you are in a faithful, monogamous, committed relationship the bullshit has to stop or at least drop to a bare minimum.

    I think any guy who isn’t a natural alpha with a totally f it attitude wrestles with this one a bit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      Don’t you think this is about setting the date?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Hey Mike C you must have the day off!

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    If intelligence gives you street smarts, its fine.

    If intelligence gives you sexual imagination, its fine.

    If intelligence makes you solve common problems faster and gives you confidence, and an advantage over other men, its fine.

    If intelligence makes you create powerful stuff that gives you social recognition, its fine.

    If intelligence makes you practical and determined and hard to be fooled, its fine.

    If intelligence gives you social power, its fine.

    If intelligence makes you money, its fine.

    If intelligence makes you funny, its fine.

    If everyone loves your intelligence, its fine.

    If intelligence makes you click with HER specifically, its fine.

    But if intelligence makes you isolated, a freak, awkward, unadapted, if intelligence makes you score high in IQ tests but score low in social life and low in the world, then your intelligence is a pile of crap. In other words, intelligence on its own means nothing. Its how you use it in your own advantage, and in the advantage of people around you, what makes it valuable.

     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Yohami
      Brilliant riff on intelligence there.

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI
  • Mike C

    Hey Mike C you must have the day off!

    Somehow the filter is down…hopefully it’ll stay that way :)

    @Mike C

    Don’t you think this is about setting the date?

    Probably….although at this point I feel like she should know it is a question of when not if.  I’d like the offical question to be special and it is going to lose that if it feels like it coming from a place of pressure. 

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Probably….although at this point I feel like she should know it is a question of when not if.  I’d like the offical question to be special and it is going to lose that if it feels like it coming from a place of pressure. 

      To a woman When is just huge. You said it yourself – we truly are programmed to want it from the man we love. If you are waiting because of something as trifling as a ring, don’t. If you have your reasons she needs to understand. My guess is this pressure is not going to ease very readily.

  • Will

    Desiderius

    I’d be curious about your take on what the men in this thread are actually saying, rather than a conveniently easy to refute misreading of what they are saying.

    My apologies if I offended you, it is a little hard to follow the entire thread in the few minutes I have free in the day, I was mostly talking about Ramble’s comments and the back and forth between you and Susan, I didn’t make it back to your original post. I am sorry to see that the women you find attractive go for shallow guys with credentials over your original thoughts, merit and well constructed arguments. I guess my advice is that if you have such good original thoughts and arguments you should probably try to convert those into some credentials. Ultimately you need to do something impressive with your intelligence for it to be a turn on for women. If you have done something impressive excellent, figure out how to impress the ladies with it, if you haven’t than go and do something impressive. After all intelligence with no accomplishment isn’t all that useful.

     

  • Will

    Ramble,

    I completely agree with your last post that logical intelligence in and of its self is not very sexy. But for those physics and math guys if they do well, get a good job and most importantly are not socially retarded and get over the rejection that they got in highschool they can do just fine, I know allot of women who love the former nerd kind of guy. I would like to restate my point though that intelligence gives you a bigger field to play, it may not be a panty dropper, but you have a longer list of women to try something else to get their pantys off.

  • Sassy6519

    Shit tests, in general, just seem very immature to me. According to http://www.datingdispatch.com, a “shit test” is defined as:

    (noun); A conscious or subconscious set of actions or words that aims to test the PUAs congruence or ability to think on his feet. Shit tests commonly occur at major checkpoints in seduction.

    I think the problem I have with them is that some actions dubbed as “shit tests” are actually unreasonable actions/displays of temperment demonstrated by women that shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone, men or women alike. Throwing an unwarranted tantrum, being pissy/rude for no reason, or asking for men to complete outrageous tasks in hopes that the men will remain dominant and aloof in the midst of the behavior doesn’t seem logical at all. That behavior will either piss guys off or confuse them. What’s the point?

    Some PUAs also claim that a “shit test” can be defined as a woman throwing playful verbal jabs to see how men respond. I don’t think those are shit tests though. Sometimes, in all honesty, women say things/ask questions in nightlife situations because they either enjoy the exchange of witty banter or a male’s behavior warranted it at the time, not because she is trying to test him.

    I’ll give a recent example from my dating life. I went out to a bar recently, and a guy struck up a conversation with me. I thought he was attractive, but he was extremely cocky, which turned me off. I honestly don’t think it was humanly possible for him to brag more about himself than he did. I felt like he was putting on a show instead of being genuine with me. At one point in the night, he said, “The people in the bar should be thanking me for playing such awesome music on the jukebox. They are having a great time because of me”. My response was, “You are so full of yourself. Why don’t you just go self-fellate in a corner somewhere, since you appear to be your biggest fan?” He was stunned for a few minutes, so I excused myself to go get another drink from the bar. He actually came to find me a few minutes after that and apologized for being too cocky. I told him that I would be more interested in him if he acted more down to earth, and he actually did tone things down for the rest of the night.

    I think any woman who constantly throws irrational “shit tests” at a man, hoping for him to navigate the playing field perfectly, isn’t the best candidate for a serious relationship. That woman is a drama junkie and won’t be satisfied if her man isn’t on edge the majority of the time.

  • http://www.yohami.com/blog/ YOHAMI

    Sassy,

    “You are so full of yourself. Why don’t you just go self-fellate in a corner somewhere, since you appear to be your biggest fan?”

    That´s not a shit test, thats a nagging (not neg), and warranted this time.

    In my opinion the whole view about shit-tests is misguided tough. Most of the time is just the girl misbehaving, not a “test”.

  • Anacaona

    Don’t you think this is about setting the date?

    My though exactly. Mike C even if you are not planning to have children for women certain age without the “married” stamp can get very scary. “If he is so committed what is he waiting for? Maybe he is actually thinking on trading me up before I turn 40″ specially if everyone else is already married or there are older relatives already married or in wedding plans. I know my sister in law was a total bitch to me when I was living with her, because I was planning my wedding and my brother and her only lived together back them. In any case ask Athol I don’t consider this a shit test but a reasonable concern but he knows more about that. I do think Athol considers that a worth it woman shouldn’t be made to wait too much for commitment, for what I have read so far, YMMV.

  • Desiderius

    Will,

    I wasn’t offended. But you knew that. That wasn’t an apology, and the “few minutes” DHV is superfluous. Thanks for the patronizing advice though, that was sweet of you.

     

     

  • Desiderius

    So sweet you get two links, here is the one that should have been first.

    The first one is the second reason I don’t want to get in a pissing contest with you. The conventional wisdom you’re defending is actually a pretty effective one. Makes for a good teaching/learning environment. There are ways to read evopsych that do not conflict with it, if you decide to step your game up beyond burning down straw men.

  • Pingback: I wanted my wife to get breast implants, she did and now she has changed? - Page 5

  • Sara

    I’ve been looking for a site sympathetic to the MRM but without the misogyny. I understand that today’s women aren’t what they should be, but I am a married woman, and I don’t want to be called a whore, slut, evil, etc. simply because of my gender. I think a lot of divorced men hate women, and I understand they’ve been raped by the courts, but not all women are bad. Yes we have souls, and we do love our men.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sara
      Welcome, I think you might like it here. I am sympathetic to the MRM, though not enough for some. I have my detractors among MRAs. Still, if you don’t want misogyny (and what woman does?) then you should fit right in at HUS.

  • Oni

    First off, some of the evolutionary determinism in this post is kind of flawed.  For example, the fact of the matter is that humans have sex for other reasons than procreation and having lots of sex does not necessarily mean many babies because human females do not have estrus swellings on their butt/vaginal area, which is how most primates know when it’s time to have sex to make babies.  Men who are confident are popular with women because confidence makes it look like he is capable.  Of course, this means that the longer a woman is around him, the more information she has to make an informed decision as to whether he’s actually capable or just good at pretending.  So too can a guy who does not initially appear capable be reevaulated as capable and amazing upon longer interaction.

    Basically, here’s my whole take on this thing- female hypergamy is generally low to nonexistent for most women who actually are secure with themselves.  The problem is that pretty much 90% of social institutionalization into gender roles is hell-bent on making women feel totally insecure.  From fashion to beauty to the weight loss industry (which is one of the largest in the world), it can be very difficult to like yourself, much less feel much faith in yourself.

    However, one thing that I’ve learned (as a woman, myself) is that we all have different goals and desires.  One of my best female friends who I have been close with since elementary school always had boys like her but she was very selective (and most of these guys weren’t smoking hot or anything).  Every time her high school boyfriend tried pressured her to have sex, she’d refuse and eventually she ended the relationship.  Her college boyfriend kinda was the typical geeky sometimes plays sports guy, who was chunky but had a good sense of humor.  After being together for a year or so, they finally had sex, but eventually he cheated on her.  He promised to work through it with her and they did some couple counseling, but then he cheated again with the same person, so she just dumped him.  From there, she just had sex with a ton of guys largely because she didn’t care anymore.  She felt like she wasn’t worth anything, so she slept around, trying to stay emotionally aloof in retaliation.  Of course, this got her infected with HPV (which is small enough to go through latex condoms), and now she is at high risk for developing cervical cancer. :(

    In my situation, I wanted to be with a person who I could spend the rest of my life with, but it took me on a weird path.  I tended to date guys who, it eventually came out, were actually after my hotter/thinner friend but were too dang spineless to ask them out.  I always felt like an idiot because I was very honest with them, and expected the same back.  Eventually, I got into a relationship with a guy who helped keep me distracted when my family was going through some really messed up times.  This guy wasn’t hot or anything-he was tall, maybe 150 pounds, and had a squeaky voice that reminded me of Woody Woodpecker.  But he was kind for the most part, and I didn’t really care that he never really reciprocated sex stuff anyway, because at least he let me take refuge at his house.  I was still a PiV virgin at the time.  Eventually, he went away to college, but we stayed together mostly chatting online and visiting from time to time.  Then I met someone else and after a few months of friendship, I realized I had feelings for him too.  So I talked with my boyfriend and asked him if it was ok for me to have a second relationship.  He was fine with it, and so was the second guy, so for a couple years, I had a dual relationship.  The first boyfriend moved home later on and we all went to college together and hung out and did stuff together too.  It was fun to have them play off of one another, to teach them to do better based on the other one’s mistake, and the best part was that generally, the three of us had a good time.  They were both faithful to me (and had no other females in their lives), but largely that was because they were happy with me.  Eventually my first boyfriend and I broke up for non-related-to-the-dual-relationship reasons, and I eventually married my second boyfriend, who is an amazing husband and father, but it’s pretty obvious that I’m the dominant one in the relationship.  This doesn’t mean that he isn’t important or anything-he’s an amazing cook, intelligent and quite the funny guy.  He’s big and strong and loveable, but he’s also really shy in a super intimidating to strangers sort of way.

    But honestly, I don’t think he would be nearly as awesome if we hadn’t come through that relationship together.  Now, I’m not exactly the most monogamous person, but I’m a very honest and open person-I can’t stand behind-the-back shenanigans.  I respect my spouse’s desire to be monogamous and am happy with it, but I could also be happy with an open relationship or a relationship with more than one person (male or female).  However, I also enjoy being fluid-bonded with my partners, and despise having to use condoms (I have an IUD and also severe fertility-based hormonal problems), so I think sticking with one person or two dedicated people who don’t have sex with others would probably be my ideal.
    The thing is, I’m lucky to know what I want, and to have focused on what makes me feel good and complete, instead of focusing on taking care of other people to the detriment of myself.  Caring for others is only it’s own reward if you’re careful about caring for yourself as well.  It’s all about confidence, and being unwilling to do things unless they’re on your terms.  I think that instead of this mumbo jumbo of women and men and biological determinism, we need to focus on these invaluable skills so that people will be able to get over their own self-imposed/societally imposed neuroses and actually be empowered to build a happy and enjoyable life.

  • Pingback: Redefining Hypergamy: Cut down the lists. | XYNERGYXX

  • HPPR

    “female hypergamy is generally low to nonexistent for most women who actually are secure with themselves.”

    Depends on age and location. Try telling that to a single guy in his late 20′s to 30′s in Southern California and see what he says. Odds are he’ll disagree.

    Female hypergamy or however you want to put it is the rule of thumb. It’s just how women in the US are.

    As far as the weight loss industry goes we’re a fat nation so that is where that came from. Let’s face it we are a huge market.

  • Pingback: Did anyone on TAM settle for their partner? - Page 2

  • Pingback: Hypergamy and its discontents | Urban Sociology