One of the primary pieces of wisdom in The Red Pill is that women are desperately hypergamous, always going after the men that are out of their league.
This leads to the belief that dating is a Pareto distribution: 80% of women chasing (and only getting) 20% of men. This, in turn, leads to the further belief that if a man can’t find a woman that it must be because he is in the 80%. In other words, it is the woman’s fault for being too picky.
The problem with this is that both men and women are hypergamous (see the article by “The Nuance Pill” here). Yes, you heard that right. Both men and women shoot for the sky, rejecting lesser looking options for people who are out of their league.
There have been many, many studies on dating and virtually all of them show hypergamy in both sexes.
In terms of online dating, men and women have the same patterns regardless of who is doing the seeking and who is doing the responding:
There are differences between men and women in that women as a group are generally perceived as more attractive than men. Whether this is because men are less picky or because women are “the fairer sex” is not the point: both seek partners who are above their (looks-based) station.
More attractive people are more likely to be married because they are in higher demand. This, of course, isn’t hypergamy because it applies to both sexes. Or, put differently, it is hypergamy only if both men and women are hypergamous.
The problem is that you can’t logically have hypergamy in both sexes at the same time, because both men and women can’t simultaneously be with someone who is more attractive than they are.
So why do people think that women are subject to hypergamy but men are not? The answer is surprisingly simple.
Hypergamy is not mate selection, it’s date selection. Women are more selective when it comes to choosing their dates regardless of attractiveness. This is because both men and women rate women as being more attractive on average than men. Because they are perceived to be more attractive, they can be more selective because they are in higher demand. So, it is true that unattractive men will get less dates than their “looksmatched” counterpart unattractive women, but this is because more attractive people—whether men or women—get more dates overall.
Thus, women are having more dates (early relationships) than their objectively attractiveness-matched counterpart men because women are perceived to be more attractive overall. More perceived attractiveness means more dates.
But, hypergamous relationships typically don’t last as long. They simply get “priced out of the market.” When it comes to marriage and long-term relationships in actual practice, hypergamy effectively does not exist (i.e. it gets averaged out).
If women were not more selective than men, they would have to fight over a smaller pool of men because men are perceived as being less attractive than women. This would lean towards the 80/20 principle that The Red Pill believes is true. But this belief only exists because men are getting less dates than women, not because women are actually “marrying up.”
Ultimately when it comes to longer-term relationships and marriage, the perception of female hypergamy disappears. This is one reason why single men are much more likely to view women as hypergamous while married men—like myself—do not.
Hypergamy in the Red Pill is a myth. Comments like this…
…only serve to highlight how out-of-touch The Red Pill is with reality. You can see how desperate Red Pill men are to blame so-called hypergamous women for failed relationships, when the fact of the matter is that men are just as guilty as women (and just as likely to fail at it). Would Sharkly condemn hypergamous men? I doubt it. The best advice you can give a man is not to try to date or marry a woman who is in a different attractiveness tier. Whether man or woman, don’t try to marry a person who is out of your league. Ironically, if a man avoids his own hypergamy, he solves the pitfalls of so-called “female hypergamy.” Of course, this more-or-less happens automatically. In psychology this is known as “assortative mating.” People naturally sort themselves to match with others who are in their own league. You don’t really have to try to accomplish this, it is just the way it is. The only advice you—whether man or woman—really need is to avoid the personal impulse to hypergamy. But there is one more observation that needs to be made. As noted above, men and women in the same percentile tend to marry each other. But because women are perceived as being more attractive than men, a 50th percentile man and a 50th percentile women are not perceived as being “looksmatched” even though they are. This, ironically, means that most people perceive that men who marry their counterparts have “married up” leading to the general feeling that “he didn’t deserve her.” In other words, in actual practice it is men who are perceived as hypergamous. You can see how The Red Pill saints (like Dalrock) get angry at statements like “he doesn’t deserve her” even though on average most men are perceived to have married up. The Red Pill claim of female hypergamy is an overreaction to the false perception of male hypergamy based on perceived differences in average attractiveness. It’s also worth noting that marital success is not dependent on attractiveness. The positive correlation between relationship success and attractiveness is rather low. A variety of studies even show a very small negative effect. Both men and women try—and fail—to get into long-term relationships with people who are more attractive than they are. Women are perceived as being more attractive than “looksmatched” men (i.e. those in the same percentile). Because more attractive people get more dates, this leads to women being more selective than men when choosing dates. Female hypergamy is based on more selective women dating a smaller pool of men. Over the long-term, people tend to stay with statistically “looksmatched” partners. Given a “looksmatched” man and woman, she will be perceived as more attractive. Male hypergamy is based on this perceived difference. Thus is appears that both male hypergamy and female hypergamy are true at the same time. But it is plainly logically impossible for both men and women to marry up. One must marry down for another to marry up. Obviously either or both of male and female hypergamy must be false. It turns out that both male and female hypergamy are based on false perceptions. Both are illusory. The perception of hypergamy (male or female) disappears as relationships lengthen. Both men and women almost invariably settle for someone who is close to being in their league (according to statistics, if not perception). True hypergamy is exceptional. Assortative mating follows a Normal, not Pareto, Distribution. The perception of hypergamy is confounded by age. Women tend to become more attractive and become less attractive at younger ages than men. On average, women marry men who are a few years older than they are. This makes things more complicated, because as the age gap widens, the perceived attractiveness difference grows, leading to the belief that men are hypergamous (much more attractive younger woman) while simultaneously enforcing the belief that women are hypergamous (much more wealthy, mature, debonair older man). I’m not going to attempt to untangle this.Summary
Notes
Do you know what else is a myth?
Stuff about the story of Cinderella being a perfect example of hypergamy:
As seen here on Instagram:
jeeangelo
https://www.instagram.com/jeeangelo/reel/DBDf8QPu5k0/
Cinderella: The Original Hypergamy Blueprint
Ever noticed how Cinderella’s story is the ultimate “date up” scenario? She rises from rags to royalty 👗➡️👑, all because of a magic makeover ✨ and her beauty 😍. But what does that say about relationships today? Is this the OG hypergamy story? Let’s break down how Disney’s classic sets the stage for modern dating dynamics. 💡
As DAL himself once explained(& most people who can’t remember small details but only the bigger picture forget), her Father was rich, and Cindy’s stepmother took all his wealth(that should have at least partly gone to Cindy) after his death.
So, she was originally from the noble (rich) class that her stepmother kept her from being a part of which would prevent her from being competition for her two daughters(she wasn’t really ”marrying up”) as she would have been in the running anyway if not for her stepmother taking away all her Fathers wealth.
Your comment reveals another aspect of hypergamy: it is ill-defined.
Is hypergamy a woman marrying a more attractive man? A man with more money? An older man? A higher class man?
If a woman is smarter and more attractive, but his family lives in a better neighborhood, somehow still female hypergamy.
It’s not hard to cherry-pick some—any—condition in which the man is subjectively better than the woman. Then all you have to do is call that “hypergamy” and you win. Nevermind that it’s easy enough to find something in the woman that is subjectively better than the man. That doesn’t count because…..?
Give the bimodal distribution of male/female intelligence, if you are below 100 IQ, your “looksmatched” partners will likely be smarter than you. If you are above 100 IQ, your “looksmatched” partners will likely be less smart than you. Since most Red Pill men are above 100 IQ, they expect (correctly) that they will be paired with a woman who has less intelligence than they are. Their idea of hypergamy is nothing more than selection bias.
Young women have no choice but to marry older men, because they are often not “looksmatched” with same-aged men. This isn’t hypergamy, it’s the necessary logical consequence of avoiding hypergamy! It’s also been a constant effect for centuries (and probably longer), long before the sexual revolution of the 60s and modern relationship problems.
Cinderella is great because it highlights that people tend to marry within their own social structure. Cinderella is in the genetic stock of a higher social class, and her “genes tell true.” It’s a tale of a woman taking her rightful place in the society that she was born into, regardless of the apparent trappings.
Also this is from the Nuance pill:
Evolutionary psychologists, on the other hand, have theorized that men place a higher premium on beauty and youthfulness because they signal reproductive potential, while women prioritize the ability to acquire resources to enhance the offspring’s chances of survival.
i always laughlzlolzzlollzzzz when people claim MEN or women (& especially the Government)are ”doing it for the kids” unlike Evolutionary psychologists and other tradcons I live in the real world not fairy tale land where either men,women or Government is so righteous & saintly as they never are in RL as so sayeth the Scriptures too:
All the World Guilty
1 Then what is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?2 Great in every respect. To begin with, (C1)the Jews were entrusted with the (C2)oracles of God His very words. 3 What then? If (C1)some did not believe or were unfaithful to God, their lack of belief will not nullify and make invalid the faithfulness of God and His word, will it?4 (C1)Certainly not! Let God be found true as He will be, though every person be found (C2)a liar, just as it is written in Scripture,
“(C3)THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED by sinful men.”
5 But if our unrighteousness (C1)demonstrates the righteousness of God, (C2)what shall we say? God is not wrong to inflict His wrath on us, is He? ((C3)I am speaking in purely human terms.)6 (C1)Certainly not! For otherwise, how will (C2)God judge the world?7 But as you might say if through my lie (C1)God’s truth was magnified and abounded to His glory, (C2)why am I still being judged as a sinner?8 And why not say, (as some slanderously report and claim that we teach) “(C1)Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? Their condemnation by God is just.
9 Well then, (C1)are we Jews better off than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both (C2)Jews and (C3)Greeks (Gentiles) are (C4)under the control of sin and subject to its power.10 As it is written and forever remains written,
“(C1)THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS none that meets God’s standard, NOT EVEN ONE.
11 “THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD.
12 “ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, NO, NOT ONE.”
13 “(C1)THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE;
THEY habitually DECEIVE WITH THEIR TONGUES.”
(C2)”THE VENOM OF ASPS IS BENEATH THEIR LIPS.”
14 “(C1)THEIR MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS.”
15 “(C1)THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN THE PATH OF PEACE.”
18 “(C1)THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD and His awesome power BEFORE THEIR EYES.”
19 Now we know that whatever the (C1)Law of Moses says, it speaks to (C2)those who are under the Law, so that the excuses of every mouth may be silenced from protesting and that (C3)all the world may be held accountable to God and subject to His judgment.20 For no person will be justified freed of guilt and declared righteous in His sight (C1)by trying to do the works of the Law. For (C2)through the Law we become conscious of sin and the recognition of sin directs us toward repentance, but provides no remedy for sin.
Justification by Faith
21 But now (C1)the righteousness of God has been clearly revealed independently and completely apart from the Law, though it is actually (C2)confirmed by the Law and the words and writings of the Prophets.22 This (C1)righteousness of God comes through (C2)faith (C3)in Jesus Christ for (C4)all those Jew or Gentile who believe and trust in Him and acknowledge Him as God’s Son. (C5)There is no distinction, 23 since all (C1)have sinned and continually fall short of the glory of God,24 and are being justified declared free of the guilt of sin, made acceptable to God, and granted eternal life as a gift (C1)by His precious, undeserved grace, through (C2)the redemption the payment for our sin which is provided in Christ Jesus,25 whom God displayed publicly before the eyes of the world as a life-giving (C1)sacrifice of atonement and reconciliation (propitiation) (C2)by His blood to be received through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness which demands punishment for sin, because in His (C3)forbearance His deliberate restraint He (C4)passed over the sins previously committed before Jesus’ crucifixion.26 It was to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus and rely confidently on Him as Savior.
27 Then what becomes of our (C1)boasting? It is excluded entirely ruled out, banished. On (C2)what principle? On the principle of good works? No, but on the principle of faith.28 For (C1)we maintain that an individual is justified by faith distinctly apart from works of the Law the observance of which has nothing to do with justification, that is, being declared free of the guilt of sin and made acceptable to God.29 Or (C1)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not also the God of Gentiles who were not given the Law? Yes, of Gentiles also,30 since indeed it (C1)is one and the same (C2)God (C3)who will justify the circumcised by faith which began with Abraham and the uncircumcised through their newly acquired faith.
31 Do we then nullify the Law by this faith making the Law of no effect, overthrowing it? (C1)Certainly not! On the contrary, we confirm and (C2)establish and uphold the Law since it convicts us all of sin, pointing to the need for salvation.-Romans 2-31 AMP
This is why the phony ”I’m 100% innocent, yet a sinner bros ” ”righteousness” of too many ”rp leaders” is seen just as Disingenuous as any woman’s or Government’s by outsiders & insiders alike in the Roissyosphere!
Right, men and women have different priorities. Labeling one set of preferences as hypergamy is…. not very clever.
According to wikipedia, dating OR marrying up in terms of social status OR sexual capital is hypergamy.
Cameron,
I think you missed my point. As you noted elsewhere, the Manosphere describes hypergamy (almost?) solely in terms of sexual attraction, while neglecting the many other factors that one might be marrying up on, such as social standing, power, personality, etc.
The Manosphere is applying the label “hypergamy” in such a way that supposedly rules out the hypergamy that men experience. In a burst of meaningless tautology, men can’t be hypergamous because they are not women who are sexually attracted to more attractive men. Well, duh!
But it’s no less true that men are hypergamous, and if men and women are both hypergamous, than nobody is. It’s logically impossible for both to be true. And since we know that both men and women try to date or marry up, then we also know—from statistics and experience—that neither are actually hypergamous in practcice, it’s just their desires that we are sensing.
The Manosphere is self-contradictory. On one hand, women are portrayed as insatiable whores who have no standards and will sleep with anyone, whether man, animal, breathing, or dead. On the other hand, they have such insanely high standards that they will only sleep with the most elite alpha men. Both can’t be true at the same time.
Declaring hypergamy to be a myth resolves this apparent contradiction. If you’ve got a better explanation, I’d love to hear it.
Here is more proof from “Chains of Affection: The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks” by Bearman, Moody, and Stovel:
(click to make bigger)
That’s not hypergamy, nor is there any indication that women are more whorish than men. Even this supposed alpha male…
…only two of his nine partners were only partnered to him. If anything, it is the boys who are hypergamous:
This definitely puts to the question the narrative that 20% of boys are hooking up with 80% of the girls.
But, ultimately, we find that old standby, two individuals pairing up in a mongogamous relationship, dominates:
But the whole school isn’t gossiping about them and their secrets. They’re talking about this:
It’s hard to keep that carousel hidden, but the impression people get from “experience” is biased towards that.
There is no indication that 20% of men are keeping 80% of the women to themselves (female hypergamy). Nor is there any indication that 20% of women are keeping 80% of the men to themselves (male hypergamy). In fact, it seems closer to 50/50 where half of people are having each other multiple times. A heterogamy of fornication and adultery, not hypergamy, is the reality.
Even if 20% of men are incels and 5% of women are the female equivalent, that’s a far cry from a Pareto distribution. It’s still, essentially, a normal distribution.
In fact, the graph shows a slight female hypogamy. When I added up the dots, I got 278 women to 290 men, meaning that men are slightly more promiscuous than women, which is the opposite of what female hypergamy suggests.
Hypergamy is about female and male preferences, which largely don’t get acted upon. Heterogamy is the reality.
This will shock no one, but women talk a good game and gossip, but when push comes to shove, they’re more talk than action. They are not actually fornicating more than men. Men brag less about their conquests, but more men are in “relationships” than women, with men being slightly more selective than women.
This result is 100% predicted by assortative mating, which states that women will be perceived to pair down, because in real-world relationships, the statistically “looksmatched” relationships involve a subjectively more attractive woman being paired with a subjectively less attractive man.
The Manosphere won’t give up hypergamy because it is used to blame women and exonerate men, when the data clearly shows that men are just as much a part of the problem as women are.
Peace,
DR
I don’t see much of the manosphere saying most women are indiscriminate whores who will have sex with anyone. I don’t see the contradiction you’re claiming. They may be saying women are “discriminating whores.”
I will have to read the study of the highschool to decide for myself if it proves hypergamy is a myth. The problem I see is survey based (no matter the method of collection) social science studies are squishy at best. Pre-internet, it was conventional wisdom that men inflate and women deflate sexual experience count. Saturday Night Live even joked about it 30+ years ago.
The same goes for “pro-manosphere” studies like the OKCupid data. I have seen reasonable criticisms.
When I saw Dalrock’s work I compared it with my own observations from HS and college and it matched.
Both sexes can have the desire to date/marry up. That doesn’t disprove (or prove) the claim that the average man is much more attracted to the average woman than she is to him
Cameron,
I don’t see much of the manosphere saying most women are indiscriminate whores who will have sex with anyone. I don’t see the contradiction you’re claiming. They may be saying women are “discriminating whores.”
I guess this is just the impression I get from years of reading, but I’m willing to drop the issue and not press this point. It’s a broad generalization in any case, so not completely useful for much.
I will have to read the study of the highschool to decide for myself if it proves hypergamy is a myth. The problem I see is survey based social science studies are squishy at best.
You’re not wrong about that. On the other hand, most of the Red Pill wisdom is based on similarly suspect anecdotes. The problem I have isn’t acknowledging that much of social science is suspect, it’s that the Red Pill movement is also largely suspect. Both have epistemological problems, but you wouldn’t know that to hear them talk about Saint Dalrock (and so on).
Both sexes can have the desire to date/marry up. That doesn’t disprove (or prove) the claim that the average man is much more attracted to the average woman than she is to him
This gets into a division within the Manosphere itself, which I don’t claim to be able to resolve. This is easily explained by saying that men have a stronger sex drive than women do. But many in the sphere argue that women are just as eager as men are. However you land on this issue will influence your view of hypergamy.
Peace,
DR
Some of it is just “Red Pill Boasting” / “Im more of a man than you, here’s why”
And it always boils down to: I can attract hotter / tighter women than you can
That is what their masculinity is based on in the end, when you strip it all down. Lived up and down this state (California). Lived in two foreign countries (West Germany 1980’s for a year) and Inida (1990s for ten months). Grew up in a very rural area, and live now in the “second” largest metropolitan area in the USA.
During the PUA boom (early 2000’s) it was funny to watch average guys, who not ugly nor model material speak about the girls that that they attract “all nines and tens, eights are a norm” and then you see their girlfriend or wife. Average gal. Hardly a ten or nine. Not an eight. Not unattractive, but hardly a supermodel. As Kevin Samuels said once to a woman who claimed she was a “nine, easily”
“Okay, where are the modeling contracts? You an influencer….how many subscribers on your TikTok? TV contracts for commercials….they are always looking for women at that level in physical looks”
Of course this woman was delusional. Red Pill would agree.
All these very attractive men, who have “no problem” getting women evidently still have abysmal marriages, divorce, infidelity on the wife’s end….and his too in some cases.
I dont know how to explain it. Late night talk show host Art Bell once said on his “coast to coast” AM radio show in the 1990’s when a discussion about marriage was the topic in the mid 1990’s (and it was ‘in a horrible crisis’ even back then evidently) said
“Men and women in the dating world today think they are more attractive than they are and they are the ‘exception’ to all these rules and societal norms. I think we’re all more alike than we would like to admit”
I was lying on the floor at the time, in a sleeping bag (could not afford a bed yet) in spartan, tiny overpriced studio in Santa Cruz, CA thinking “that is the smartest thing I have heard said in awhile”
Holds even more truth today.
EVeryone seems to be on the cusp, on the edge of always “someone better” or “they could easily get better if they didnt have the kids / child support / because of Biden / because of “laws” / those cuckservatives in the church”
Most people are all talk in these matter, and men have now been conditioned by Red Pill to make their “sexual prowness” or attractiveness to women and what they want as the only metric of manhood. What did they expect?
The general female mating strategy is for the top-tier women to control group dynamics while subtly (and not subtly) shunning their competition. Female-coded behaviors include a variety of vicious social dynamics.
When men talk about hypergamy, it’s the same kind of female-coded behavior that says:
Yes. Barbershops are prime place for this talk. Been getting my haircut every two weeks since 1989. I’ve been to a billion shops over the decades. I really want to write a book about my experiences in barbershops. Some downright hilarious situations and shop talk!
Every shop, you always have that guy who has to tell you “how amazing he was with women when he was younger” Doesnt matter the predom race or ethnicity of the shop (black, white, latin, asian). You always have that guy who just has to remind everyone that he bedded more women than all of you, all perfect tens, tons of dates……and he could do that now….but he’s married / live-in girlfriend / the kids
My favorite barbershop ever was in Fresno:
Luis was an awesome barber. Pool table in shop. Cool music. Solid vibe. Hip setup (polished concrete floor, cool lighting……)
He had rules for the shop posted in English and Spanish posted on the wall:
the last statement was the best: “There has been more fish caught, more game stalked, faster cars built / owned and more women bedded in this room than in any other in the State of California. Men, watch your bullsh*t it will be called out”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfiuepvlQmI&t=141s
Really learned a lot at this shop about life. Fresno had some real stand-up men that came to this shop. This was the shop I got my haircut at the most (almost ten years). Luis sadly closed the shop in 2021.
Forget a book. You should do some videos. Tell some tales. I enjoy the way you present yourself in your videos. Your sarcasm always hits hard and is quite funny.
I could I suppose but no one really watched them. Years ago, I did a video about the Gillette boycott, it got about 1000 views. I told men who “threw out all their Gillette products” were stupid because they were already paid for. I told them to send their blades to me instead.
I also called out how everyone was saying how overpriced they were and how they were garbage blades anyway. Really? Been using Gillette since I was started shaving. I explained their 5 blade sensors were the best out there aside from a straight razor shave. Please send them to me.
No one did 🙂 But I was told what a “simp” I was for still using them. Dollar Shave Club endorsed Clinton. BIC (garbage blades) were woke as well. Schitck blades were owned by a european conglomerate that was no better than Gillette on these matters……..
The boycott was pointless, and every real man has a beard anyway…only cucks and simps are clean shaven anyway, right???????
Yeah, there really isn’t any reason to do videos except as a hobby where you are not looking for a return on investment. But, I suspect, the same would be true if you wrote a book. Most books, even by regular publishers, have few if any sales. It’s the little secret of the publishing industry.
I don’t see this at all except maybe Sharkly. I don’t see dalrock, deti, Jack, etc. as boasting and showing up other men.
Understood. If necessary, I’ll retract my statement.
Pingback: Constructive Criticism, Part 3 - Derek L. Ramsey
More later if I am permitted to comment.
My impression is that the traditional definition of hypergamy is women’s strong desire to marry up in terms of social status and strong adversion to marrying down wrt same. The word greatly predates the internet let alone the manosphere(s) .
The manosphere seems to have redefined it to refer to women’s “visceral” i.e. sexual attraction and not and not so much about who they end up marrying. Their claim is that women tend to act on this “hypergamy” when young and dating (not marrying).
My anecdotal impression formed over many years watching behavior (starting in middle school )is that the average women is less sexually attracted to the average man than he is to her. It seems the woman’s sex drive is more “muted” and discriminating and their sexual attraction for average men is low at best. Since sex and reproduction are risky and costly for women this makes sense.
I imagine these things are being noticed now that we no longer have arranged marriages, people “date” from a young age, divorce is seen as ok and people don’t starve.
Novaseeker always said that women’s attraction equation is harder for them to solve. Like men they care about looks but they are also attracted by things like personality dominance and social status.
Men can and do try to date up but are more likely to be sexually attracted to the average girl than she is to him.
Cameron,
“More later if I am permitted to comment.”
You are always welcome here. I don’t ban people, I only ask them to substantiate anything they are presenting as fact (rather than opinion).
You’ve raised some interesting points worth further consideration. If you have better ideas than I do, I hope you share them.
“Novaseeker always said…”
As the Professor always says, things were better when Novaseeker was commenting.
“Men can and do try to date up but are more likely to be sexually attracted to the average girl than she is to him.”
You say that, but the data suggests that married men or men in long-term relationships are statistically likely to be with “looksmatched” women. It seems worthwhile to figure out why our intuition about hypergamy so strongly appears to be true but isn’t confirmed by actual reality. What do you think?
Consider:
“Assortative mating is when people choose partners based on similar characteristics, rather than randomly. This can be based on physical traits, social characteristics, or backgrounds.”
(Positive) Assortative Mating—homogamy—when people tend to mate with similar individuals. For example, a tall person might choose a tall partner, or an attractive person might choose another attractive person.
(Negative) Assortative Mating—heterogamy (i.e. hypogamy or hypergamy) or disassortative mating—when people tend to mate with dissimilar individuals.
Does this conform to your idea of the Manosphere’s working definition…
The manosphere seems to have redefined [hypergamy] to refer to women’s “visceral” (i.e. sexual) attraction and not so much about who they end up marrying.
…or are we simply discussing two different concepts?
Perhaps you are right that men are attracted to a wide range of women, and perhaps they end up sleeping with many of them, but most women—despite their selectivity—will ultimately end up with a man who corresponds to them.
Have you noticed that many of the leaders of Manosphere blogs have long past histories of fornication with women? It is, IMO, no wonder that they get naturally sorted to match with the type of women who also have long past histories of fornication. This is assortative mating in action.
Humans self-sort into bins almost automatically. The instinct is hardwired. They probably have no idea that this is even occurring in their relationships, let alone why. They probably think—incorrectly—that anyone who avoids their fate is just getting lucky. They have difficulty comprehending that people might be legitimately sorted into different bins than they are.
Regardless, the data on actual relationships suggest that humans predominately engage in assortative mating. When the “rubber meets the road”, that’s the end result. How humans get there may involve the desire for disassortative mating, but the attempts largely fail.
—————————————————————————
Any impression that hypergamy is the norm is simply wrong, probably due to some type of selection bias.
The INTJ-heavy Manosphere simply discounts the wide numbers of successful and unsuccessful relationships that all rise and fall based on principles of assortative mating. The number of non-superficial hypergamous/hypogamous relationships is vastly overestimated.
Consider the responses by Deti and Sharkly over at Spawny’s. They didn’t even begin to address the core claim of the OP. Deti’s response just discounts all the evidence as if it doesn’t exist, and Sharkly couldn’t turn down the opportunity for a personal attack. Bias.
—————————————————————————
My anecdotal impression formed over many years watching behavior is that the average women is less sexually attracted to the average man than he is to her.
Assuming your impression is true, what if the reason for this is that a man and woman in the same percentile are perceived by both sexes to be at a different level of attractiveness? How do you account for the huge number of men who “got lucky” and who supposedly married up, a sentiment held by both sexes?
My own anecdotal evidence suggests that in almost every newly established marriage I’ve witnessed, I perceive the woman as being slightly more attractive relative to her husband. In other words, men are almost universally perceived to be hypergamous. This suggests that neither actually married up, that they are both in the same percentile statistically.
Might I suggest that the Red Pill is made up of men that are more able to correctly see when a man and woman are in the same percentile? If this is the case, then their difference in perception largely explains their dissatisfaction with the standard process of humans sorting themselves into bins. Being observant, in this case, is a downside. Their ability to cut through all the “unnecessary” sorting and get straight to the point—how it “should” be done and what the best matches are—ironically keeps them from participating in the process.
Just look how angry manosphere men get, how much they rant and rave, over the idea that “he didn’t deserve her” when this is merely the nearly universal social acknowledgment that two people successfully assortatively paired. A Red Pill man who balks at this pairing is—in effect—trying to promote disassortative mating without realizing what he is doing. Correcting the perceived (but not actual!!!) female hypogamy—”he didn’t deserve her”—with a relationship where man and woman were perceived to be the same attractiveness, would, ironically, result in actual female hypergamy (male hypogamy). Attempting to cheat the dating and marriage market like that will cause them to get priced out hard.
Similarly, the typical Red Pill man is too hyper-concerned with physical attractiveness. As a result, he may end up putting himself in the wrong bin and, once again, get priced out of the market.
If I am correct on either point, the Red Pill perversely hurts men’s chances.
Why should we believe that women are not actually attracted to what we perceive to be more average men? Are you aware of any statistics that show that women “marry up” who marry up are more successful in their marriages? Without checking, I’m fairly confident that such marriages have a higher divorce rate. It is also likely that hypergamous/hypogamous relationships have less intimacy than assortatively matched pairs.
I checked here (hypergamy) and here (hypogamy). Both do have a higher divorce rate, but female hypergamy carries a lower cost than male hypergamy.
Thus, the perception in the Manosphere is that women routinely marry less attractive men and that this is the reason they are not attracted to them. The Manosphere blames women for marrying men that they have no physical attraction to (thus depriving them). But this is an error in perception. The reality is that these pairings reflect the best relationships and that deviations from this course only result in worse outcomes, not better.
The Manosphere gets a lot of things right, but “hypergamy” isn’t one of them.
Peace,
DR
Derek,
It’s very hard to substantiate social (soft) science stuff like this. That’s true for the manosphere claims and the counter claims. E.g. the Pareto claim is based on the objective OKCUPID (and similar) data but then we can argue over the interpretation of that data.
I don’t know about their histories. The PUA men aside, I don’t remember Dalrock or Jack or deti or sharkly or deepstrength being notorious fornicators. Very few men have only slept with one woman like me.
I think we ARE talking past each other and it’s over the use of “hypergamy” which I guess means who you marry? I don’t see the manosphere claims of say, deti, or dalrock as incompatible with “people mosy marry others of similar looks.” The manosphere claim is many average women date (relationships lasting days, weeks, months not years) and have sex with men who are considerably more attractive than they are. This can damage emotional and sexual pair bonding with their future husbsnds and create unrealistic standards. The claim is that women end up settling for men for whom they have low visceral attraction not that women all “marry up” or men all “marry down.”
Here I’m talking about average men and women as a broad swath and as distinct from the particuarly attractive tyoes and the ugly and/or obese. I’m not splitting hairs over “5’s marrying 7’s” or some such.
I would imagine that looks-hypergamous marriages for both sexes fail more because of insecurities and actual or suspected infidelities. Doesn’t surprise me at all.
My impression is that when I see disparate attractiveness couples the man is usually more attractive. This goes for young people dating. E g. I see a lot more fit guy, obese woman couples than vice versa.
Cameron,
Yes, you are probably right that this is all a bit squishy. Let’s take it slow and think it through.
The manosphere claim is many average women date (relationships lasting days, weeks, months not years) and have sex with men who are considerably more attractive than they are. This can damage emotional and sexual pair bonding with their future husbsnds and create unrealistic standards. The claim is that women end up settling for men for whom they have low visceral attraction not that women all “marry up” or men all “marry down.”
The Manosphere belief that women are settling is female hypogamy. What else could this possibly mean?
Very few men have only slept with one woman like me.
Anything else is fornication (or adultery) because that’s the biblical standard. Do you disagree?
Have you thought about my suggestion that men who violate the biblical standard are more likely to—consciously or unconsciously—assortatively pair with women who also violate the biblical standard?
According to the statistics, women are not settling. They ultimately pair up with men who the market says they should pair up with. When they do so, they have—according to studies—more long-term physical intimacy than anyone else and the lowest divorce risk. The Manosphere complains about the state of marriage, but (outside of celibacy) the alternative is objectively worse.
Compared to the 80s and 90s, far fewer teens are having sex, even though by their mid-20s most women have lost their virginity. The fact of the matter is that “hypergamy” isn’t resulting in greater fornication.
Peace,
DR
I would say that most normal women marry normal men. Marrying your equal isn’t hypogamy.
What does this mean? Dissatisfied wife, particuarly in this day and age when things are easy and we have the luxury of caring about things like attraction. Wife has to have sex with a man she’s not sexually attracted to. Wife is “too tired” to lay there for 10 or 15 minutes twice a week. Wife always “has a headache.” Babylon Bee joked about this and the joke could only work because most people recognized the experience.
Cameron,
It appears that you now agree with me: if most people marry their equals, then women are—in actual practice—heterogamous, not hypergamous. This is what the statistics show.
Whatever problems that married men are having with their wives are not because they are being hypergamous. They can’t be. Why? Because they are paired with their equals. By definition, heterogamy is mutually incompatible with hypergamy.
Peace,
DR
If hypergamy is women DATING OR marrying up like the internet says then what the manosphere is describing is hypergamy with the caveat that “dating” can include one time hookups and very short term relationships.
We can call what they’re describing something something else or use different Greek prefixes or whatever. I don’t really care what we call it so you can win the argument.
These men are seeing something. I saw the same thing they saw. That doesn’t make us right (I could have observed an improbably high number of outlier experiences) but again I’m really not so hung up on what you call it but rather “is it true.”
Women are not just viscerally attracted to looks. They are also viscerally attracted to personality dominance and social status (as women perceive status).
My impression is that when I see disparate attractiveness couples the man is usually more attractive. This goes for young people dating. E g. I see a lot more fit guy, obese woman couples than vice versa.
YES!
But too many like Jack and Sharkly act like fit guy, means he’s getting supermodels.
I would say that most normal women marry normal men.
This is why guys like Jack and Sharkly are not normal by any stretch of the word.
I don’t see this at all except maybe Sharkly. I don’t see dalrock, deti, Jack, etc. as boasting and showing up other men.
Everyone knows about Sharkly’s massive ego and his neediness of being ”correct”.
He fought with Scott pointlessly for 3+ years over growth hormones, exercising, and such.
He keeps arguing here( and ranting at Spawnys and SF about)with Derek about terms, Greek, Latin, and such for the same ego-massaging reasons.
His ire was raised against me after i first showed up at SF on 2021-02-17 he soon sent me an angry e-mail threatening me with blackmail over his misunderstanding of what ”original” GBFM meant(I.E. i thought the ”fighting” GBFM was no longer needed in the
supposed ”brotherly love and united” manosphere but after a few months i found out the ”brotherly love and united” manosphere didn’t exist.)”They’d be angry(by me telling them-he strongly hinted ) if they found out you weren’t GBFM.” i forgave Sharkly for that nonsense and threat, but then he pulled other stuff on me at his site and i finally understood why most avoid his site.i told him straight up i was done on November 30th, 2021 and then a few weeks later ”George” showed up at Spawnys and i quickly knew it was Sharkly barely disguising his seething contempt, hate, and general spite for MEN he saw as better than himself.
That list includes Dalrock,(of course)Scott, Oscar, TON, JASON and Derek.
But he also didn’t like i knew his idol bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins is a manosphere troll as told here:https://web.archive.org/web/20151030221738/https://unsettledchristianity.com/a-word-of-caution-on-biblical-gender-roles/ {the original site went down sometime in 2022)
”a word of caution on Biblical Gender Roles
Joel L. Watts October 28, 2015 31
Across facebook and social media there is a furor — a hatred — a chagrin.
But people are angry over nothing.
Nothing but a troll account.
It began a few years ago with the publication of a new website, biblicalgenderroles.com. This site is littered with promotion of spousal rape, spiritual and physical abuse, and the caricatures of Christian masculinity.
But, it is fake. It is run by a non-Christian who is a biblical studies scholar.
A few weeks ago, a long-standing presence on Facebook (Matt Perkins), was outed as this scholar.
If you cannot see this link, I am sorry. It just means you aren’t an admin of the SBLAAR group (unofficial) on Facebook. Here is a screenshot.
matt perkins larry solomon
A comment was almost immediately left:
I’ve just been informed back-channel of “Matt Perkins”‘s actual identity. I’m disappointed in the person, who is apparently an actual scholar trolling for data and trying to make a fool of people who bite. I’m not an admin of this page, but if this junk continues I will not hesitate to start letting people know that this page is unworthy of SBL. Not that it ever has been, but *this*…
In the conversation, it was noted that suddenly “Matt” had not only left the group, but Facebook as well.
From another comment:
The short version is that “Matt Perkins,” who founded the previous SBL page, and then became an admin for the current group, was outed as a fictional character and has disappeared.
He was pretending to be an evangelical from Greenville, SC. Instead,he appears to have been a religion scholar trolling around evangelical issues, perhaps for information for his own research. SBL members from SC could find no evidence of his existence. This morning, he posted a ridiculous Web article about “disciplining your wife.” I called him out for his pattern of trolling, and this afternoon he deleted the post and the Facebook account.
Different commentator:
I mean, think about it. When we called him out for not being a member, he handed the admin over to the two least qualified people, choosing fundies.
“Matt” had been banned by several groups for behaving in a fundamentalist and derogatory manner. The behavior and positions are too similar for separation.
The supposed author of the above website is named Larry Solomon, a pseudonym.
If you are taking issue with this site, that’s good and all — and there are Christians who believe this garbage — but the site is a way to collect data. This is unethical. Don’t get mad. Just ignore it.
Admittedly, some feel this way. Some Christians believe in slavery. These things aren’t inherent in the religion, btw. The purpose of this post – for those fundamentalists in SCCL – is to call attention to the trolling behavior of this scholar. My name is out there – I have some evidence. Yet, some would rather believe an over the top blog secretly held and written by an anonymous person is representative of anything. Good luck.”
And Jack who loves to post ”risque” pics even though he thinks PUAS and their game of easy sex are so sinful and he thinks hes better than them,i don’t remember Roissy=Heartiste, Rollo, or Roosh having multiple ”risque” pics on so many posts or even one in reality, in on quieting up about bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins is a manosphere troll as a post at https://fullmetalpatriarchy.wordpress.com/ mysteriously got deleted(in April 2021) where Lexetlaw said bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins the manosphere troll had a porn showing and promoting site besides the g-rated one that even jack admitted exists, ask honest abe sharkly he’ll tell you.
P.S. Now you know why Sharkly says Derek,i, JASON & LIZ are manosphere trolls now too, yes? So he can still pretend he knows nothing of bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins being the number#1 manosphere troll and to divert attention from him being in on it too as hurting MEN stories are used for ”research” data-collecting purposes!
The data supports this. Female hypergamy is much more tolerated than male hypergamy. But there is a bias effect going on caused by reliance on anecdotal experience. Though you see, that is witness, such relationships, it is the heterogamous ones that are most successful (longest lasting, happiest, etc.).
This is an example of confounding.
Concluding that hypergamy is real because you see more women with much more attractive men than men with much more attractive women is an example of survivorship bias. There is another variable at play that explains this: relationship duration. Hypergamy of the other type exists in the same frequency, but those relationships don’t last as long. So if you conclude that female hypergamy is real but male hypergamy is not, you’re deceiving yourself. Relying on anecdotes leads to the wrong conclusion.
Another example is women being more selective at choosing dates while men will take almost anyone. This is not an example of hypergamy because it’s not based on attraction. It’s just market dynamics. Why would a woman buy low when she doesn’t have to?
There are other factors at play, and the dating selection effect is mostly illusory. As noted in the OP, as soon as messages start getting exchanged, assortative mating processes begin to take hold.
Consider the logic of the Red Pill. If 80% of women were successfully focusing on the top 20%, then they’d be doing it just for the sex, as it’s numerically impossible to convert those into LTRs. This is “high class whoring,” not hypergamy.
But if they are actually achieving relationship success, then the 80/20 effect must be an illusion (and so too hypergamy).
So which is it? Are women whores or are they assortatively pairing with like men? The data makes clear which it is.
“teens don’t have as much sex as we DID…”
As you know I’m Catholic. Sex outside of marriage is fornication or adultery. Virttually everyone violates the biblical standard now. I don’t even know how to apply this to the sphere because they’re just like the general population. The very few chaste men and women do MUCH better. It’s mostly non-virgins marrying non-virgins.
It seems that one reason teens don’t have as much sex as we do is the ubiquitous use of pornography and the fact that nearly a quarter of them are mentally ill and identify as LGBTQ+.
People in stable marriages have, statistically, the most sex long term? Of course. Other people use pornography between their various short term relationships.
Cameron,
My point exactly.
Look at men with histories—like Scott, Jack, and others—and do you see meaningful repentance? Here is Jack explicitly rejecting modesty and being chaste:
At the very least, the Christian Manosphere believes that you can, and should, get to first, second, or third base—even on the first date!—so long as you don’t score. But, even if you do make the “mistake” and score, you’ll have gained valuable experience that you wouldn’t have otherwise had which can be used to help other men.
It is no wonder that they are assortatively paired with women who believe the same as they do.
At least two divorced men—Jack (here) and Sharkly (here and here)—call their public writings and leadership their “ministry” despite Paul stating that the leaders and teachers of the church need to be married to one and only one woman.
Have you asked why people are not listening to men like us (or the married women in the Ladies Auxiliary)? Or why celibate men like Earl and Jason were chased away in favor of fornicating men, divorced men, and men who admittedly struggle to manage their household well?
Peace,
DR
I (mostly) stopped reading Jack when he posted porn links and he posts what appear to be barely cropped porn pictures. I don’t know his history but he writes some unusual things.
Scott doesn’t have a bad marriage. It was his first marriage that redpilled him. His first wife (who cheated) was a virgin raised Church of Christ Restorationist. So it wasn’t a case of two fornicators attracting each other.
As far as I remember Sharkly was a virgin and remained celibate after his divorce.
Deepstrength struck me as the most genuinely Christian of the bunch but then Lastmod threatened to punch him in the face.
I enjoyed the participation of Liz, Elspeth and Ame. Liz did not strike me as especially socially conservative but I don’t know her.
Jason seems to have left because Oscar (not a fornication advocate) wouldn’t stop harassing him. However, Jason had a habit of accusing us of doing things we didn’t do like telling him game and self improvement would get him women. I explicitly stated more than once that “game” was BS and women can spot fakes but we were blamed by him for wasting years of his life because some of the ‘sphere said “get game” and “I know this short,fat guy who gets lots of.. ” Lots of us were rooting for Jason and had compassion but he pretty much would tell us to stuff it.
I only remember that Earl was Catholic. Not surprised he was pro celibacy.
Some of the questionable morality is reactionary. Churchianity shames men for being sexual so they are reacting.
I’m the guy who argues with them against masturbation and marital sodomy so you won’t see me arguing for their form of sexual morality. I’m even more prudish than the ladies auxillary.
Cameron,
Please see my more substantial hypergamy reply here, a bit up thread. It might be easily missed.
Not according to what Jack posted about Scott about his marriage being on the rocks around the time that he deleted Scott’s articles and edited comments to remove references to Scott’s marriage. I don’t have any more recent information, but if Scott ever returns it might be worth asking if he is still married.
And the Professor probably knows, but seem to recall that Scott was a serial monogamist prior to (and possibly after) his marriages. And his first wife cheated on him. So , yes, it is the case that two people hold the same view on sexuality: that it isn’t reserved for one person.
Jack has admitted that he has divorced and remarried, so he’s definitely fits the type.
Yes.
I don’t recall that incident.
Sounds correct.
Peace,
DR
[EDITOR’S NOTE: See this duplicate comment]
Why are they not listening to us? My guess is some of them are cultural Christians. Scott pretty much stated this.
Cameron,
I try not to determine who is or isn’t a “cultural Christian.” It’s subjective. Would you call me a cultural Christian because I attended a church that closed at the government’s request (proving that it serves man rather than God)? But, if he admits to it, I guess that’s fine then.
Read my conclusion.
Many of them are not listening to us, because what we have to say would condemn them (e.g. Jack; Scott) or point out the potentially hypocritical focus on women as the primary source of evil (e.g. Dalrock, Deti, Sharkly). Whether (publicly) pure men like Oscar and Deep Strength are part of the problem or the solution depends on whether or not they think men are as responsible as women for the plague of fornication.
I consider anyone who insists on hypergamy to be, intentionally or unintentionally, part of the problem. Such a belief in unreality cannot be part of the solution.
Peace,
DR
Cameron,
Remember when I wrote:
Now you took issue with my idea what many in the ‘sphere are fornicators, but I did want to note that the study I cited here confirms what I said:
One of the most significant principles of assortative mating is that people tend pair up based on previous sexual experience. If a person has fornicated, they are much more likely to be with someone who has fornicated already, or will do so in the future.
That’s what the data shows. Most of the men contained in the Christian Manosphere are upset because the type of women they are attracted to are almost all not virgins. Now, this is very difficult for the Manosphere to accept, but this wouldn’t be as big of a problem if they were not attracted to those kinds of women. But they are, and there is no changing this fact. People are attracted to the kind of people they are attracted to, and it is very hard (if not impossible) to change this.
The problem is not hypergamy. It’s assortative mating. The kind of men who fornicate are attracted to the kind of women who fornicate.
Unfortunately, if such men try to find a woman who is not prone to divorce, he’s almost certainly trying to unnaturally pair up with a woman to which assortative mating practices wouldn’t normally pair him up with. This increases his odds of divorce.
There really isn’t a way to solve this problem.
If someone is the kind of man who lands in this mess…
…then he is unlikely to find himself in this one…
Indeed, his previous experience probably means he never will. That’s just reality.
But we can’t even have a conversation that the typical Manosphere man wants a woman by default who is bad for him and that if he was paired “fairly”, that is who he would get.
Peace,
DR
“Most of the men contained in the Christian Manosphere are upset because the type of women they are attracted to are almost all not virgins.”
I see no evidence of this. The men of the Christian manosohere aren’t marrying out of attraction to non-virgins any more than most men are. They marry non-virgins because the vast majority of available women are non-virgins. The only mass-fornicator you mentioned, Scott, was attractted to a virgin despite growing up in a sea of non-virgins in 80’s southern California. You haven’t really named other christian manosphere notorious fornicators. Was Dalrock a notorious fornicator?
Scott mentioned that when a man thinks of his wife sleeping with a previous lover he gets a pukey feeling in his mouth. That doesn’t sound like someone attracted to harlots.
Cameron,
“Most of the men contained in the Christian Manosphere are upset because the type of women they are attracted to are almost all not virgins.”
I see no evidence of this
Really? I’m surprised by that.
It is well known that 90%+ of women are no longer virgins by around age 25. Most men contained in the Christian manosphere are older than that, and the women they are attracted to are almost certainly no longer virgins. It is quite common for people in the ‘sphere to complain that the only virgins remaining are unpalatable (i.e. there is a good reason they are still virgins: nobody wanted them). Consider Rock Kitaro’s recent analysis regarding how the best options have long since married already.
I’m a bit surprised that your experience is different.
(If you say that older Manosphere men are mostly attracted to 20 year old virgins, then, I submit, that men are, in fact, hypergamous. What are men attracted to? Older virgins that don’t exist? Younger virgins that do exist, but are out of their league? Or non-virgins who are in their league?)
The men of the Christian manosohere aren’t marrying out of attraction to non-virgins any more than most men are. They marry non-virgins because the vast majority of available women are non-virgins.
That’s kind of my point. The men of the Christian manosphere are not marrying out of attraction to non-virgins any differently than most men. That’s precisely what the study I cited said: religious factors hardly matter in assortative mating. The only options available are non-virgins and virgins that they would never be assortatively paired with. The virgins exist, but the men would never chose them (or are ineligible due to the big age difference). They would only choose the non-virgins or nobody.
The only mass-fornicator you mentioned, Scott, was attractted to a virgin despite growing up in a sea of non-virgins in 80’s southern California.
Do you consider that pairing to be the rule or the exception? Do the recent developments affect your opinion?
You haven’t really named other christian manosphere notorious fornicators.
No, I have not. I’d rather accept your correction and publicly retract that claim. It was poorly stated. I prefer, instead, the implication of Rock Kitaro’s analysis (which I’ll post in tomorrow’s article).
Scott mentioned that when a man thinks of his wife sleeping with a previous lover he gets a pukey feeling in his mouth. That doesn’t sound like someone attracted to harlots.
I don’t think this is a matter of cause and effect. That feeling should be universal regardless of the sexual experience (or lack thereof) of his wife. Orthogonal to the point, IMO.
Peace,
DR
I assumed by “attracted to” we were drawing inferences about their attraction based on who these men married 20 or 30 years ago. My impression is many of these men were non or lukewarm religious when they married. When a man in college or gradschool or whatever meets a woman she doesn’t have (non) virgin tatooed on her forehead and the man typically doesn’t ask. The vast majority of women they met were non-virgins, the virgins were disproportionately hidden away in insular, endogamous religious communities. I don’t know that we can conclude because say novaseeker married a non virgin he’s attracted to non virgins.
The men frequently post the “men prefer tatoo and debt free virgin memes” not the “slut life” memes I see from the blue collar guys I work with.
I don’t know if the “leftover” virgins are e.g. disproportionately obese or unattractive. I have no idea which girls at church are virgins. Does Rock interview these women?
I realize that I’m having difficulty explaining myself, so I apologize for being so dense.
I am drawing a distinction between what people say they want and who they are most naturally paired with (according to the indeterminate factors that go into assortative mating). To prefer “tattoo and debt free virgins” is male hypergamy. Male hypergamy has the highest divorce rate out of the three possibilities (the others being heterogamy and female hypergamy).
In terms of assortative mating, your preferences don’t actually matter as much as you think, because so much is out of your control. The one thing the Manosphere is not doing is asking if the men who want debt free virgins are in the same tier as the women they want. I suspect that in many case they are not. I suspect this accounts for the belief that such women are unicorns. By contrast, to men who are naturally paired with debt free virgins, such women are not unicorns, but may be quite common and mundane.
The point is that you can’t tell what tier Novaseeker (or anyone else is) simply by whether or not they married a virgin. If someone marries a virgin outside his tier, then his divorce risk presumably goes up anyway as he gets “priced out of the market.”
It’s a “correlation does not equal causation” problem. The Red Pill is fundamentally blankslatist. It believes that if a man does X, Y, or Z, he can ensure that he cheats the market by acquiring a better prospect in a wife than he would have otherwise. But we have not established any causation that leads us to this conclusion. All we know is the correlations.
This has always been Jason’s complaint. He noticed how difficult it was to change tiers, even when you do everything right. The Red Pill proponents never had an explanation.
“I suspect this accounts for the belief that such women are unicorns.”
No, they see tattoo and debt free virgins as unicorns because 95% of women available aren’t virgins and because women dobn’t advertise their virginity.
It was a woman, Lori Alexander, not the manosphere men, who expressed men’s preference for virgins.
Cameron,
Don’t be so quick to dismiss what I’m saying.
If a man is not in the same tier as a woman, he will think that a second man acquiring her is just luck, because it would be luck for him, even though it’s not actually lucky for the second man. It would be luck for the first man, but not for the second man. The difference is that the second man shares homophily with the woman, but the first man does not. They have a difference in perspective that has nothing to do with luck.
The same thing applies to unicorns. One man’s unicorn is another man’s wife. Literally. Few men, I suspect, would see their own properly paired wife as a unicorn. (Caveat: most men believe that they married up to “my better half”)
What you are suggesting is that a unicorn is simply a rare woman. But the first man didn’t marry a unicorn when “unicorns” were still aplenty (e.g. when he was young). The women didn’t change, per se, but he, his station, and his relative worth on the market did.
Peace,
DR
The narrative I saw at Dalrock’s wasn’t that female fornication is uniquely evil. The narrative I saw is that men and women are evil but the mainstream including what they call Churchianity never tires of reminding us of men’s flaws while ignoring women’s. That is what I immediately noticed at Dalrock’s. Not “men good, women bad.”
Also the idea that fornication was sinful by either sex but that the practical solution was the traditional one: women are the gatekeepers of sex. Women say “yes” (or no) . If you can find a way to punish Chads I’m all for it. I’m also for outlawing porn and throwing pornographers in prison. Porn makes people sexual gluttons.
Cameron,
That presumes hypergamy and the 80/20 principle, which I reject. It’s a myth. Males and females have sex at roughly the same rates. Per here, there is no strong disconnect between males and females. There is no hint of polygyny in males or hypergamy (and serial monogamy) in females. It’s just not there. It’s a myth.
Men and women are equally responsible. Still. Even after the church has spent so much time lecturing men and letting women off the hook.
Men may be told of their flaws time and time again, but what good has it done? I find this to have been largely ineffective. In the study I showed, there was no correlation between religion and sexual experience in either males or females.
You can say that the church isn’t doing enough to correct females, but it is also not doing enough to correct males. That’s my problem with the Dalrockian crowd. It believes that because there is an imbalance, that we should not criticize men. But this is just “whataboutism.”
You may call it unfair, but too bad. It is what it is, and I can’t change it. All I can do is focus my attention to the only people who are listening: men. But the men who are part of the problem are not listening to us.
Peace,
DR
“Men may be told of their flaws time and time again, but what good has it done? ”
Nothing – you’re right. Which is why we should emphasize telling WOMEN the message. We’ve tried “cad shaming.” It didn’t work.
Cameron,
This is an interesting point, and I’m inclined to agree. Let’s consider it.
First, male “cads” are just as common as the equivalent female “whores.” There is no 80/20 principle of fornication: the sex ratio is essentially 50/50. So there is no benefit of scale to be had by focusing on one sex to the exclusion of the other. This probably helps your argument that women’s behavior should be a target of modification, because the assumption that it is easier to fix a small number of men than a large number of women is unfounded.
Second, since “cads” make up between one-third and two-thirds of all men, what does it say about men that shaming them has no effect? Perhaps the reason churches focus so heavily on blaming men is because men are so much more resistant than women are: they require a heavier hand to alter their ingrained habits towards fornication. If women are more malleable, then men bear the greater responsibility and guilt.
But is that really true? What evidence do we have to conclude that shaming whores would be any more effective than shaming cads?
I will grant you this point: if it turns out that women are easier to fix than men, then the utilitarian argument suggests focusing on fixing women. However, you should note that this implicitly blames men for their unfixable behavior. I can’t imagine your idea would gain much traction in the ‘sphere. Most prefer to blame women and not assign any blame at all to men (which is rather indicative of how correcting men does no good).
Do you agree?
Peace,
DR
I first saw the “shaming men doesn’t work but shaming women does” in the sphere, specifically at “Jim’s Blog.” My guess is it works because women are prone to negative emotiins particuarly shame and go far to avoid them.
I always held men responsible. I told Elspeth that SAM was responsible for bad things towards other men but she emphasized the blame on SAM’s conquests. That’s right – the woman blamed women.
I don’t agree that there aren’t a relatively small fraction of knaves that young women flock to. I don’t trust social science studies that ask young people to name or number their sexplouts. I think that shaming doesn’t work on knaves because they’re knaves.
I think the sphere would say that
Cameron,
What is your evidence to support that claim? I’ve taken that claim and found evidence that fails to replicate that hypothesis. What do you have? Is it more than legendary claims by Red Pill advocates?
We are not talking about a few knaves. We’re talking about a majority of males.
The data I showed indicates close to a 50/50 split between men and woman. Both sexes are having sex with about the same number of partners, and with the same level of uniqueness (those partners make up nearly two-thirds of the population). Even if there is widespread lying and statistical/methodological error, it can’t save 80/20 hypothesis.
The numbers are just too big to rig. It is (ironically) as lopsided as this:
But it’s not just that one study. The reason for the citations I gave in the OP are because the evidence of initial male and female hypergamy is found in nearly every study. The evidence, whether it be strong or weak, is largely one-sided in favor of heterogamy, homophily, and assortative mating.
You are probably familiar with various fraud detecting techniques, such as certain digits of numbers occurring with the wrong frequency. If there was widespread lying among those 800+ students, you would see more “short cycles” in the data, because people don’t lie randomly. But you don’t. Do you think that students just happened to all lie about different people? There is no reasonable way for students to have faked the particular patterns seen in the data.
You are being skeptical, which is a good thing, but you have to root your skepticism in reason. You can’t just be skeptical because you don’t like the consequence of the conclusion. Lies would show up as anomalies in the data, which you would be able point to and explain. So, can you do that?
I have an analytical mind. So given my Red Pill conditioning, when I first saw this data…
…I immediately noticed that there were “not enough” short cycles. It was so odd that I thought the researchers must have artificially manipulated the data representation (perhaps simplifying it in some way). That was, until I read their discussion on short cycles. The implication of that reality is profound, and strongly militates against the argument that the data is fake.
If you are correct, then hypergamous women are lying by saying they are not hypergamous. Why would every woman do this and in such a highly coordinated way? The obvious answer is that this is impossible and that they were not lying.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the study shows that women are not hypergamous in their actual choices of partners, or it is showing that they express the viewpoint that they are not hypergamous. So even if they are lying, it still doesn’t support the claim of hypergamy!
Additionally, if the 80/20 principle were actually true, it would imply that men are, by far, the biggest liars of all.
Peace,
DR
I really need to read the paper and the links in the OP.
It seems the typical female pattern would be to “lie by omission” not fake the data. I have no idea what that does for short cycles.
It’s quite amazing to me. They got 83% of a HS in a small, insular community to do a home interview about their intimate sex lives and more than 2/3 responded with accurate data on their partners? Incredible.
There’s always the possibility that the “80/20” starts post HS. I knew girls who dated average guys and after HS and their breakup they went “girls gone wild.” Or not.
I don’t want the RP conclusion. The opposite. I find it depressing and wish it were wrong. When I started reading Dalrock around 2016 it was easy to believe because it matched the observations of my youth.
Having looked at the data somewhat, I find it hard to believe that the students faked the data. But this doesn’t rule out other sources of fraud or error. So caveat emptor applies.
The first problem is that too many men are in relationships to support the 80/20 principle. There are not enough women left to account for this, even if the women are lying by omission.
The second problem is that the patterns of relationships show distinct (heterogamous) hierarchies and social groups that would be difficult to fake if people were lying in any form.
I think this result is so surprising that it must either be faked by the researchers or largely correct. I’m sure there is some lying, for sure, but I find it challenging to explain how the data that wasn’t omitted could be explained even if some was omitted. It is, of course, easier to detect lying when relationships involve more than one testimony.
Now, keep in mind that the researchers did not fully differentiate between the kinds of relationships. We don’t know how many were sexual vs. other forms of intimacy. There were some gay relationships, but not that many. Some of those may have been hidden because it was the 90s.
Except that the studies I’ve referenced suggest that hypergamy decreases as the seriousness and length of a relationship increase. There are a lot of studies on assortative mating that we could probably look at if we really wanted a better answer to this question, but I suspect they won’t support 80/20. I used to think 80/20 was real, until I started looking for proof.
Name me the Red Pill author who is actively testing Red Pill wisdom to see if it can be falsified or not. With regards to hypergamy, I think confirmation and selection biases rule the day. I’m not saying the whole of The Red Pill is wrong, or that everything Dalrock said was ridiculous, but hypergamy is overblown (and ill-defined by the ‘sphere).
I have seen the manosphere, which is a constellation of bloggers and commenters, define the 80/20 in different ways, as well as claiming it’s a “70/30” or a “95/5”, etc. Some have said it means “20% of guys deflower 80% of women”, “20% of guys have sex with 80% of women in the dating market” and “women are attracted to the top 20% of men and not particuarly attracted to the bottom 80%” As far as I can tell, this last statement is where it started based on OKCupid and similar data. I would regard this last hypothesis as the “80/20” whether it should be called “hypergamy” or is mislabeled as such.
The attractive males are attractive both in looks and/or in dominance which is why they are termed “alpha males.” It isn’t just about looks – a hawt wimp isn’t hawt as Liz demonstrated.
Women are attracted to bad boys. I saw this my whole youth and I have non-participating, female manosphere watching friends (who disagree with much of the sphere) who confirm women are attracted to bad boys.
“Name me the Red Pill author who is actively testing Red Pill wisdom to see if it can be falsified or not. ”
I saw what I saw in my youth. I have no idea how to publish my observations in a peer reviewed paper. So I shouldn’t discuss this with other men like deti who saw the same thing because I don’t have the ability to create a study from my observations over the years.
I appreciate the contributions of the ladies’ auxillary. Three of tbem described realities that suggest married life for alpha men is much better than married life for beta men.
I’m not very interested in a “gotcha” like men who prefer tatoo debt free virgins are technically hypergamous too. I am interested in the notion that women are highly attracted to alpha males and have little attraction to average males. Attraction might not have mattered for Pa and Ma Ingalls but i5 does now.
Maybe you are too smart for me to understand your points. I’m not the brightest bulb.
Cameron,
I’m trying to get across how deeply this perception is due to selection bias. The men who think this have experienced or witnessed this personally, sometimes quite often. This is because of the subculture that they come from. This is why you say:
Some women are like this, but it is not an inherent attribute of being female. You really should read Bruce Charlton’s post here which gives a perfectly plausible alternative explanation.
I suspect you simply have no access to any other group of women, so you presume they are all like that. This is my point. It is assortative mating in action. It is as if the people outside your tier do not exist, when in fact they do. The kind of people who are in other tiers are not involved in the manosphere. There is a very strong selection bias at play.
Consider how the divorce rate varies considerably even by state:
The rate is even more varied if you break it down by county or city. Factors like where you live, who you interact with, what race you are, what socioeconomic tier you are in, etc. are not random. They are subject to strong selection pressures. These sociological factors play a huge impact in your perception of women and relationships.
Why haven’t Manosphere men become Mormon or Muslim if they are so concerned about divorce? Would it even work if they did?
If you want to appreciate just how biased my background is. I live in a place that has a lower-than-average divorce incidence, and I grew up in a place that was even lower. I had never met a woman who was obviously attracted to a bad boy until college. Hundreds of marriages, thousands of women, none blatantly meeting the the description you’ve described. I went to a church where we had 200+ attendees, many young couples with babies, and maybe one couple who had a previous marriage (prior to joining the church). Until I went to college I thought only non-Christians got divorced because I had never witnessed a Christian couple get a divorce. Crazy, I know.
Almost none of my peers have gotten divorced. Neither have their parents or their parent’s parents. To this day it is rare to find a divorce, and common to find large families. Why? Heavily selection bias, or, assortative mating. These outcomes are neither lucky nor rare.
(It isn’t luck. If I could leave you with only one point, it would be that. The rest naturally follows.)
Even having left that, my children have unconsciously sorted themselves as early as elementary and middle school. Their friends and romantic interests are from people whose parents are not divorced. It’s homophily. None of the girls who want bad boys are anywhere to be found.
I understand how biased my experience was, but yours is also biased. You just can’t see it because, unlike me, you’ve presumably never been outside your subculture and you think that the way it is is the way it must be.
It’s selection bias.
Whenever I tell people to move, to select differently, they have, to a man, refused. They will not bias their selection differently.
Instead, they tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. So I’ve come to realize that people get what they “want” but often this is not what they think they want.
Ironically, the fact that they are the type of person who wouldn’t want to move is enough evidence to show that they are the type of person that moving wouldn’t help. It’s hard to be a different person than who you are.
It isn’t a matter of should or shouldn’t. Anecodotal evidence is weak because, in part, it is so strongly susceptible to various forms of bias (e.g. selection, confirmation, survivorship, etc.). Anecdotal evidence can be important if it is all you have, but it’s not all we have. The people disagreeing with me are largely citing anecdotal evidence, which makes me struggle to take their claims seriously.
That’s interesting. I suspect it’s similar to what I said about luck and unicorns: it’s all a matter of perspective.
I’m asking for proof, although I’ll settle just for a bit of evidence—actual data that goes beyond personal anecdotes. I’m not seeing it. Surely the men in the ‘sphere should have ready access to that sort of thing, given how central it is to their beliefs. Surely. Right? What is there besides assumptions and presumptions?
Your comments have been very interesting and helpful. I’m not sure if the problem is not my general inability to clearly explain complex topics. As long as you are willing, I’ll appreciate your insight, though I’d imagine you’ll get tired of it before I will. As I said in today’s post, “Hypergamy is a Myth, Part 2,” your comments are keeping me interested in furthering this discussion. It’s been highly productive, IMO. And based on some comments on the other blog, others appreciate what you have to say.
Peace,
DR
I didn’t grow up in a subculture with selection bias. I grew up in mainstream American culture. Average in every way. The culture you grew up in is subject to strong selection bias as it’s utterly atypical as you acknowlege. The opposite high selection bias culture would be black ghetto culture which is where one would look if one wanted to prove the sphere. My culture was middle class mixed-religion white America.
We do have evidence – the OkCupid and simular studies. Speculative criticisms can be made of this data but the same gies for your data.
Cameron,
Do you realize that the source I cited in the OP references these? The OKCupid and similar studies form the starting point for the argument against hypergamy, not evidence for it.
One the surface those sources give the appearance of hypergamy, but this rapidly disappears once the dating selection process begins in earnest:
Much of the heterogamous sorting takes place before couples take the relationship offline.
It is clear from the comments I’ve read—such as those recently by Deti—that the interpretation of that data to support any definition of hypergamy (besides non-implemented desire) is surface-level at best.
There is no real “American culture.” That is an abstraction, an approximation, not a depiction of reality or truth.
Consider intelligence.
A person with a 130 IQ will surround himself with similar people. He will have relatively little serious interaction with normal 100 IQ people, and when he does it will often be a frustrating experience. He will often view the world through an idealized or abstract perspective. The rare visit to the DMV will be like stepping into another world (which he’ll probably blame on the other side’s politics).
A person with a 100 IQ will surround himself with similar people. He will be unable to understand how the 130 IQ man experiences the world. He will have great difficulty relating or understanding him and what he says. For the 100 IQ man, life has been a much more difficult challenge. He had to work harder to get good grades in school and that didn’t change once he entered the workforce.
Both of these people will find the life of a 70-85 IQ man to be nearly inscrutable. They won’t understand what it is like to go through life barely at basic literacy, along with all the day-to-day struggles that this entails. As the blankslatists have shown, they won’t understand why the sizable amount of crime and relationship dysfunction is concentrated within that group. They explain it from the perspective of what life would be like if it was them in that position.
These three arbitrary tiers merely highlight how different the experience will be. These are the kinds of subcultures I’m talking about. Each group will find aspects of the other groups to be mystifying, but most people will not realize what life is actually like for other groups.
You absolutely are part of a subculture, even if you don’t know what it is or acknowledge it. The people you have interacted with throughout your life have not been randomly selected, nor do they represent the whole culture (which doesn’t actually exist). Based on your statements, you likely have very little concept of what life is like for those outside your bubble.
The fact is, you can’t even acknowledge that you are in a bubble, your particular personal area of selection bias. Consequently, you have trouble understanding that the rules you think are universal are, in fact, not universal.
Yet, simple group differences can trivially account for a 10% vs. 60% divorce rate. That is a massively important selection effect.
No I don’t acknowledge that it is atypical! There is no typical culture.
Understand that this “selection bias” is not a bias as in a logical fallacy, but a bias in terms of actual real-life selection. Everyone lives in their own little world that is a biased selection of the whole. Nobody sees the whole.
Assortative mating is simply the descriptive fact that people engage in homophily and heterogamy within their subculture. They mate with people within their sphere, and they largely ignore anyone outside their world. And this sphere can, at times, get very small.
A problem arises when you don’t like the marital prospects in your own bubble, and so you look elsewhere and see what you want in someone else’s bubble. That’s when the conflict with assortative mating begins.
With that comment, I might be able to rest my case. You just cited another highly selected group as proof of the sphere, yet that subculture has little bearing on other subcultures.
Can you even comprehend what life is like for an Asian vs. Black person? That’s a massive 3x difference in divorce rate! And it gets even wider with compounding. Your simplistic “American culture” simply cannot account for this.
Peace,
DR
I was told Scott’s life was ruined but not that his marriage was on the rocks rather his wife was angry. That is a good point about his first marriage. Yes he was a serial momogamist by his own description.
Jason threatening DS was part of his pattern of blaming us for wasting years of his life with hope from “game.” Because DS advocated personal improvement Jason was enraged threatened he would punch him if they ever met in person.
I did NOT like how Jason was treated by Jack – corrected for posting off topic when “higher prestige” commenters were allowed to do so.
Cameron,
I was told Scott’s life was ruined but not that his marriage was on the rocks rather his wife was angry.
See this comment?
Eleven months ago that quotation used to say Scott’s “marriage is on the rocks,” but Jack edited the comment and removed that line. Here is the original comment straight from my RSS reader:
He posted these (publicly) two weeks ago:
What would you make of Scott calling marriage “miserable” and publicly seeking an alternative to lifelong monogamous marriage?
Anyway, I’m really not a fan of Jack’s censorship, and I disliked the way he used to moderate and edit Jason’s comments, changing their content and not declaring those edits. Honestly, at times it was hard to tell what Jason actually said vs what Jack wanted him to have said.
As for Jason, he’s changed since then, mostly for the better.
Peace,
DR
I would guess that he doesn’t consider himself average so he’s not saying he is miserable.
As far as seeking an alternative to lifelong marriage that’s part of his religion. For well over a thousand years they’ve taught that you can be married to up to three living women, the 2nd and 3rd weddings have to be low key and you’re living in a sort of constant penance for ongoing adultery. I argued this with him once.
What? Seriously? How come I never heard of this before! That should have been scandalous.
Pingback: Hypergamy is a Myth: Part 2 - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Is Staying Married A Matter Of Luck? - Derek L. Ramsey