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.
{ 337 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 »
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.
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.
But, in Moralia, the Stephenie Rowlings would have openly called her a whore, to her face, in public.
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.
Brilliant post!
@ Some Handle – Madonna and Brittany where absolutely desperate to make lots of money, and sex sells.
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:
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.
“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?
@ 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.
A woman always waiting for a stronger man is like a man always looking for a hotter woman.
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).
<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.
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.
@ 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.
@ 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.
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.
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)
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.
Who gives a shit? This is what you said,
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.
Ted, DougRisk at GMail
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.
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.
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 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).
@ 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.
Utter BS. Men find the vast majority of women sexually attractive to one degree or another. There’s no such thing as male hypergamy.
<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!
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.
2 Anacaona
Excellent post!
I’d like to point out a weak point in otherwise great work:
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
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?
@ 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.
2 Rollo Tomassi
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
The book that needs to be written:
“He’s Out of Your League”.
Subtitled:
“Meeting a man’s sex threshold proves nothing”.
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.
@ 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…
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…
Rudyard Kipling 1919
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.
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.
Interesting that no one has responded to dami’s comment… so I will!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And I need to proofread my posts better…
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.
@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?
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.
@ 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.
“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?
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.
@Hope
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.
“Again, there is no male hypergamy.”
I know. I said that.
“Eve is the symbolic mother of our entire species.”
Only if you believe in that particular mythology.
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.
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.
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.
<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.
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.
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.
Mrs Robinson,
No.
Disagree. Male hypgeramy takes the form of, “I could be with a hotter woman than this one.”
SayWhaat,
No. You´ve been here enough to know whats the real deal.
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?
2 Mrs Robinson
No, you don’t understand what the work “hypergamy” means. Google is your friend in that area
Total BS
2 Yohami
No, hypergamy is about moving up in terms of social status or maybe in terms of wealth. It’s not about abstract “valuable assets”
“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!
2 SayWhaat
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?
“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.
But they will commit to the hottest. Isn’t that what the real deal is?
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.
2 SayWhaat
So what? He had sex with all kinds of girls (some of them are not very attractive) before and after his marriage
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
2 SayWhaat
In societies where multiple wives are allowed, men who can afford them don’t marry just one hottest girl, they marry several or many
“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.
Also men in traditional societies won’t marry a slut or a prostitute, no matter how hot she 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”
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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).
2 Mrs Robinson
Your comment doesn’t make any sense. Men are not hypergamous, no matter what culture is.
“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.
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.
Err wasn’t this the whole point of my essay?
I studied comparative theology
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
What Brendan said.
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
I know PUA-World gets totally lost in that word, but Im not trying anything funky. Value:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value
–noun
@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.
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.
Anacaona….it would be interesting to compare the character of Eve with the character of (Goethe’s) Faust.
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.
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.
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.
2 Mrs Robinson
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.”
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
@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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Wait! Are we talking about the Karen Armstrong who was a nun? I think she has had loftier, more spiritual concerns than suitors.
@jrc
Thanks for your comment.
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.
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.
I’m not sure what to make of this, but I find it very interesting.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
“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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This time with corrected formatting …
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.
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.
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
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
@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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Seriously, this idea about some sort of male hypergamy needs to be put down like a mad dog.
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?
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.
1 2 3 »
{ 4 trackbacks }