File Under Life Isn’t Fair?
The Social Pathologist has a great new post about female hypergamy and its male cousin:
Everyone who has spent any time amongst the Manosphere blogs is by now familiar with the term hypergamy: the desire for women to marry up. Unfortunately, as far as I’m aware, there doesn’t appear to be a similar term for the equivalent male urge: the desire to marry more attractive, feminine women, i.e. younger, hotter, tighter.
As a blogger who has waded into the weeds frequently (and reluctantly) to discuss and debate the nature of female hypergamy, I appreciate how eloquently SP defuses the typical gender conflict:
Many manosphere commentators, especially the MRA crowd, fail to understand that female hypergamy is a natural instinct and not some perverted moral choice.
… They can’t seem to recognise that, when it comes to the human libido, the hypergamous impulse in women is equivalent to the (femogamous?) impulse in men.
Weaker minds, I feel, make a category error when dealing with hypergamy, attributing to it a moral dimension which really isn’t there. Hypergamy is the natural object of female sexuality. It’s not a choice, and therefore devoid of a moral dimension, but a hard wired instinct. It’s what women involuntarily feel in the presence of a suitable male. Women have about as much choice about their hypergamous natures as men do about their femogamous ones. It’s a fact of life and getting angry about it is about as idiotic as getting angry about the orbital motion of the planets or the unfairness of Plank’s constant.
I’ve argued, and strongly believe, that we are better designed for efficient reproduction today than at any other time in the past. Let’s look at the purpose that these natural attraction triggers serve for the sexes.
Female Hypergamy
Q: Why are women most attracted to high status males?
A: Because high status demonstrates that a male has competed against other males and come out on top. This position of leadership and respect implies access to resources. The children of these men are much more likely to thrive and enjoy the benefits of prestige.
Male “Femogamy”
Q: Why are men most attracted to hot, young females?
A: Because they are fertile. Female standards of beauty: full lips, clear skin, bright eyes, lustrous hair – are all fertility cues.
If women went for low status males their children would be less likely to thrive.
If men went for unattractive, older females they’d be unlikely to impregnate them.
In other words, the system works from a biological point of view. Of course, humans can come along and muck things up, but that isn’t the point. Hypergamy is a good thing. Male desire for young flesh is a good thing. Both are good for homo sapiens.
However, instinct doesn’t really take our feelings into account. Mother Nature is a vicious bitch. Very few people are at the top of the ladder, and some people may never attract a sexual partner. Most of us fall in the middle somewhere, and many feel the unfairness of this. SP says it well:
In many ways the men complaining against hypergamy are akin to the “fat acceptance” crowd and their logic, when complaining about male femogamy. The fatties are constantly harping on about how there is something wrong with men for preferring thinner women. The MRA/MGTOW crowd are constantly asserting that there is something wrong with women for preferring higher status males. Both loser groups, being the neglected victims of natural human desires, want to punish or constrain normal people from having them. Social engineering is the preferred vehicle.
Much of the controversy centers on how to keep monogamous partners from straying into the arms of someone with more status, or a younger, tighter body. In my experience this is achieved via two strategies:
1. Choose the best raw material for marriage.
- Filter aggressively for character, including loyalty and faithfulness as demonstrated by past and present relationships and behavior.
- Never marry someone whose passion and love for you is uncertain. If you don’t start out with headboard banging chemistry, it’s unlikely to increase over time.
2. Nurture the bond between you attentively, with devotion and gratitude.
- Be what you want in a partner.
The other concern sure to show up in the comments (as it did at Social Pathologist) is that today women have greater freedom to pursue hypergamy than men have to pursue “femogamy.” Again, I think this misses the mark. Hypergamy is not a strategy, it’s an attraction cue.
What is different today is that women are free to employ a strategy of staying on the market by not marrying, or reentering it by divorcing. They have unrestrained opportunities to indulge hypergamous instinct, provided they can attract a high status male for commitment. Of course, most fail.
Similarly, men are free to employ a similar strategy of staying on the market or rentering it by pursuing younger, hotter women than the one they married. As couples age, men actually have the advantage. Of course, there is no guarantee that the male will be able to attract a hot young thing. Many fail.
As SP said, both male and female sexuality are hardwired, and devoid of a moral dimension. The only thing that counts is what we choose to do about that. We can only be successful if we accept it, work with it, and are grateful for what we have. The alternative of righteous indignation only serves to ensure that we remain alone.
{ 1098 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 8 »
First! (but because I’m in mod it won’t come out that way).
Female Hypergamy
Q: Why are women most attracted to high status males?
A: Because high status demonstrates that a male has competed against other males and come out on top. This position of leadership and respect implies access to resources. The children of these men are much more likely to thrive and enjoy the benefits of prestige.
____
But Susan there is a huge assumption here that all or most females are invested in extraversion, society and other peoples opinions to the extent to want a man who comes out on top in all 3 of those categories. What about women like Hope, myself and several of your other readers here who do not put much stock in mainstream society and other people’s mainstream and mediocre opinions?
Sure, if we want kids then we want at least a man who has proven he can at the very least support his own self well and won’t lay about the crib all day expecting a hand out from his parents, sugar momma or the rich favorite aunt who is ready to kick the bucket any day now, but honestly I don’t see or know a lot of women who are that concerned about their man being a “leader amongst men” or anything like that.
Seems to be more of a celebrity culture type thing.
Male “Femogamy”
Q: Why are men most attracted to hot, young females?
A: Because they are fertile. Female standards of beauty: full lips, clear skin, bright eyes, lustrous hair – are all fertility cues.
____
These are also fertility cues for men are they not? A healthy, handsome man is expected to produce healthy handsome babies.
The funny thing is, have you ever met hot parents who have mediocre and even below average looking kids and not hot parents who end up having gorgeous kids? I meet families like that all the time. Including families where some of the siblings will be hot and the others not.
Its a crap shoot!
Nobody is off the market when marriage 2.0 is on the books. Nobody reenters the market because nobody leaves.
I see.
So now you’re willing to accept that “Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.” not, “Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.”?
Interesting.
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-hypergamy-conspiracy/
* must suppress urge to bang head repeatedly *
Once again, and for the record:
The common “manospheric” usage of the term “female hypergamouse” does not, repeat not, in my reading refer simply to the desire to be with as attractive/desirable partner as possible. That’s a trivial idea, and of course is widespread in men and women both; pretty much by definition, people will of course feel more desire for those who are, well, more desirable.
The useful, non-trivial meaning of “female hypergamy” is not about the simple gradient — people want the best that they can get — it’s specifically about the floor that they put under their attraction: the claim that “female hypergamy” is real is from the observation that young women are typically unwilling to consider having any intimacy with young men of similar SMV percentile rank..
One may usefully dispute that this observation actually holds in the real world, once various observer biases are accounted for, etc. But don’t beggar a useful and non-trivial concept by mis-stating it. It’s not just “I want the best I can get”, it’s specifically “I insist on getting someone better than my assortative counterpart”. Stated this way, we can also observe that such hypergamy us emphatically not sex-symmetric: in any group of young single people, the median man would likely be willing to give the median woman a try, while she would typically not give him the time of day (note that I’m specifically talking about young people, the pattern may well change ten or twenty years later).
So I think if anyone is “weak-minded” here it’s actually SP, who seems to have rather collossally missed the point. At least, that’s my reading.
Societies have been doing that type of social engineering for millenia. It’s called religion.
I’ve got to disagree with you on that one, Susan. Our appetites may be hardwired (at least partially) but our actions aren’t. Morals are tools invented by society specifically to regulate the actions resulting from such appetites. The long history of suppression of female sexuality is testimony to the effectiveness of sexual morals in regulating hypergamy. Morals even have had some success regulating male sexual appetites.
Sexual morals that suppress hypergamy their conflict with modern morality which emphasizes female autonomy, so many people would consider them outdated and invalid. That’s a different point.
This paper argues that the imposition of sexual repression on women can force a society from a hypergamous to an assortative mating equilibrium – to the benefit of beta males, who are then more likely to have a mate. This “loser group” has been successful throughout much of history at “punishing normal people” and thereby altering the basic structure of society to their advantage. In fact, what we consider traditional society based on monogamous marriage may be largely due to their success.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what one thinks of female hypergamy or its male equivalent, whatever we want to call it. It doesn’t matter if it’s fair/moral or not. As far as the sexual/mating marketplace is concerned, the only thing that matters about female hypergamy is its defining feature, namely that when it’s unrestrained, as it is today, it erodes and undermines the one thing women ultimately want, which is the offer of commitment from high-status men. In a society where the only potential force curbing and mitigating female hypergamy is women’s self-control, men simply have fewer and fewer incentives to invest in women, knowing that women will only mate on a purely conditional basis that the only form of commitment they’d accept is one that they can end on a whim anytime they want.
As I’ve noted earlier, women elicit various responses from men in a world of unrestrained hypergamy: thuggery/chavism, “Light Game”, “Dark Game” (whatever the hell those two are supposed to mean), ghosting, spree-killing, porn addiction, MGTOW, Athol’s MAP, video game addiction, you name it. The ONLY male behavior they generally more and more FAIL to elicit is that of a responsible, dutiful husband and father. I’m sure that’s purely a coincidence.
Odd, Susan, that you get so irritated when some of us say the same stuff. I guess Vox is right that it’s all in the presentation but I’ll be damned if I know how to present the same concept in a way that does not get your back up.
I don’t think men think that hypergamy itself is immoral. What is immoral, is how many women disregard promises, vows, contracts (legal, verbal and moral) and what’s best for their family and children. Men can’t help but be aroused by younger females, but they often opt not to act upon those feelings, because they feel loyalty and inclination to keep promises. Of course there are men who are unloyal as well. But my main point is that it is not hypergamy itself that men hate, but women’s inability to control their behavior next to it.
“Because high status demonstrates that a male has competed against other males and come out on top. This position of leadership and respect implies access to resources. The children of these men are much more likely to thrive and enjoy the benefits of prestige”…also, of course, high status may be an indicator of genes that increase the odds that the kids will survive and thrive, even if the status/resources of the parents evaporates.
BUT…both of these evolutionarily-beneficial effects happen only to the extent that the status ladder in a given society is one which turns out to be evolutionarily appropriate. To take an extreme example: a woman in 1939 Germany might well have been attracted to a high-ranking SS officer. But as things turned out, what this attraction bought her was being the widow of an executed war criminal, and children with this cloud over their head. And, to the extent that such things have a genetic component, maybe also children with a tendency to cruelty.
Basically, mate selection on status sort of represents outsourcing one’s own estimates of mate value to the collective opinion of the herd. I do think some women are attracted directly by a man’s accomplishments, whether they are high-status in that time and place or not–say, a high school girl who is attracted to a boy with artistic talents, even though such talents are not particularly well-regarded among her friends or by her parents.
Hypergamy, or female desire for an ever-higher status man, is not the problem.
Moreover, the complaint is not that women have more opportunity to indulge their hypergamy than men do because men are more sexually available to women than women are to men. That’s a different story altogether.
The problem is the unrestrained, uncontrolled hypergamy rampant in our society now. It’s a problem because when it is unrestrained, the female tendency to want ever better, ever hotter, ever higher status men is never satisfied. Indeed, it never has to reach an endpoint of satisfaction or contentment when it has no restraints.
An interesting quote from the paper I previously linked:
Sexual repression leads to assortative mating. The winners under sexual repression are beta men because they get a mate, or a better one; alpha men lose, because they can’t monopolize women; beta women lose, because they can get a better man under the hypergamous system.
Given the socio-political ascendancy of beta women and the decline of beta men, we’re going to be living in a hypergamous society for some time, regardless of whether it can be cast as a moral issue or not.
“They have unrestrained opportunities to indulge hypergamous instinct, provided they can attract a high status male for commitment. Of course, most fail.”
“In a society where the only potential force curbing and mitigating female hypergamy is women’s self-control, men simply have fewer and fewer incentives to invest in women”
The “modern” response to “modern women” is N scrutiny. It is the universal and pervasive defining measure by which to invest. Prior to “getting to know her” a man’s comfort with a particular woman is a direct function of her N. Its where the first cut is made; it divides women into camps. More than any other time in the past, a man who manages to find a low N women along with other desirable features is a man who gets deep respect from his peers.
So a females natural instinct is hypergamy, which must be accepted. A males natural instinct is to fu@k young attractive women which makes him shallow and an animal.
One rule for one…..can those little ladies not control their instincts? I thought our hairy lesbobo friends thought all was malleable?
The more I think about it, the more this post completely misses the point.
Hypergamy per se is NOT the problem. The problem is that it is unrestrained. What is ignored is that women writ large want it this way.
It is almost as if the current SMP is feminist payback for apex males’ tomcatting around in the early days of the Republic from about 1800 to 1950.
“In other words, the system works from a biological point of view. . . .
Both are good for Homo sapiens.”
And both are required to be checked when enter monogamy. (At the door, like a coat sense)
“The other concern sure to show up in the comments (as it did at Social Pathologist) is that today women have greater freedom to pursue hypergamy than men have to pursue “femogamy.” Again, I think this misses the mark. Hypergamy is not a strategy, it’s an attraction cue.”
Aren’t they both attraction cues? And can an attraction not be “persued?” (Void of stragety)
“Be what you want in a partner.”
Men should be feminine and chaste!!? /s
@Susan
Good post. I think that finding out the true nature of people and accepting that (and then setting up appropriate constraints on natural behavior that is detrimental to others, e.g. rape, murder, stealing, etc.) is important. So accepting female hypergamy and male femogamy (to the extent they exist) is an important foundation. Also, accepting the male desire for variety (in most males) and the female desire for variety (no doubt a lower percentage than men for multiple partners in a short time span; serial monogamy can be considered too) are important factors. Hypergamy is unsettling to all but the upper echelon men. Male desire for variety and youth/beauty is unsettling to monogamous-leaning and less-attractive/older women but it makes no sense to hide from the truth. Accepting the truth does not mean that all natural tendencies will be acted upon or promoted. Rather, it provides the true understanding of human nature upon which to build a rationally-based framework that includes desires, behaviors, prescriptions and consequences.
@Susan
I’ll add a couple of things.
1) The male of higher status not only confers greater resources and protection to her and his offspring, he likely also provides better genes since his higher status is probably a significant though partial result of better genes.
2) A slight quibble with the following statement:
We evolved to be well-suited to the hunter-gatherer environment. Many of those traits actually served humanity even better once agriculture was developed and that ability and desire to invent more technology and seek knowledge gave birth to the modern, technologically “miraculous” era.
So I would agree that as a species we have the highest population, life expectancy and wealth that humanity has ever seen, and that proves your assertion in a way that you probably weren’t thinking of.
However, many of our tendencies that evolved in the hunter-gatherer environment and served us well to invent technology may now be “outsmarting” developed nations and lead to their decline or even ruin. Notice how procreation was historically less of a choice and something that resulted from something pleasurable (sex). Instead of rational thought about what our needs were, desires and emotions evolved to ensure our survival and reproduction “needs” were met. Now that procreation is much more of an elective act birth rates are falling and most developed nations are aging and either declining in population or will do so within then next 20 or 30 years. And even countries like China will increasingly have top-heavy populations.
We have learned how to intensify and isolate the pleasurable aspects of survival and reproduction activitities, sometimes completely removing them from said activities (sex with birth control, porn, etc.) and in other cases amplifying their effects (e.g. delicious food/snacks and plenty of it leading to weight and health problems).
“Be what you want in a partner.”
“Men should be feminine and chaste!!? /s”
Why not? In the sense that (provided you subscribe to dualism) men and women should be cultivating the positive traits of both masculinity and femininity, and yes, if you are already in or desire a monogamous, committed relationship, then you should be chaste.
The concept of hypergamy is slightly altered in favor of natural alphas, not necessarily just higher status males. It’s an incomplete concept.
Men are attracted to younger, hotter, tighter women, but not necessarily. He is also attracted to virginal women, less experienced, and less worldly for marriage.
“the current SMP is feminist payback for apex males’ tomcatting around in the early days of the Republic from about 1800 to 1950.”
They are rubbing their hands saying “yessss…payback!” while, um, pleasuring the very people (men) who they are supposedly getting this payback against?
@Esau
Good point about hypergamy having a greater impact on the S/MMP due to the floor or minimum level of what you will accept as opposed to the maximum level you would love to get.
Women have greater economic power than they did hundreds of years ago so they don’t need men as much on an individual level (collectively, that’s a different story since men pay more taxes). This frees them up to not need a provider/protector as much and they can (subconsciously) indulge the hypergamous side of their attraction triggers and go for the men that seem to have better genes or more wealth and power, even if it is only for casual sex.
Unleashed hypergamy (to whatever extent it exists, and I think it is significantly present in maybe 50% of young women in their 20′s) is a natural consequence of technology leading to a society where males are not needed (as much or at all) on the individual level for providing and protecting.
“Men are attracted to younger, hotter, tighter women, but not necessarily. He is also attracted to virginal women, less experienced, and less worldly for marriage.”
How do women feel about these universal dual attraction desires among men?
Funnily enough, we’re headed for a global demographic implosion. When you observe the societies where female hypergamy is the least restrained, you’ll see that they’re practising voluntary extinction, so to speak. Sanghai, probably the most vibrant, booming etc. city in the world, has a total fertility rate of 0.6. In Milan and Singapore it’s roughly 0.9. So much for humans being “better designed for efficient reproduction today than at any other time in the past”.
“indulge the hypergamous side of their attraction triggers and go for the men that seem to have better genes or more wealth and power, even if it is only for casual sex.”
Its only for casual sex because they are taking what comes easy and deep down know that they have pretty much blown it for commitment now or in the future…
I agree with everything Essau said. You are contorting (unintentionally, I assume) the real meaning of female hypergamy (IN THE MANOSPHERIC/DEVLINESQUE SENSE) so as to make a point that most people don’t really have an issue with (other than low status males, I suppose). Being attracted to status is not a defining feature of hypergamy in the manospheric sense. As you say point blank in the article, it’s just an attraction cue for women. The fact that men don’t really share that cue (and have stronger cues for pert breasts and tight round butts) is irrelevant.
What makes it “hypergamy”, for purposes of this discussion, is the relative inability of women (especially young women) to be attracted to men of equal or slightly lower SMV. And by “relative inability”, I mean in comparison to men, most of whom have no trouble generating sexual attraction to women of equal or even lower SMV.
Accordingly, in my view, hypergamy’s evil twin is not the tendency of men to be more attracted to younger, hotter women. It’s the tendency of men to be relatively (in comparison to women) less satisfied with having one partner. If multiple women tend to want the same man (to the exclusion of other men), it stands to reason that the man often wants multiple women.
However, the desire for multiple women is shamed. But the desire by many women to ONLY have sex with men of much higher comparative sex rank is not. But, numerically, that desire cannot be indulged unless the the high rank male’s desire for multiple women is similarly indulged.
Another fallout of hypergamy is the act of cuckoldry of low to mid status males whose roughtly equal SMV mates like their provisioning and commitment much less than their dicks, but that’s another matter.
Having said all that, even in your scenario, the primal impulse of the 45 year old man to dump his aging wife for younger tail is greatly shamed by society, whereas the wife’s impulse to trade up when her husbands status falls drastically is not similarly shamed. I guess you acknowledged this.
Wow Susan. I’m surprised you got into this debate, again… Did you miss the male agression? LOL
It is NOT hypergamy itself that is the problem. It is that as a society, we have removed much of the morality that kept hypergamy from being an issue in assortive mating.
Put it this way: in a society where men are not only expected but pushed to have sex with lots of women, most men are more than happy to do so. In a society where women are not only expected but pushed to constantly look for and trade up to “better” men, most women are more than happy to do so.
Hypergamy is not the problem. Lack of morality to counter it is the problem. Not only does it keep women in an extended period of “lets see what I can catch”, it also causes problems down the road for marriage, because easy no fault divorce allows men and women to look for a better deal with ease. Once upon a time it was mostly men that did this, the old “trading her in for a new model” schtick. Today I think it is fair to say that it is at least a 50/50 split of men and woman “trading in”, but add to it the women that find themselves longing for some adventure after the kids get older, and ejecting to “find themselves” or whatever, and I’d say women have the upper hand when it comes to divorce.
I can’t think of one divorced guy that did so because he needed to “find himself” or some such nonsense. But I know of at least a handful of such women. It seems to happen most often when they hit their mid-30′s into the 40′s, and usually when the kids are older or out of the house. To me it looks an awful lot like “well the kids are gone, and I don’t need the ball and chain anymore. Time to go have fun!”
And yes, I realize this is probably a biased opinion. But remember, I don’t hang with the UMC types. My people are mostly MC and lower, where divorce is almost an epidemic.
“I can’t think of one divorced guy that did so because he needed to “find himself” or some such nonsense.”
Or when single and screwing multiple women. For some reason women can’t seem to “find themselves” without multi penis and freely admit it with terms such as “expressing sexuality” “discovering boundaries” and other such “don’t think of me as a ho” terms.
@ Han Solo:
“Unleashed hypergamy (to whatever extent it exists, and I think it is significantly present in maybe 50% of young women in their 20′s) ”
What restraints or controls are there on hypergamy currently, other than a woman’s own internal controls and/or decision not to indulge it? For all intents and purposes, not even marriage is an effective restraint on hypergamy when it can be ended at any time for any reason.
“Today I think it is fair to say that it is at least a 50/50 split of men and woman “trading in”, but add to it the women that find themselves longing for some adventure after the kids get older, and ejecting to “find themselves” or whatever, and I’d say women have the upper hand when it comes to divorce.
I can’t think of one divorced guy that did so because he needed to “find himself” or some such nonsense. But I know of at least a handful of such women. It seems to happen most often when they hit their mid-30′s into the 40′s, and usually when the kids are older or out of the house. To me it looks an awful lot like “well the kids are gone, and I don’t need the ball and chain anymore. Time to go have fun!” ”
I know some single moms who divorced with small children for similar reasons. They found themselves almost poverty stricken after the divorce, really struggling to make ends meet and sometimes unable to do so, living in lower-middle class to lower class neighborhoods but these particular women preferred that to living with their husbands in middle-middle class neighborhoods and the benefits of sharing two full time incomes.
I don’t know what this is other than mapping the soul’s quest for freedom and liberation onto the misplaced body/mind.
This essentially works out to:
Women feel free to not settle down, divorce your husband if you can do better , if you can’t divorce just cheat, and god forbid you mate with someone with an equal SMV. You deserve a movie star. you go grl.
Guys, you want many women. Go for it, cheat on your wife, obviously you need variety. What? you don’t want to settle down either. Thats fine, its only natural.
Remember everyone as long as its biological in nature its okay to indulge in because biology is divorced from morality to extend even farther, place basic biological needs ahead of society, culture and civilization.
————–
Susan
What worked when we ran around in lion skins chanting uggah-buggah is most definitely NOT effective in maintaining civilization. The very fact that every advanced civilization placed checks and balances on human nature is proof of that. More specifically, female nature kinda has to be checked at the door if you want an iPad. (Not male however, advanced societies with non-monogamous men exist. They don’t with non-monogamous women.)
“For all intents and purposes, not even marriage is an effective restraint on hypergamy when it can be ended at any time for any reason.”
+1. This is exactly the point. It isn’t that hypergamy is evil, it is that we as a society are NOT teaching women to control it.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. It is my natural urge to strangle someone that pisses me off. Yet I’m not in prison for murder. Why? Because I can control my natural urges for long term benefit. It seems that many women are UNABLE to control their natural desire to “mate up”, and society is making it easier for women to not even try.
note:
I’m not talking basic men want young women, woman want status. its the rest of it thats bad.
Trading up, bad.
Female infanticide, bad.
Siblicide, bad.
Abandoning children, bad.
All are very effective at promoting the individual. Not so much for society.
Being on the market is a voluntary status determined solely by the person. When someone tells you they are off the market, I strongly urge you to give up.
Well, this is how I’ve come to view it.
I dispel “femogamy.” I refuse to let, what is a, biological impulse direct the course of my lifes’ relationships. (Not to say I never feel it, of course!)
That is my basis of believing that there must be women who would feel the same about hypergamy.
Ted:
“It isn’t that hypergamy is evil, it is that we as a society are NOT teaching women to control it. ”
Exactly. And that’s why Susan and Slumlord have both missed the point on this one. Again: a man’s tendency to polyamory (I refuse to use “femogamy”) is not evil. His character deficiencies leading him to stray are evil. I’d point out also there are numerous societal and cultural checks on polyamory (except for apex men).
A woman’s natural hypergamous instinct does not make her intrinsically bad or evil. The problems are the failure to teach her to control it, her inability or unwillingness to control it, and society’s failure to check and restrain it.
The natural expression of femogamy is Genghis Khan, dominate other men through violence, subjugate people, steal and rape as many women as possible.
He is the rawest expression of the pure animal masculine drive devoid of higher enlightened reason and institutionalized restraint.
Carl Sagan talked about the triune brain and the different overlays of the mind, defering to the lower parts of the self and giving it primacy is devolution.
You’ve changed the wrong part of the compound word.
Hyper means ‘above’ or ‘high’
“Femo” doesn’t mean anything–it’s the gamy whence comes the female portion of the word.
You want hypoandrous or the like.
@deti
Well, there are still some constraints from religious communities but my point in saying “to whatever extent it exists” wasn’t so much about the lack of leashes (I agree, they’ve been largely eliminated) but on hypergamy itself. I don’t think all women in their 20′s are hypergamous since I see a good deal that do get married to men that seem to be roughly of equal value. IIRC, the median age for marriage for women lately is roughly 26. OTOH, I know a lot of very picky women who’s minimum level of value that a man must bring was unrealistically high and they are single to this day. So, my point is that the leashes are largely gone but I would guess (and it’s just a guess) that about half of women in their 20′s are hypergamous and half are not. This hypergamous half would include those that are putting off marriage til 30+ since implicitly it would require a man of much superior value to anything they are imagining to woo them away from their intended singlehood.
Thoughts?
@Rollo
That’s a fair question. First, I would point out that SP defines hypergamy as marrying up.
Second, I don’t see a conflict in your two statements. A woman seeks a man of higher status for marriage because her offspring benefit from his status as a leader and provider. It certainly is not a survival mechanism for the woman – not sure what you meant there.
Third, I made a decision to include in the post the question of preventing mates from defecting due to hypergamous or “femogamous” impulses. I did this for two reasons:
1. I believe that female hypergamy lies on a spectrum, like all aspects of sexuality. Some women may feel little of it, others may struggle with the desire to trade up throughout their lives. The best way to prevent that is: Avoid hypergamous women and be an attractive husband.
2. I made this concession for the sake of argument, partly because I realize the sense of 1. and partly because if I didn’t, this thread would quickly devolve into me and Escoffier going at one another.
I’m interested in the debate about the moral neutrality of the sexuality of men and women, not whether women are hypergamous throughout their lives. (I still believe most women are not, but am willing to leave that aside.)
“Well, there are still some constraints from religious communities but my point in saying “to whatever extent it exists” wasn’t so much about the lack of leashes (I agree, they’ve been largely eliminated) but on hypergamy itself.
Thoughts?”
Look up the word hypergamy and one of the definitions is the classical Hindu arranged marriage system by caste where men were permitted to marry down but women were not. There were obvious rational reasons for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/279579/hypergamy
Han:
I get it.
I was talking about hypergamy as I understood it to be used in the OP, which is the natural instinct, hardwired into all women, of either (1) insisting on a man of a higher SMV than her; or (2) seeking the highest status man she can get (at all times).
You are talking about the extent to which a woman indulges or acts upon her hypergamous instincts.
I agree that not all women act on or indulge their hypergamy. I don’t know if it’s 50%.
I agree with others that the male equiavalent or counterpart of hypergamy is not the desire for young and hot so much as the desire for variety and plenty.
Susan, I have posted a million times about the “moral neutrality” of both male and female sexuality, that is the sexual impulse, and it has made you quite angry. I am going to quote something I recently wrote for another context but that applies here:
There is in political science—the old political science—a sort of second law of thermodynamics. But to see that first we have to understand the dual meanings or levels to the concept of “human nature”: 1) what our instincts, biological urges and passions impel us to do, and 2) our potential to achieve higher things and perfect ourselves to the extent possible. Both of these are natural and inborn, but the former is as it were on auto-pilot while the latter requires constant vigilance and effort if the autopilot impulses are to be controlled and channelled and if any of that potential is to be realized, and still more vigilance and effort if what is achieved is to be maintained.”
Hypergamy for women and polygamy for men clearly belong to the first category, which I call low or base nature. The phrase “base nature” really pisses you off but it should not. I would put hunger and thirst in that category, too: natural impulses that are necessary to the survival of the self, or of the species, but that can otherwise be put to good or bad ends.
The fact is, we also have a higher nature, which is what we today are not so good at cultivating in either sex, certainly not as a society.
@deti
I think I am talking about natural instinct. I think women exist on a spectrum of hypergamous instinct and desire. I think that maybe 20% of women aren’t very hypergamous at all (a lot of the female commenters on here seem to be more that way), 30% would be mildly so realize they have to be realistic if they want a husband and are happy to do so, 30% are quite hypergamous, and 20% are highly hypergamous.
This is muddled because I think women’s attraction cues are influenced somewhat by herd dynamics (what the alpha mares of pop culture, education, media, etc. say should be attractive). It’s also muddled because I think women’s impulse to be hypergamous is environmentally influenced. In safe, prosperous areas their natural attraction to being provided and protected will fall asleep (not needed) and that will leave more room for their hypergamous nature to dominate their overall attraction mechanisms, seeking better genes and “winning the lottery” with some much richer or more powerful man, either for casual or hoping for an LTR.
@Esau
Neither Social Pathologist nor I said “as attractive a partner as possible.” As can you see from my fun graphic, many females are likely to want the same men. Well, guess what percentage of people get to be in the 1%?
The floor, as you put it, is real. Hypergamy is relative, in that most women do in fact marry a man who is not a “10″ in MMV, but ideally he will have status greater than her own. Increasingly, however, marriages of equal status are commonplace, though relative status is likely to change over time if the woman has children.
Have I missed something? You’re using words and phrases neither in my post nor SPs. It’s not a question of the best a woman can get. If there are no suitable males (in her perception), she will not mate. She will keep searching for a male who has achieved status vis a vis other males.
Yesterday, someone linked to a paper on the economics of marriage. I found this excerpt interesting:
Because of the hypergamy effect, we can also show that the equilibrium can only be of two types. In the “Victorian” type, all agents marry somebody of the same rank in the distribution of income. In the model households produce the same number of boys and girls of each genetic type and provide the same investment in human capital to both; therefore, the distribution of human capital is the same for men and for women. In such a “Victorian” equilibrium, therefore, people marry somebody with exactly their human capital (homogamy).
In the “Sex and the City” (SATC) type, women marry men who have more human capital than themselves. There is a mass of unmarried men at the bottom of the distribution of human capital, and a mass of single women at the top of that distribution. It is shown that the economy switches from a Victorian to an SATC equilibrium as inequality goes up; one interpretation is that less skilled women underbid more skilled ones for their husbands, which in equilibrium drives the skilled woman’s share in bargaining down. As a result, the most skilled women end up better-off unmarried, and mating with alpha men. The same mechanism explains why the equilibrium may be SATC even though all homogamous marriages would be viable: starting from a homogamous assignment, less skilled women would successfully underbid more skilled ones by accepting a lower share of the surplus, thus driving them out of the marriage market.
Clearly, we are living in a SATC era.
“others may struggle with the desire to trade up throughout their lives.”
Is your position on this evolving? I recall in prior threads your insisting that hypergamy is not a constant subroutine. It seems you’ve backpedaled on this somewhat.
” I’m interested in the debate about the moral neutrality of the sexuality of men and women, not whether women are hypergamous throughout their lives. (I still believe most women are not, but am willing to leave that aside.)”
See the links I put above. In South Asian culture hypergamy was and still is forced on us. I really don’t think its something biological. Or maybe its innate in situations of danger or extreme want. Otherwise, if you are living a healthy and safe life in a civilized environment then it seems its more culturally enforced against the will of women who would rather just be with the men they love, despite his income or caste/class status in the social hierarchy.
In other words, its a relic from pre-historic and pre-agricultural days that some cultures have held on to, even as the individual women in those cultures have moved on to egalitarian loving.
@Mr. Wavevector
That’s what I was trying to say when I wrote this:
In other words, what do we do as human beings of higher order thinking and character to behave in a moral way despite our “wiring?”
“In the “Sex and the City” (SATC) type, women marry men who have more human capital than themselves. ”
IIRC, Horseface was the only one who “married up”, right?
Escoffier,
Awesome post #40.
(Autocorrect wants to make your name Wax officer – heh)
Once again, with corrected tags:
What Susan said SP said:
What SP actually said:
Susan’s rephrasing obscures SP’s point that there is indeed a moral dimension in a woman’s actions based on her sexual attractions.
Since morality deals with actions, biological attractions by themselves are by definition morally neutral. But any actions motivated by them are in the moral sphere. Since we are generally interested in who a woman sleeps with or who she marries, it’s the actions that count.
I think the question of whose morals we’re using is the really interesting question. As I pointed out, men with low SMV have strong incentive to invent morals that punish hypergamy. That’s the real dynamic behind the MRA/MGTOW anger with female sexual behavior.
” The best way to prevent that is: Avoid hypergamous women and be an attractive husband.”
I’d love to see you write about how to become an attractive husband, or have you already done so?
@ Susan
What like projection? That never works.
Awww, Escoffier, did you have to come out swinging? Why not assume that I have given your commentary serious thought and amended my judgment? That is, in fact, the case. Because I have experienced no hypergamous impulse since finding my husband, I reasoned that hypergamy could not be “hard wired” as an active influence throughout a woman’s life. As in, NAWALT. However, I think it’s more likely that some women are extremely hypergamous, while others may be minimally so. I was certainly concerned about status when I selected Mr. HUS, and remain satisfied with his rank. But my “anecdotal evidence” does not prove the point.
As for presentation, yes, it is important. Not an intersexual issue either – more along the lines of vinegar, honey and all that.
This is a ridiculous comment. Since men have always and traditionally cheated more than women (though the gap is closing), I’m wondering where you get your data.
@david foster
And that’s what might lead to a mutation or some major evolutionary shift. However, from a reproductive standpoint, the woman is drawn to the SS officer because he advertises good genes and resources for her potential offspring. I am speaking biologically. She may indeed deem him unworthy of a sexual relationship, which is where the raw material question comes in. But her hypergamy will not lessen his attractiveness. She will need her cerebral cortex for that.
Sure, I agree with that. So what do you think the moral implications of women acting on hypergamy in the modern SMV?
@Susan
“And that’s what might lead to a mutation ”
Mutations occur randomly. Its the effect that mutation has on phenotype that subsequently leads to hits selection/deselection from the population.
@deti
I agree that is a problem, and have written several posts to that effect. However, that is not what SP is addressing. He is challenging the demonization of female sexual instinct. Many men here have complained that society does this to them, e.g. it’s wrong to want a thin and beautiful partner. SP is correct to make them analogous – and shaming either one is wrong.
I have debated the point here many times, and have objected to use of the word base to describe the sexuality of either sex. Base is defined as “mean, vile, low, ignoble, sordid, scurvy, villainous, abject.”
I really do mean it when I say that the male desire for sexual variety and fertility is a good thing, biologically speaking. Every woman should understand that is male instinct, and that men forgoing that are making a tradeoff, or sacrifice. The same holds true re hypergamy.
@Mr. Wavevector
Agreed. I’ve noticed that you have prescribed sexual repression for all, which I appreciate. Very often we only hear of unleashed female sexuality. In fact, male sexuality has also been unleashed. In my view, the unbridled pursuit of sex is embraced by people of unrestricted sociosexuality, who tend to be drawn to one another. Most people are not promiscuous, either by choice or opportunity.
This gets at the question of what kind of “status” women seek – and there is considerable variance in the female sexual algorithm. You are a man who bested many other males when you earned a PhD at MIT, and you make a handsome living. For many women, your considerable status puts you high on the ladder for a certain kind of woman (like me
). Other women might go for the thug. There is still considerable assortative mating.
@Andy
This is straight up trolling, as I expressly offered a different view in the post.
“However, [failure to control hypergamy] is not what SP is addressing. He is challenging the demonization of female sexual instinct.”
It is really tilting at windmills for both MRA/MGTOW to demonize female sexual instinct, and for SP/Slumlord even to address it, because that’s not the problem.
A constructive use of effort would be discussing how best to restrain hypergamy.
@deti
Define “women writ large.” I think you’re wrong. The vast majority of women are sexually restricted by nature, and would welcome sexual repression in society.
@Anyone
There is 2 or 3 forum post, of girls asking relationship advice, that have yet to be answered.
@Cooper
Strategy is the action, which is pursuit.
+1!
“In fact, male sexuality has also been unleashed.”
Not really. The difference is in sexual availability.
In reality, only a few men are able to engage in “unleashed” male sexual conduct. By stark contrast, nearly ALL women can engage in unleashed or unrestrained female sexual conduct. It’s simple: men are more sexually available to women than vice versa.
I think you’ve missed the critical point of anti-hypergamy discourse: that because feminism, family court cash-and-prizes, and equal outcomes for women have entirely undermined the biological value of hypergamy. The imposition of the articificial system we incorrectly term ‘equality’ has turned the matter into a moral one. It’s the moral side of this equation the anti-hypergamists are seeking to resolve. They don’t seem to condemn hypergamy itself (at least not the sensible amongst them), but to condemn and correct the artificial system that is starting to see hypergamy as a prescription for female mating behaviour rather than merely a description of it.
Hypergamy may be instinctive, but the fruits of its cultural manifestation are as toxic to civilised humanity as eekwalitee. Reducing the anti-hypergamist argument to merely a biological one and declaring that men should simply accept the fact and learn to live with it is to either abdicate responsibility for keeping the weeds at bay, or to miss the point entirely. Every parent knows, deep down, that to raise a good daughter her ego must be judiciously pruned and to raise a good son his ego must be suffused with promise. That’s the point of the anti-hypergamists argument, surely
“The vast majority of women are sexually restricted by nature, and would welcome sexual repression in society.”
Really? That’s news to me. Women would agree voluntarily to cultural and social constraints on their own sexual conduct? Women would agree voluntarily to wholesale restructuring of family laws to disincentivize frivolous divorce? A return to slut shaming?
You yourself have said slut shaming is a nonstarter.
@Han Solo
Clearly, there have been periods in history where a large change occurred to promote survival among some groups. Prior to that shift, things would have been less efficient, or that branch of homo sap doomed to extinction. Today we are more efficient reproductively than we have ever been before, but it’s possible that homo sap will change dramatically and that people like you and me will disappear.
I should offer the caveat that I am no expert on evolution, and am happy to be corrected on any erroneous statements or concepts.
The dysfunction you describe is not the product of instinct, which remains efficient, but of poor human decision-making. If we are no longer suited to the environment, then it is likely that sexual selection will proceed and we will evolve. If we don’t destroy one another first.
“Define “women writ large.” I think you’re wrong. The vast majority of women are sexually restricted by nature, and would welcome sexual repression in society.”
I hope I am wrong. I don’t think I am, though.
@Jonny
Not really, although alphas may be the higher status males. Researchers have studied the components of social status, separating it into dominance and prestige. Prestige was a much stronger attractor than dominance.
Men cannot perceive virginity visually. Male attraction is heavily visual, and very much in line with female fertility cues, which serve as timeless standards of female beauty.
You’re confusing biology and environment.
My extended family (yes they still exist) used to always be on my case to be hypergamous. Not my parents, mind you, because they went against the cultural grain when they married each other, but certainly my grandparents and great aunts and uncles. They remain flabbergasted that the men I choose to date consistently earn less than me, and, if they are from my culture, are of considerably lower caste status (though often higher than they are in socio-economic status).
I tell you this hypergamy is a relic from the past that is still forced upon us otherwise egalitarian lovers.
Susan wrote:I have debated the point here many times, and have objected to use of the word base to describe the sexuality of either sex. Base is defined as “mean, vile, low, ignoble, sordid, scurvy, villainous, abject.”
I think he means ‘basis’, not ‘debased’. I.e. “a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis: the base of needed reforms.”
The French word ‘base’ doesn’t have the double-meaning that the English version does. Rather, ‘bas’ is ‘low’, which is the context you are inferring.
@Passer By
Are single men shamed for not marrying? Dating around? Having ONSs? I don’t think so, I think the opposite is true.
Many women are not seeking uncommitted sex with men of higher sex rank. A minority of women are. Most women are seeking committed sex with a man of higher status (which is not necessarily just sex rank) than themselves.
If both are indulged, civilization dies. Productive civilization requires monogamy. I guess you could say the guys got a raw deal on that, but only because they kill each other when we don’t have it. Their sexual instinct is so powerful they will destroy one another competing for sex.
I agree. So. What’s the solution? Incendiary language in online forums? Misogyny? Finger pointing at the feral female?
The solution is in either turning over feminism, or selling voluntary restraint as beneficial personally. I’m working on the latter. Several bloggers in the sphere are working on the former. There is no good reason for bitter, angry and divisive gender acrimony. It can only delay improvement.
The female desire to have pair-bond and have children. That objective requires that women make the best possible deal they can and go all in. Women who fail to do so will howl in their 30s. It is certainly harder for some women than others. Future time orientation, low impulsiveness, high conscientiousness, high agreeableness – all of these traits predict sexual behavior.
Nature is not ashamed of male sexuality. It puts it out there in the open – a big, upright boner waving in the wind towards nubile-ness and a forth-right, “You and me babe; how about it?”
Nature is so ashamed of human female hypergamy that She hides it from everyone, even, apparently (especially?) human females themselves.
Remember, it has only been brought into discussion by some ruthlessly observant men-folk. Another few millenia could have gone by without a single hint or clue coming from the other side.
@Mr. WaveVector: “Societies have been doing that type of social engineering for millenia. It’s called religion.”
Religion isn’t social engineering.
You can try to engineer a pseudo-religion for social engineering purposes, but it doesn’t really work.
@Lokland
I agree completely! What we need to do is have everybody take a deep breath and say, “I’m OK, you’re OK.” We’re all imperfect, if we indulge ourselves we’re never going to get anything done. So let’s figure out how to negotiate these wildly different mating strategies! I’ll give up “must be a CEO” if you give up “has to be DD.” And that is in fact what most of us do.
It’s worth noting that human beings have many needs that are not sexual, including the need to be creative and productive. So we need to balance all of our instincts. That’s hard to learn, which is why it takes humans 18 years to grow to adulthood.
I agree that hypergamy is hardwired, has no moral dimension, and shouldn’t be complained about. I do not see most of the “manosphere” complaining about hypergamy per se. I DO see men noting evil actions committed against men that are motivated by hypergamy. Men may be femogamous, but when they make marriage vows, they are still expected to remain faithful ’til death. Unfortunately, we find ourselves dealing with an increasingly licentious female population that is at liberty to ruin lives without so much as a second glance from the bulk of society. Also, it’s no longer a “good” thing when high status means celebrity and the traits that make women wet are “dark triad” traits. Unrestricted female sexuality is disastrous for civilization. For more information, walk to your nearest ghetto. Take a gun.
What do you mean by many? What have you observed? If it’s frivolous divorce, can you say what percentage of those are caused by hypergamy? If you’re going to make claims about what people are actually doing, you’re going to need data and information about why.
@Cooper
Exactly! You are in the long tail, and there’s an equal number of women there on our side of the fence.
“The female desire to have pair-bond and have children. That objective requires that women make the best possible deal they can and go all in.”
That’s an internal control which exists (or not) in each woman, to differing degrees (if it exists at all). Apparently that strong desire for bonding and getting pregnant isn’t enough to restrain women from casual sex and nuking good men in favor of bad boys. Society used to recognize this and thus decided not to rely on women’s internal controls but to impose external societal sanctions.
Our ancestors knew, and we have forgotten, that you can’t get rid of hypergamy, you can only corral it and rein it in.
(BTW, if the drive to have kids is so strong, why are so many women on hormonal BC? Rhetorical question.)
@susan
“Base is defined as “mean, vile, low, ignoble, sordid, scurvy, villainous, abject.””
I think it can mean different things, and in this case I think he means something more along the lines of that which is driven by the most basic of needs. I prefer to use “primal” do avoid any negative connotation of the type you infer.
instinct or not, once you know about it, it is up to you to control yourself for the sake of civilization. civilization is more important that your measly life.
biology is fine, but these attempts to remove agency are attempts to avoid placing blame and thus, lessening the yelling that you will receive. forego the bloodless, sterile yapping and have the balls to deride.
WADR, I think you have. I have had male commenters here opine that hypergamy needs to be snuffed out. That it is a female flaw. Period. Obviously, SP has seen much of the same. I could easily spend the next hours accumulating hundreds of comments around the sphere saying exactly this. It’s warped thinking.
The point is not that hypergamy is or is not a problem. It doesn’t care what you think about restraining it. It just is. It is society’s obligation to organize itself optimally for the entire population. It is perfect reasonable, in my view, to claim that a feminist society is sub-optimal. However, in a perfect society, hypergamy would be present, as would the male desires for variety and fertility.
The sexes are at cross purposes wrt mating. That’s the beauty of it! That’s where the sexual tension comes from! We may be doing a crappy job of managing ourselves, but we should not be tempted to wish hypergamy away, even if we could.
Those are not the same. Polyamory is an arrangement around commitment, and it’s certainly consensual for all parties, so it couldn’t possibly be evil.
A man’s desire to have sex with multiple women is not evil, though we all hope he procures that sex ethically.
additionally, if women have no agency then there is no reason to have rights. lifelong status as a minor would be the next logical step.
@Escoffier
Happy to cosign your comment. I still don’t like the word base, though.
As for my feelings of frustration (not really anger) I can only say that I felt like I was at the bottom of a pile on that lasted hours. It didn’t help that you referenced as your primary source a deeply misogynist essay. Let’s leave it there, sweetheart. (Allen called Kelley sweetheart.)
once again, with respect to “presentation,” I did not consider that “swinging” at all!
This is the reason why marriage is a bad deal for men and better for women. If the trade off is my money for her looks, my wealth will go up while her looks will go down. If I “trade up” it costs me dearly. In the long run, she wins. Why MGTOW is important to me at 35 years old is that I am looking for something more than just looks. If I don’t get it, I’d rather stay single. In fact, one of my requirements is that if I ever get married (highly doubtful) my mate must have similar finances since that is the number 1 cause for divorce:
-Salary (180k) and I live on about 30k
-No debt except for one of my houses that is still mortgaged at 3.25%
Many women today have student loan debt out the keester. I would require them to pay that off prior to marriage as well as all credit card debt. I would be okay with house/car debt provided she bought within her means and could make the payments. Of course there would also be a prenup.
Now the problem is finding a girl like this THAT IS HOT, YOUNG, KIND, and actual likes you back haha. If I never find it, I’m happier staying single and sailing around the world with a beer!
“However, in a perfect society, hypergamy would be present, as would the male desires for variety and fertility.”
And they would both have external controls superimposed upon them, because external controls are necessary for an orderly society. We’re living now through the removal of external controls on hypergamy but with external controls on male desires for variety fully intact and tightening by the day.
@HanSolo
I would use slightly different percentages but I think this is right on.
Very much so. The herd in high school can make a guy popular and highly desired who would not have that status in any other high school in the nation. All hypergamy is local.
@Susan
“So let’s figure out how to negotiate these wildly different mating strategies! I’ll give up “must be a CEO” if you give up “has to be DD.” And that is in fact what most of us do.”
Just to point out there is no need to negotiate.
Most people don’t have a choice. They take what they can get or they get nothing.
As an ass man who is the CEO of his own company (admittedly tiny, not planning on doing much more than living well of it) I must decline the offer. You’ve seen my wife. I’m not in it for the tits.
“What we need to do is have everybody take a deep breath and say, “I’m OK, you’re OK.” We’re all imperfect”
Your right.
These conversations tend to bring out the worst in people and leave their fears on display.
Its rather obvious upon simple observation that not all women are evil hypergamous hags who only want (insert stereotype).
Much the same as there are quite a few men though interested in variety willing to give it up.
I think what does need to be reinstated is that monogamy requires a sacrifice on the part of both parties for a gain in others.
(Men, no variety, assured paternity. Women, lower quality, iPad and someone to change some diapers.)
Society (i.e.. feminism) has basically dismissed the male sacrifice as, garbage, unreal, non-existent. Theres a plethora of words to choose from, none are good.
“The dysfunction you describe is not the product of instinct, which remains efficient, but of poor human decision-making. If we are no longer suited to the environment, then it is likely that sexual selection will proceed and we will evolve. If we don’t destroy one another first.”
I think our instincts are quite dysfunctional with our current environment. I can pretty much guarantee my instinct is not to have kids or be in a monogamous relationship.
Those decisions are occur on a conscious level with a balance of risk:reward.
Some people do not view the risk:reward in the same way or do not make a conscious decision to have kids and choose not to have them.
Regardless of how they feel it is natural selection de-selecting them.
Those who choose to have kids, not just sex, own the future. Assuming we don’t blast ourselves back to the stone age or remove BC for religious reasons.
I think if you look at human civilization in a million years, almost everyone will choose monogamy and kids as those who did not will not have descendants around.
Natural selection has started favouring the desire for children over the desire for sex.
@Mr. Wavevector
Uh oh, I was referring to this from SP:
Did I misunderstand this sentence? I took it to mean that SP was saying that hypergamy is instinct, not choice, so there is no moral dimension to its existence. Obviously, there is a moral dimension to what actions one takes.
Yes, we are on the same page here.
@susan
“Are single men shamed for not marrying? Dating around? Having ONSs? I don’t think so, I think the opposite is true. ”
Ok, but I was thinking more of a desire to maintain multiple concurrent LTRs, which is the only way to accomodate a female desire to only have sex/LTR with the highest status mate. Both are a problem because they impede assortative monogomous pairings.
Having said that, I think a large segment of society (especially feminists) would condemn a man for going through a lot of women. Generally, such a man is painted as a misogynist. Certainly, Roissy would get condemnation from most of society – including you when you first came upon him. “Cad” is generally a negative term – you may have defined it as “a deceitful seducer” but most don’t, I don’t think.
Anyway, the points I’m making are:
1. I agree that asking women not to be attracted to higher status men is like asking men not to be attracted to hotter women more than fatties. But those are just attraction cues, not hypergamy.
2. Hypergamy, like the urge for polygamy, is an impediment for orderly assortative monogamous pairing. Both should be controlled. But hypergamy is encouraged in accepted entertainment, especially female-oriented entertainment, with the constant realized fantasy of Mr. Big sweeping her away. Outside of, perhaps, Hank Moody in Californication, I can’t think of any generally approved popular entertainment that really encourages and endorses the polygamy urge. And even Hank was given a dose of one-itis to make him culturally acceptable. I don’t think “Big Love” qualifies as endorsing the urge.
Anyway, just my two cents.
“Those who choose to have kids, not just sex, own the future.”
Exactly. This is why I said to myself, I need to get myself some kids.
@deti
Yes, my position on this has evolved. That is part of the reason I was moved to write this post. As you can see, I address the question of tamping down sexual impulse to make marriage work. See comment #53 (and also 39 to a lesser extent).
I still would not describe it as a constant subroutine.
BTW, deti, I would like to take this opportunity to say something to you. I was going to email you but might as well say it here. Despite the fact that we disagree on some things, your civility, generosity and general reasonableness is something I appreciate very much. I’ve been thinking a lot about the cross-sex communication here (post to come) and honestly you stand out as one of the men who is both extremely agreeable and often in opposition. You are definitely the guy in the sphere that can cross the aisle with ease, and I think you should do it more.
“This is the reason why marriage is a bad deal for men and better for women. If the trade off is my money for her looks, my wealth will go up while her looks will go down.”
I think I traded my debt for my wife’s wealth.
@INTJ
Man that fell really flat. Here’s what I meant.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
Gandhi
IOW, be of exemplary character, be generous and loving, (and don’t be supplicating), and your marriage is very likely to be a good one.
I don’t think that natural selection really works at the human level because culture tends to substantially overpower neurology.
@deti
I think most women would, yes. Something like 80% of women say they would love to see hookup culture abolished and a return to traditional dating. Keep in mind, for women who are not slutty by temperament, sluts are really, really wrecking the SMP.
That is true, because we have raised the Millennial generation to be tolerant of diversity in every way, and that includes sexual behavior.
@Mr. Nervous Toes
Where were you in July? We needed you!
@ Hollenhund (Post #6)
“As I’ve noted earlier, women elicit various responses from men in a world of unrestrained hypergamy: thuggery/chavism, “Light Game”, “Dark Game” (whatever the hell those two are supposed to mean), ghosting, spree-killing, porn addiction, MGTOW, Athol’s MAP, video game addiction, you name it. The ONLY male behavior they generally more and more FAIL to elicit is that of a responsible, dutiful husband and father. I’m sure that’s purely a coincidence.”
+1
My male friends and I are at wits end wondering why we should get married when we look at what’s “offered” to men in marriage:
-Divorce laws favor women
-Custody laws favor women
-No fault divorce is allowed
-Eat, Pray, Love was written…and accepted as awesome (not feeling you honey, see you….off to travel the world and marry someone else)
-Hookup culture is easy and available should you want sex
-% of men unhappy in marriage because of lack of sex
-% of men unhappy with the way their wife spends money
-% of men unhappy in marriage because his wife gives her career, kids, pets, gardening, scrapbooking and anything else more love than him
The risk of financial ruin is just too high to take on the role of dutiful husband. There are no safety nets for men. Many men could easily squash their sexual desires for newer younger models if they could have the same loyal guarantee that their wife won’t upgrade should the opportunity present itself, nor will she change the way she treats him over time.
I have a meeting this evening, so will check back later or tomorrow. I didn’t want anyone to think I was avoiding the thread – it’s a good one.
@susan
“I still would not describe it as a constant subroutine. ”
I don’t the “constant subroutine” theory is consistent with the concept of pair bonding.
@Susan
I had in mind women in their 20′s when I made up those percentages (I originally told Deti ~half of them were more hypergamous and ~half weren’t).
I think that in going from junior high to say 30 that most women will shift a little bit on average to being less hypergamous–they mature and their hypergamous desire (to whatever extent it exists) is displaced somewhat by a bit more attraction to comfort traits, a greater realization that they can be happy with someone of their level, and perhaps hormonal changes (pure speculation) that make them happier with equal-value guys too. I know several girls like this. One was a big-boned, slightly fat, average-looking girl who was hopelessly in love in High School with this other good looking but moody, agressive and lone-wolf kind of guy. I would guess her SMV was a 5 or 6 at best. His was more an 8. Fast forward 7 years. He married an 8 and she married a 6. She is still married and has a couple of kids and seems reasonably happy. She was definitely hypergamous in jr and sr high school but not once she got into her mid 20′s and found her husband.
Now I think a lot of the really hypergamous will stay that way to a large extent, because their shift will still leave them hypergamous. I just know so many girls that say in their mid or late 20′s or early 30′s that they’ve given up their badboy phase and are ready for someone willing to commit and treat them right. Are all that way? No. But I think there are enough that shift somewhat that the average hypergamy shifts to a lower level as women move from late teens to late 20′s or early 30′s.
Thoughts?
@Susan
Also, regarding those percentages, I just made them up to roughly match what I have observed amongst those I know so I am flexible in adjusting them if there are better numbers (whether they’re anecdotal, empirical or theoretical). I should also say that I think there is a small % of women (maybe 10?) that are hypogamous and seem to go for someone worse than what they could get.
@ Susan
“I think most women would, yes. Something like 80% of women say they would love to see hookup culture abolished and a return to traditional dating.”
Of course. Traditional dating is that old “chivalry” thing where men plan dates, pay for dates, and basically dote all over the girl. Why would someone not want that? The problem is that this type of relationship is one-sided. I would ask you to look at online dating sites that have public profiles you can read without joining and prepare to be amazed! Most women want “traditions” when it helps them but not when it doesn’t. I always wanted to sign up and write something like “I would prefer a more traditional relationship where my wife cooks and cleans all day.” I’m sure that would go over well.
I never liked the chivalry thing because it always felt like prostitution to me. Dating in some aspects just feels that way. Maybe I’m crazy when I say I want more of a 50-50 and less of a “I spent X dollars on you for our date, now let’s have sex,” which is the expected quid pro quo in chivalry.
@Lokland
Why do you think humanity will be very similar in a million years to what it is now and choose monogamy? I think transhumanism, in some form or other, is coming eventually (no idea if that’s 100, 1000 or 10000 years) and we’ll be so different either by computer implant, bionic attachments, genetic engineering, drugs or whatever thing we can’t even imagine now. People will likely be immortal and may have figured out how to transfer their consciousness into some other kind of “body” and who knows if there is any kind of spiritual reality that will be scientifically discovered and engineeringly tapped into.
Thoughts?
In this thread: no girls.
@SayWhaat
You’re here so you’ve just broken the trend!!! lol
Girls are free to post and the men are being pretty civil from what I can see. No one is saying women are evil for having hypergamic attraction (to whatever extent they do), just that it needs to be reined in as does men’s desire for variety or youth.
Also, I think most of the female commenters here are on the non/less-hypergamic end of the spectrum and don’t feel like it relates, kind of in the same way that the light triad don’t relate to wanting sex with tons of women.
“Are single men shamed for not marrying? Dating around? Having ONSs? I don’t think so, I think the opposite is true. ”
Yes they are. Especially in traditional cultures, like mine. However they are shamed even in non-traditional cultures like our current Western cultures as well, at least I’ve seen it in USA. The dating around and one night stands are expected to last a decade, maybe 2 at most. If one passes 40 without ever having been married or in a serious LTR, then he is looked at suspiciously.
“Nature is so ashamed of human female hypergamy that She hides it from everyone, even, apparently (especially?) human females themselves.
Remember, it has only been brought into discussion by some ruthlessly observant men-folk. Another few millenia could have gone by without a single hint or clue coming from the other side.”
What? The Kama Sutra and other ancient texts have alluded to the female orgasmic capacity which out-competes the males.
As far as “hypergamy” that was a social construct from the Hindu caste system where men were allowed to marry down but women were not. Even today all traditional cultures encourage women to marry up if at all possible, but to at the very least marry her socio-economic equal. If anything what is happening in the modern world is women exercising their CHOICE to mate with men whom they are genuinely physically/sexually attracted to, and those men are often below us in the socio-economic realm.
“In this thread: no girls.”
I made the first comment and have commented all along but moderation prevents my comments from showing up on time. (Susan!)
I think that Susan counts as a girl.
” Many men could easily squash their sexual desires for newer younger models if they could have the same loyal guarantee that their wife won’t upgrade should the opportunity present itself, nor will she change the way she treats him over time.”
There’s no getting around the fact that any average or above looking woman (and often those are not even average) will have options. That’s just a fact men will have to deal with just as we women have to deal with the fact that if we couple up with “alphas” or at the very least, good looking men, they will have options too.
This is where trust comes in. (and probably some shit testing, for both genders).
Also, if your union has a purpose (other than just “being in love” and feeling good about each other), a sense of duty can compel a noble man or woman to honor commitments made.
“I really don’t think its something biological. Or maybe its innate in situations of danger or extreme want. ”
Perhaps women are hypergamous through biology, but what hypergamy is is most definitely socialized. You cannot “unleash” a hypergamy that doesn’t exist biologically, you just have to change the category that puts some men above others, culturally.
If you live in a culture of hunter gatherers, what kind of hypergamy would we adopt? Strongest hunters.
If you live in a communal culture based on agriculture? The guy who brings home the barley, if not, he better be an awesome pottery maker, or scribe, or tool maker etc.,.
If you live in a society that glamorizes crime, rap, materialism, swagger, suits, motorcycles and money? Well…
Female beauty is also biological at base (curves and youth is basically it), since this is all that’s required for women around the planet to be incredibly fertile. Anything other than that is socialized definitions of beauty that vary from culture to culture.
Totally unrelated, the Omega-male ridden manosphere has a lot of men complaining about hypergamy because to any man, the man directly above him is an alpha. A socially dominant/higher beta has less bitterness because there’s only a few men above him. For the average omega, that number is all other men . I’m sure to him, there are loads of alphas, all more successful with women than he is.
SayWhaat – I noticed it and it made me chuckle. So far none of the men commenting have gone all angry and bitter, yet the female voices are few and far between. PJ (who never misses a chance to scrap wi the boys) and Susan are representing the female side here, and I honestly can’t figure out why.
I’m more than willing to have a frank discussion about my natural desire for sexual variety and how I personally deal with it. (In my case that desire is NOT strong as long as I have some sexual outlet) it boggles my mind that women seem reluctant to do the same in regards to hypergamy.
@HanSolo:
“Why do you think humanity will be very similar in a million years to what it is now and choose monogamy?”
People are the purpose of biological evolution. Once we discover other worlds inhabited by other people we can gather data for my hypothesis.
“I think transhumanism, in some form or other, is coming eventually (no idea if that’s 100, 1000 or 10000 years) and we’ll be so different either by computer implant, bionic attachments, genetic engineering, drugs or whatever thing we can’t even imagine now.”
You’re already inhabiting a biotechnology avatar. Is there a problem with it?
“People will likely be immortal and may have figured out how to transfer their consciousness into some other kind of “body” and who knows if there is any kind of spiritual reality that will be scientifically discovered and engineeringly tapped into.”
I’m already immortal. That’s not my problem. My problem is that I’m bored out of my mind and I’m kind of wandering around life aimlessly.
I already have access to spiritual reality. I don’t need any more that I already have at the moment.
Also, I don’t feel like giving people access to the dark sciences or doing any experimental work in that direction. We have enough problems our nuclear weapon and ecosystem destruction at the moment.
So, when I think about my desire for variety, which participating here sometimes impels me to do, and I let my mind stroll in those pastures, I am eventually drawn up short by a number of concerns, not least STDs. I mean, supposing I were single and able to play the field, I think that in the end I still would not because the “ick” factor would be very strong. There is something to be said for, at the outset of a good time, knowing that there won’t be any lasting adverse consequences.
@Han Solo
“People will likely be immortal”
Impossible. Biological immortality is impossible. Full stop, its actually not possible under the laws of the universe. no matter how fancy the technology gets we will never be able to make gravity reverse itself so we float away from Earth nor can we make a biological body live forever.
“and may have figured out how to transfer their consciousness into some other kind of “body”
The number of people who currently want to be robots, you. If you mean transfer to another biological body, yup but again the problem is the number of transfers cannot be indefinite as NOTHING can be achieved with 100% accuracy.
You may think it’d be cool to live forever. I have extreme doubts, both upon the possibility (biological immortality is an impossibility) and the availability (rich get richer, poor get poorer).
“I think transhumanism, in some form or other, is coming eventually (no idea if that’s 100, 1000 or 10000 years)”
Depends upon your definition of trans-human. If you mean “hey look at my cool new eye that can detect x rays” yeah reasonably possible and NBD.
If you mean somehow transcend our genetics your high. Even if people could, they wouldn’t. Four billion years of life has been driven by one command: replicate. To suggest that can be ended by anything manmade is laughable (or for that matter ended by anything).
Some individuals choose not to breed in every generation. That can be via BC or because they wanted to be the terminator. As long as they don’t interfere with the breeding population, no one cares, we all get along. If they try and interrupt however, as you are suggesting, then the result would be war.
What you dream about will be far from universal. If anyone tries to make it universal the result will be war.
I also doubt the ability of a non-breeding group to not interfere with the breeding group, especially if immortal. Again end result, war.
Now as for eugenics, breeding superior humans, very possible. End result, war.
Watch China over the next 20-30 years, essentially the more men than women creates a natural eugenic situation in which only the uber-top quality men get to breed. The result will not be good and yes I think war will be the end result.
Trying to enforce that across the human race well…as one of those who would probably be told to gtfo I would not stand there and accept it.
The only thing worth fighting for is the kids you already have or to gain/retain the ability to produce some in the first place.
@Han Solo
“Why do you think humanity will be very similar in a million years to what it is now and choose monogamy?”
It was half tongue in cheek.
If the selective pressures stay the same then we get to that spot in X years.
The selective forces will change.
I just doubt it will be in the way you think.
I do expect true monogamy to become more common overtime though if BC remains.
“In this thread: no girls.”
Cool. Perfect thread to go on some rants about ex-wives. Who is with me?!!!!
Here I am! I was eating!
I am perfectly willing to fight my girly devils if my husband will fight his. If he misbehaves I will leave; if I stray I expect to be kicked out.
“instinct or not, once you know about it, it is up to you to control yourself for the sake of civilization. civilization is more important that your measly life.”
I can’t imagine anybody willing to be 100% thrown under the bus for the sake of civilization or society. That’s why I don’t support feminism -men are expected to do XYZ, but what will they get for it?
“In safe, prosperous areas their natural attraction to being provided and protected will fall asleep (not needed)”
I am guilty of this… What should I do?
Ion, “Perhaps women are hypergamous through biology, but what hypergamy is is most definitely socialized. You cannot “unleash” a hypergamy that doesn’t exist biologically, you just have to change the category that puts some men above others, culturally.
If you live in a culture of hunter gatherers, what kind of hypergamy would we adopt? Strongest hunters.
If you live in a communal culture based on agriculture? The guy who brings home the barley, if not, he better be an awesome pottery maker, or scribe, or tool maker etc.,.”
- What’s wrong with this? What’s wrong with wanting to secure resources for your children? This is SMART, not evil. Even the forced hypergamy which many traditional cultures impose on their womenfolk, they ultimately mean well and have the best interest of their future grandchildren in mind.
The problem isn’t hypergamy. The problem is women selling themselves and their future children short by going for guys that have nothing of value to offer.
@Han, Sai
“civilization is more important that your measly life.”
I can’t imagine anybody willing to be 100% thrown under the bus for the sake of ”
Han, what you want was perfectly described by Sai in a totally unrelated comment.
For some people to be immortal, others are getting thrown under the bus.
For eugenic improvement of the human race, others are getting thrown under the bus.
Throwing people under the bus does not go over well with the person getting thrown under the bus.
thank you Sai, you summed up my 7 paragraph argument in 2 lines without even meaning to.
Susan – if I understand correctly, hypergamy is not just the urge to get the “best” possible man, but the urge to trade up whenever you have the possibility? So that means a woman who dumps a man after one year together when she has a shot with someone richer/higher social status and then repeats the process? I don’t think I’ve ever met a woman who does this, even though I know quite a few women married to high status/wealthy men. Women’s looks go down, and if you’re married to a CEO or partner in a law firm, his wealth (and status) will go up in his 40s and 50s. I am not sure if there are that many options to ‘trade up’, unless she did a bad deal to begin with.
I definitely have a streak of this (not the ‘trade up’, but the attraction to status). Wealth and social status are major attraction cues to me – I haven’t ever dated a man who wasn’t well off – these were not things I actively looked for, it just happened that way (they are the ones who approach me as well). I don’t care if they spend a penny on me – it is only an attraction cue. On the other hand, I am not particularly visual. I’ll take an average looking guy with charisma and confidence over Bradley Cooper any day.
I agree with the article, because I still think women are judged for seeking high status men. Words like ‘golddigger’ is thrown around, and you can’t really escape it, even if you have money of your own. Sometimes I think very visual girls have it easier. Perhaps because men “get” a girl’s fascination for Orlando Bloom (visual attraction), but he cannot see anything other than taking advantage in terms of a woman dating a moneyed man (because that’s what he would have done).
I think hypergamy is the opposite of promiscuity in a way, at least how it applies to me. My sister is extremely promiscuous and have low standards for men (I think it goes: 1. Owns a penis, 2. Interested in her). She has often been shaming me for choosing high status men. That gives her the opportunity to be the tolerant one (“everybody has a chance”). Deep down the search for a successful man is rooted in an interest in commitment. Does that make sense?
@JP
You and the Mormons agree on a fundamental idea, many world inhabited by people. Since evolution is thought to be blind and random it is unlikely that humans would evolve on other planets and so this would suggest that some other guiding “force” or God directed evolution that way. It will be very interesting to see. The latest predictions (with huge uncertainties) are that there are billions of earth-size or super-earth-size planets in the habitable zones of stars in our galaxy. It seems almost certain that some have life.
Susan,
The problem isn’t that hypergamy exists, but that women don’t seem to be able to control it. Men want to fuck everything they see, but they control it. Women seem to exert no control over hypergamy, or their emotions more generally.
When a women wrecks a marriage and family to satiate her hypergamy she is committing a sin. When she purposely chooses single motherhood to satisfy her hypergamy she is committing a sin. Women are sinning on a massive scale.
You may not understand this, but men and women value moral codes very differently. Women almost expect each other to talk behind their back and betray them. Few women seem to have true friendships with each other or speak honestly. It is a very opportunistic outlook on life. So for women these things don’t seem important. However, to men loyalty and honesty are extremely important. It is how men judge other men. When a women shows disloyalty and dishonesty to engage in hypergamy she is moral scum to a man. These are terrible sins in our eyes. When a man learns that women are inherently prone to things he considers incredible character flaws under his moral code he is revolted.
@JP
You may believe you’re immortal but how do you know you are? Until you die and see that you continue on it’s all just your belief, whether a true belief or not. I know some people who claim to see spirits of the dead that they knew and interact with them. For them, this is proof enough that life goes on after death. What do I think of their claims? I think they might be right but they could also be perceiving things that aren’t there.
You don’t want others to experiment on those things but unless you can enforce a 100% ban then sooner or later someone will. Look at nuclear weapons. You had the 5 nuclear countries say “us and no more” with many others agreeing. But then bit by bit you got Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Soon Iran may have them. And you have dozens of other nations that could go nuclear relatively quickly. Now, so far, we’ve been lucky and only 2 bombs have ever been used but it seems like sooner or later someone might use one, as the technology makes such weapons more and more accessible to less powerful groups.
@HanSolo:
“Since evolution is thought to be blind and random it is unlikely that humans would evolve on other planets and so this would suggest that some other guiding “force” or God directed evolution that way.”
Evolution is bound by the laws of physics and the laws of biology, so it is certainly not unconstrained.
The force, so to speak, is the geometry of space-time itself.
In addition only certain kinds of life are permissible in certain environments.
Cacti don’t evolve in the middle of a rain forest.
That’s hardly random.
“You don’t want others to experiment on those things but unless you can enforce a 100% ban then sooner or later someone will.”
People don’t need to be opening other people’s brain boxes and playing with wires.
In any event, occultists try to play these games all the time and have been doing so for years.
Marie November 14, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Susan – if I understand correctly, hypergamy is not just the urge to get the “best” possible man, but the urge to trade up whenever you have the possibility?
-
Not classically. Classically hypergamy was linked to the South Asian caste and arranged marriage system wherein men were permitted to marry down but not women. Women were encouraged to marry up or at the very least their socio-economic equals. This of course would NOT include trading up for a better model because marriage was for life, even up to 7 lifetimes.
” Now, so far, we’ve been lucky and only 2 bombs have ever been used”
By whom?!
“I know some people who claim to see spirits of the dead that they knew and interact with them.”
I can’t say I give much credence to those types. I consider them wackadoo until proven otherwise.
For example, I think ghosts are “real” in that they can be experienced. But I think that all they are are patterns, perhaps electrical, left over from the past. Perhaps patterns of thought burned onto the film of the world. They are left over from people’s lives. Like old images burned onto a TV screen.
“Sometimes I think very visual girls have it easier. Perhaps because men “get” a girl’s fascination for Orlando Bloom (visual attraction), but he cannot see anything other than taking advantage in terms of a woman dating a moneyed man (because that’s what he would have done). ”
I’m an artist and very visual. My men are my muses. Can’t say its been “easy” as I’m no Aishwarya Rai myself, and I’m very picky about habits, values, lifestyle, ethics, spirituality, character, culture, etc so meeting men who meet my bare minimum threshold for any of the above is by no means an everyday experience, but every once in a while I hit the jack pot.
@Lokland
I get that you were meaning a million years somewhat tongue in cheek. I was not meaning literal immortality but rather quasi-immortality where the aging process could be slowed and that people could still be blown up by bombs.
As to the laws of the universe, there is currently no guarantee that the universe will end in a heat death. Dark energy (if true) is being created every second as space grows and if it turns out to increase in density as space expands and this dark energy can decay into matter at some point then you can have new matter and free energy generated to create new mini universes within the overall universe, forever. A different but similar speculative model is eternal inflation where the energy density just stays the same in the inflating regions and small pockets decay into a lower energy state and create a pocket universe. The other thing is that we never learn the “true” laws of the universe, only better and better approximations to how they are now and over the period of time we’ve measured them. There is no guarantee that those “laws” we think exist don’t have some time dependence built in that will change in the future.
I disagree about all people continuing to replicate in the same way we have up until now. People often replicated unintentionally. Now, with birth control, it’s become much more intentional. I don’t see why it’s implausible that when beneficial genetic engineering becomes available that some people will choose to use it. That may give rise to war but who’s to say that the conservatives (genetically speaking) will win? Maybe the gen-mod-people will.
As far as my personal desires, I don’t desire to be a robot or dream about it. I’m just looking into the future and see transhumanism as very plausible and likely. We apparently disagree as to what level of understanding and ability to manipulate life is theoretically and practically possible eventually. You don’t think it’s likely whereas I think we will eventually come to understand biology sufficiently well to manipulate it to a high degree. I make no claim as to when that will come, maybe a 1000 years from now. And, it is possible that never, but that doesn’t seem likely to me.
Alright, time to crash this party
Oh, this paragraph. This wonderful paragraph…..
I feel indifferent.
I wouldn’t agree to that.
I would agree to that.
I wouldn’t agree to that.
“When a man learns that women are inherently prone to things he considers incredible character flaws under his moral code he is revolted.”
Throw in some slut-phase empowerment and feminist parroting and got yourself a foreign culture…right next door
@Han Solo
“s to the laws of the universe, there is currently no guarantee that the universe will end in a heat death.”
Funny enough. My reasoning includes increasing entropy but doesn’t actually extend to heat death (which is some crazy physics nonsense that isn’t in my range of specialties). I honestly didn’t think much beyond the limited physical body and what was possible within it.
You can’t make everything in the body run at 100% efficiency DNA-Pols fuck up, RNA-Pols fuck up, ribo’s fuck up, protein interactions fuck up. Shit happens its the general law of the universe.
Then you just merely look at the number of states which are “living” vs. the number of states that are “dead”. The number of potential dead states massively outnumber the number of potential living states, toss in shit happens and its merely a matter of time before a dead state arises by random chance. Obviously this could be mitigated by creating biochemical machinery that nears perfection but thats the problem, the closest it can ever get is near actual perfection is impossible.
I will agree quasi-immortality is a possibility, though the extent to which it occurs is unknown.
“The other thing is that we never learn the “true” laws of the universe, only better and better approximations to how they are now and over the period of time we’ve measured them. There is no guarantee that those “laws” we think exist don’t have some time dependence built in that will change in the future.”
Too much physics. I follow but cannot comment with any degree of certainty in what I’m saying but I’ll give her a go anyway.
Your right, what we have themselves are only approximations. Would you agree that the general shit happens principle precludes the possibility of creating ‘perfect’ biochemical interactions?
As for laws changing. Never heard of that before, please explain.
“I disagree about all people continuing to replicate in the same way we have up until now. People often replicated unintentionally. Now, with birth control, it’s become much more intentional. ”
I half-said this. Natural selection will always play a role in who reproduces and who doesn’t. When we go to war with our first alien nation in X years whether or not we win will be a form of natural selection (on an extremely large scale). Universal natural selection.
To suggest that selection is somehow transcend-able is laughable. Its possible but so ridiculously unlikely, our sun could accidentally super nova, some aliens could show up and enslave us, all the volcanoes could go off etc.
The possibility that our species becomes so powerful that we are actually incapable of going extinct seems so unlikely we might as well call it impossible.
I’m all for space exploration and colonization because it gets all the eggs out of one basket but that doesn’t guarantee all the eggs are safe.
Birth control is merely a new selective pressure. Life has found a way for four billion years, the desire for sex will be replaced with a desire to reproduce.
We will always breed, not so much because we can’t find a way to not need to breed but because people won’t willingly give it up.
I think its entirely possible to create a species of test tube humans that don’t actually need to birth humans. I just don’t think that is somehow going to preclude breeders from breeding.
Unless like you said, transhumans win the war, which is the only eventual outcome is you try to stop people from breeding.
“I don’t see why it’s implausible that when beneficial genetic engineering becomes available that some people will choose to use it. ”
I think we’ve hacked this out before.
Theres a difference between, “lets change a few NTs in your gene” “lets replace your gene with someone else’s” and “your not good enough to reproduce”.
The last two are essentially the same as neutering the person, the result is the same. That might be good for society, its very bad for the individual however.
You seem to be under the impression that people will willingly walk into their own extinction for the betterment of everyone else.
As a very selfish bastard I can guarantee you if someone tries to pull that shit on me I’m taking as many of them with me as possible. I’m probably not alone.
Obviously the other side could win but I refuse to accept that possibility. Beyond that, assuming we find a way to make resources plentiful theres no reason the breeders and trans-human societies can’t just go their separate ways.
Looking at the number of states again, theres a plethora of ways breeding can continue to exist with a relative few that would result in the end of breeding while continuing the human race in another form.
“We apparently disagree as to what level of understanding and ability to manipulate life is theoretically and practically possible eventually.”
Excluding immortality I’m pretty much all aboard. Its the human side that I think you are misinterpreting.
@ Susan
I think this is an example of what VD was talking about wrt making two contradictory statements.
@ Susan
*Facepalm* There were several of us back then who pointed out basically the same thing – that you were looking at the wrong definition of base.
I am the embodiment of genetic perfection (excluding my bad knees), so I could only accept any attempt to engineer human genetic perfection if it begins with my DNA and alters it only to eliminate Chondromalacia patellae – well, that and my apparent gluten intollerance (I know, TMI).
@ Ion
@INTJ
“I think this is an example of what VD was talking about wrt making two contradictory statements.”
How so?
(Let me white knight a bit.)
The first was in regards to most women preferring dating over hooking up.
The second was in regard to not being able to return to slut shaming.
Those two don’t strike me as contradictory as much as the second lends to the first and without it the task is more difficult (though still within the realm of possibility).
“Women would agree voluntarily to cultural and social constraints on their own sexual conduct?”
Nope. I grew up with that. I much prefer making my own choices as an adult and living with the consequences, even if negative. (But because I’ve always made good choices I haven’t had to live with any negative consequences.)
@ Sai
That’s all we ask.
@Passerby, Han
“I am the embodiment of genetic perfection”
This is the other problem.
How do we determine what is the best?
————
@Han
Heres another reason eugenics is not so good.
Lets just take IQ.
A person of 80IQ works at a gas station, 100IQ at an office job, 120 at X, 140 at Y etc.
Now lets take a eugenic/ genetic engineering approach and suddenly jump the average from 100 to 120.
Where does the 80IQ guy work now?
Admittedly some new jobs will open up but in most cases are going to be shuffled down until the people at the lower end are shunted out completely.
It hits EVERYONE as what was once average is now below average, above average is now average etc.
The quality of life for EVERYONE but those at the top decreases to what they could have expected pre-eugenics.
Its not something that just hits the lowest ranking (though thats where the hardest hit occurs).
As you can probably tell I’m a nerd with strong opinions of eugenics and genetic engineering which beyond the treatment of human disease IMO should remain illegal.
“I think most women would, yes. Something like 80% of women say they would love to see hookup culture abolished and a return to traditional dating. ”
Traditional dating has not disappeared, unless you count women doing the asking out and “going Dutch” as non-traditional. I’ve traditionally dated since my teens and I know several other women who have as well. Bottom line is people will treat you how you let them.
If women WANT to date, they can. My hunch is those who are not dating don’t want to. Hooking up and friends with benefits have their pay-offs too and there are women who like those pay-offs.
“A person of 80IQ works at a gas station, 100IQ at an office job, 120 at X, 140 at Y etc.”
Not so fast. Loners, introverts, those who don’t drink mainstream kool aid and don’t want to make working a job their life or identity often take jobs at gas stations or the like so that they can leave their job at work when they go home and write their books, create their software, play their music, make their art, or whatever.
“Hooking up and friends with benefits have their pay-offs too and there are women who like those pay-offs.”
Finger snapping insta-penis?
1 2 3 … 8 »
{ 2 trackbacks }