In light of Cameron’s comment here (per this and this), I’m sensing that cooldown is required. There will be no post today (and possibly for a few days).
13 Comments
professorGBFMtm
Yes, a Cooldown is required as i want to say something that i think has gone unsaid in the Dalrockian manosphere for way too long as i was inspired and moved to write this from elsewhere today:
Unhappily married MEN always know the right thing to do after the right time to do it has passed.
Being Unhappily married for either sex is a choice that is made without much awareness, precognition, or preparation, mainly to please bodily urges, attempt to keep up with the jones, and parental or societal expectations, or to look ”good” to the RS & DS Soros sellouts ye praise . Maybe when the decision comes up to find a spouse WE should weigh the cost like a Man who is a builder of towers,”For which one of you, when he wants to build a watchtower [for his guards], does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to finish it?”Luke 14:28-30
Simple huh? But it seems NOT so for some of ye.
When one chooses a spouse out of careful thought and constant contemplation this person will be happier than the one who does it out of the necessity of bodily urges, attempting to keep up with the Jones, parental or societal expectations, or to look ”good” to the RS & DS Soros sellouts ye praise, for if ye do you might later look like a deranged nutty fool foaming at the mouth yelling how ye was twicked into marriage on a former Coloradoian turned Texan site or if it be possible on a former American turned Taiwanian site or just on a former anti-tradcon turned pro-tradcon Limey’s site even!
Exit Question: What can we do to plan ahead to ensure the satisfaction and sanctification of our youth’s human sociosexual needs?
Most likely what does the youth need to hear? Just be an average & ordinary Sigma(as the sphere also says) like Derek, GBFM & Cameron323 who have always had decent, average & ordinary gals to wife similar to women like the Manosphere Auxiliary Ladies Liz and Elspeth.
YES, a cool down to think and reflect on all the past mistakes that way too many Geniuses have made was needed!
Lastmod
Calling someone a “twat” in British culture is an insult. A serious one. Its not just “quit being obnoxious”
Its just not thrown about in daily banter. Its usually tossed out and down, daring you to defend yourself or honor or status………
“thems fightin’ words”
It can be in reference to female genitalia as well…….
Its not a a good or nice, polite word to use.
Derek. Instead of a cooldown. Just leave them alone. They know anything and everything anyway. You are dealing with a social IQ of people who never left “jr high school”
You are dealing with people who I would guess in the end are jealous perhaps of you? Not that they lose sleep over it…..but your marriage, your stances fly in the face of everything they hitched their lives to concerning women, marriage, society, dating, sex and complex female psychology
They see themselves that indeed this “red pill” is actually not infallible and they cannot accept that
professorGBFMtm
i especially like this from a guy who was all about pleasing=tickling=encouragfing women’s hypergamy with game.
”If nothing can be known or established about hypergamy; then he and his ”independent alliance” partners AKA the ”king of commenters” GBFM & his best buds who eternally ride shotgun with him MOSES & JESUS, don’t know any more than I do.”
You once told us they were the secret to a good marriage and now claim ”I NEVER SAID THAT”tet if ye , follow them with all your gamey heart, might, strength & mind, you will never need to whine again”why does Derek, GBFM, MOSES, JESUS, SAM, Liz’s MIKE & Cameron323 get the dedicated babes that I don’t!????????”
Of course, you could see what JESUS(Quoting MOSES NOT Roissy,Rollo nor Iceberg Slim) has to say here, but it will offend thee i suspect & thy gamey mind and heart:
19 Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, He left Galilee and went into the part of Judea that is beyond the Jordan; 2 and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there.
3 And the gamey Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him (while the gamey Pharisees lusted for hot and wanton poon)and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason(such as hotter poon)?” 4 He replied, “Have you never read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined inseparably to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 The Pharisees said to Him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because your hearts were hard and stubborn Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery[a].”
10 The disciples said to Jesus, “If the relationship of a man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been born that way from their mother’s womb [making them incapable of consummating a marriage]; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men [for royal service]; and there are eunuchs who have [b]made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”-Amplified Bible (AMP)
You along with Dalrock, Jack, Scott, and Sharkey with their hammering -offering fanboys choose the 16 poon commandments over JESUS & THE GREAT BOOKS long ago and now in these latter days say ”WHEREFORE ARE THOU MY God and LORD JESUS & WHERE IS MASCULINITY HIMSELF WRAPPED IN AMPLIFIED KNOWLEDGE & MAJESTY BEYOND TIME & SPACE BETTER KNOWN AS GBFM?”
WE are where you abandoned us on your gamey quest of poon, that supposedly going
ro save marriage and western Civilization over a decade ago with societal and Governmental approval through the Satanic feministic game instead of the TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE & SALVATION that passes beyond all thy and others gamey understanding. Many of the younger MEN are finding us as Alas y’all gamey gamians remain ignorant of the day of your SALVATION from the lust & deceitfulness of the earthly fallen flesh! Perhaps one day you will join us Brother Deti but sin lieth at the door.it’s hoping and looking to devour you like a Lamb before a wolf.
cameron232
I’m going to try to spend some time rereading your original post, the linked substack article and your follow up post.
It has been useful to think about the various ideas I’ve seen described by various redpill authors and commenters and to try to discern what they/we are trying to say.
Derek L. Ramsey
I agree, it is useful. And, to be clear, I’m not saying that all Red Pill ideas are wrong. In this case, I’m hyper-focused on hypergamy as an illusion, and of the role (or lack thereof) of luck. Whatever else you might say, it is that one thing—hypergamy—that I call a myth, not necessarily all the other ancillary topics.
professorGBFMtm
.And, to be clear, I’m not saying that all Red Pill ideas are wrong. In this case, I’m hyper-focused on hypergamy as an illusion, and of the role (or lack thereof) of luck. Whatever else you might say, it is that one thing—hypergamy—that I call a myth, not necessarily all the other ancillary topics.
That’s good Derek, but not good enough for the RP® Genius Leaders and their yes-men
minions(as Deti says) who fear reality and criticism that just reminds them of their tremendous failure to keep so many of us here who brought tremendous and incredible success to them and even more the people who used to go to their RP® sites, but don’t now
mainly by knowing that they can’t stand the fire in the kitchen as being so-called truth-seekers who claim to be RP® Genius Leaders.
My mother told me all my life, “Tell them the truth once. If they don’t believe you the first time, they’re not going to believe you the second time, either.” It only took about 20 years for me to accept that she was right.
&
Profile photo for Mwanandeke Kindembo
Mwanandeke Kindembo
Author has 1.5K answers and 2.7M answer views7y
Why do some people need others to agree with them to feel right or else they don’t like people criticizing their choices?
It seems like you know the answer already, but you are asking just to verify if it’s true.
We have all been there where you want people to hear your voice or to persuade others to take your opinion. In the case of those who need others to agree with them in order to feel right, they are still got the mindset of teenagers.
Upon this a question arise: At what age is a person considered as an adult?! Well, age doesn’t matter. All which matter is how you behave towards yourself and those around you. Be ready to take criticism like a man/woman and don’t take everything personal.
You have to consider the opinions of others but keep an open mind so that you won’t fall into their trap against you. Stick with your opinions even if no one is ready to digest them. In short, expect less from people and you will live happily afterwards.
&
Profile photo for Assistant
Assistant
Bot
6mo
The need for validation from others can stem from various psychological factors and social dynamics. Here are some key reasons why some individuals may feel this way:
Self-Esteem: People with lower self-esteem may seek external validation to feel better about themselves. If they receive criticism, it can reinforce their negative self-image.
Fear of Rejection: Many individuals fear social rejection or disapproval. They may feel that if others don’t agree with their choices, it reflects poorly on them, leading to anxiety and defensiveness.
Cognitive Dissonance: When someone makes a choice, they often want to believe it’s the right one. If faced with criticism, it creates cognitive dissonance—a psychological discomfort that arises from holding conflicting beliefs. Seeking agreement helps resolve this discomfort.
Social Identity: People often derive part of their identity from their social groups. If their choices are criticized, it can feel like a personal attack on their social identity, prompting a defensive reaction.
Confirmation Bias: Individuals may have a tendency to seek out information or opinions that confirm their beliefs while dismissing or reacting negatively to opposing views. This bias can lead to a strong need for agreement.
Cultural Factors: In some cultures, conformity and group harmony are highly valued. People from these backgrounds may feel particularly distressed when their choices are criticized, as it can disrupt social cohesion.
Past Experiences: Previous negative experiences with criticism can lead individuals to be more sensitive to disapproval. They might have learned that criticism leads to conflict or hurt, making them more defensive in the future.
Understanding these factors can help in addressing the underlying issues and fostering healthier communication and relationships.
professorGBFMtm
This has a little to do with these discussions of marriage,” luck” and what makes success.
The woke right is saying how hard work doesn’t matter and success is due to luck and circumstance.
Nate Hochman
@njhochman
Those of us who “made it” in conservative politics—high pay, stable employment, doing something we love as we get opioids by the thousands—got really lucky. Doesn’t matter how hard we worked. Luck was still a big factor. That’s the first thing we should acknowledge before lecturing young men about their work ethic
”Those of us who “made it” in conservative politics—high pay, stable employment, doing something we love as we get opioids by the thousands—got really lucky”
Yeah like Elrushbos’ Grandfather Rush Hudson Limbaugh I was the city attorney for Cape Girardeau, Missouri, from 1917 until 1919. He began to take an active interest in politics during this period and in 1919 was among those signing a convention call to establish a new progressive political organization, the Committee of 48.[2]
Limbaugh began his own law firm in 1923. He served as city councilor of Cape Girardeau from 1924 until 1930. He served in the Missouri State Legislature as a Republican from 1931 to 1932,[3] and during his service advocated the consolidation of Missouri school districts and the formation of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.[citation needed]
Limbaugh was Chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law (1954–1955) and President of the Missouri Bar (1955–1956).[4] He also served as an ambassador for the U.S. legal system to India during the 1950s. When he retired from his law practice at age 102, he was reportedly the oldest practicing attorney in the United States.”
”Lucky”Lesson here?
You can fool some, part, or most of the people(especially so-called RP® Genius Leaders and their minion fanboys who don’t provide them with success beyond ”YOU DABEST, EVEN THOUGH YOUR BLOG BE DEADER THAN A DOORNAIL DUDE!!!”)some, part, or most of the time, But you can NEVER fool MOSES, JESUS & GBFM!
Zlolzzzlolzzz
Derek L. Ramsey
“When something good happens to you, it is luck. When it happens to me, it was merit.”
cameron232
After rereading them, I thought I’d comment on the first two “hypergamy” posts here.
I’m assuming you’re not just arguing over terminology i.e. “the manosphere is misusing the word hypergamy.” I’m assuming you have substantial disagreements with the Dalrockian narrative not just their misuse of “hypergamy.” So your words here confuse me:
“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).”
That sounds pretty much like the Dalrockian narrative. They say that women commonly go “up” for short term relationships (including one night stands) and end up with their rough matches for LTRs (including marriage). The former is captured by the Dalrockian aphorism “15 minutes of alpha trumps 15 years of beta.”
As far as I can tell, the 80/20 is supposed to be based on female attraction (or lack of really) and NOT the proportion of males who they are getting LTRs (and maybe even STRs from). It is true that some of them ran with the 80/20 and started applying it to “who gets the girls” but I don’t recall Dalrock applying the 80/20 to who women have LTRs with. WRT short term dating there was a narrative about the “carousel” but I don’t know that this meant 80% of women “the carousel” with 20% of men until they marry. A reasonable interpretation of Dalrock is that it’s common (maybe not 80% common) for normal young women to have at least one “alpha” partner that “imprints” on her or miscalibrates her attraction, creating “alpha widows.” He definitely didn’t argue that 80% of women marry or even long term date 20% of men – that would be absurdly visible and obvious as well as requiring legalized polygyny. So I’m not sure it matters whether “hypergamous relationships typically don’t last as long” in the Dalrockian narrative since his whole point was it’s female attraction as well as their behavior in short term relationships that creates the problem.
It’s an interesting note that women are perceived as more attractive than men but I’m not sure how much it matters because the effect is the same – women attracted to relatively few men. A lot of the Dalrockian narrative seems to emphasize the flip side of “hypergamy” – not the fact that women (and men) are highly attracted to top members of the opposite sex but that women, either by their nature or by their experiences with top males, aren’t really attracted to average men – thus the median/mode female rating of male attractiveness of 2 out of 7 in the OKCupid data and the fact that 1 out of 7 was the 2nd most common rating of men.
I guess you can say that women’s attraction is more than “visceral” and that’s true in the sense that women will pick men for marriage that have good finances or financial prospects, etc. but the point of Dalrock is that visceral attraction matters to women too (whether or not it did 100 years ago). Bill Gates has great finances but women aren’t really “attracted” to him in the way Dalrock means. For men in sexless, frigid marriages, or ones where they have to jump through hoops for the wife to pay the marital debt, it really doesn’t mean much that Melinda Gates was attracted to your financial prospects.
I don’t pay much attention to e.g. the Tiktok videos of women behaving badly that are posted at Spawny’s. Any one of 4 billion women can get a Tiktok account and say things. But Dalrock used to show examples of mainstream female authors e.g. that New York TImes writer, who would tell women to make sure to try out the “funboys” and “badboys” but not to expect an LTR because the same qualities that made them “fun” didn’t make them good husbands.
Just a note: the manosphere frequently mentions that women also display traditional hypergamy (if only of the “desire” type) when they talk about women wanting the six figure salary part of the desired “sixes.” The mainstream seems to suggest this when you see women going on and on about men “not keeping up” in terms of education level and salary.
cameron232
You say a lot of interesting things in the 2nd post and I’m going to try to comment on that one later.
The Nuance Pill post is very long and dense (almost 100 foot notes and sources). I admit I just skimmed it. A commenter at the bottom of that piece says he ran a dating site and found data similar to the OKCupid data (I think he found a 72/28 skew.
Derek L. Ramsey
Cameron,
“I admit I just skimmed it.”
It’s fine. It’s a hypothesis to be tested, not scripture. It opens up the discussion, it doesn’t end it.
“…72/28 skew…”
I assume this refers to 72% of women selecting from 28% of men?
It’s not so much that there is a skew. That doesn’t actually tell us all that much. What is informative is why there is a skew: there are more men on dating sites than there are women. When you have this kind of supply and demand inbalance, the market always tilts towards those with the advantage.
Of note, if you, hypothetically, saw a 50/50 split despite there being more women than men in the dating market, the failure to achieve better results would actually prove female hypogamy. Thus, just to maintain heterogamy, you must see an imbalance (such as the 72/28 skew) in favor of female selection.
Have you asked why men dominate the dating apps? Where are the women? It may not be hypergamy at all, but something a bit more straightforward:
Peace,
DR
Derek L. Ramsey
Cameron,
“I’m assuming you’re not just arguing over terminology”
It’s not an argument, more of an observation.
You’ll want to read my posts over the next two days. But I’ll save you some time: the Manosphere is not consistent in its definition of terminology. I won’t lie to you: you can’t avoid at least some debate or confusion over terminology, because the Dalrockian Manosphere doesn’t use the term consistently.
I’m comfortable using whatever definition you prefer, because as I’ve examined the 3, 4, or maybe 5 different definitions, I’ve not found any of them to be meaningful across the whole population. Don’t feel obligated to discuss the ones you don’t care about. I don’t consider the debate to be overly relevant, because no definition really matches reality. No matter which definition you prefer, hypergamy only applies in, at most, a restricted sense.
Men like Deti can complain that I’m not exclusively using their preferred proprietary definition, but just like preferred pronouns, I’m not obligated to do so.
That said, it is objectively the case that the Manosphere’s definitons of hypergamy do not match any known definitions outside the Manosphere. They are unique terms-of-art within the ‘sphere. Such esoteric usage is why I call it misuse. I make the same objections when the left steals words and redefines them for political or ideological reasons.
That sounds pretty much like the Dalrockian narrative. They say that women commonly go “up” for short term relationships (including one night stands) and end up with their rough matches for LTRs (including marriage). The former is captured by the Dalrockian aphorism “15 minutes of alpha trumps 15 years of beta.”
First, I agree that this describes a Dalrockian narrative, but it isn’t the narrative of hypergamy. The term has been misappropriated to describe other alleged behaviors and their general applicability.
Say a woman has an N count of 8 when they marry. The men she was with will likely have been across the value spectrum. Why think that only the high value men spoiled her? This is certainly not the teaching of God which is that any and all fornication is defiling. But the Manosphere will claim it was the highest tier man that corrupted her and her future marriage, not the seven other men or the mere fact that she was willing to play the harlot to so many men. IMO, hypergamy is a poor explanation for this phenomenon.
Second, that’s not the argument that Deti is making. He’s suggesting that hypergamy pertains to “all women” including those who married as virgins, or those who have been married for decades. I don’t buy it, but I’d be misrepresenting him if I didn’t at least acknowledge this view.
Third, women who are into short-term relationships often pick low-value men as well. Lower-value men successfully fornicate almost as much as high-value men, which shouldn’t be possible. The proponents of the version of hypergamy you describe have to explain this obvious factual counter to the “female hypergamy” narrative.
normal young women to have at least one “alpha” partner that “imprints” on her or miscalibrates her attraction, creating “alpha widows.”
That’s fine as a theoretical description of certain behaviors, but it must be tested against reality. And the reality is that this “alpha widowing” does not prevent a majority of first marriages from succeeding, not does it adequately explain all—or even most—divorces.
Where are the predictions from the Dalrockian view? Where have the predictions actually come to pass? The “alpha-widow” hypothesis isn’t very predictive.
It might apply to specific populations and individuals, but that’s not good enough for the AWALT crowd that’s been shouting for years.
his whole point was it’s female attraction as well as their behavior in short term relationships that creates the problem.
“The problem” is woefully ill-defined and generic. I’ve literally been told I was lucky because all women, including my wife, are supposedly deep down looking to drop their husband for a better man.
women, either by their nature or by their experiences with top males, aren’t really attracted to average men
That’s because men in the sphere don’t understand what drives attraction in females. Men’s own evaluations of what constitutes proper attraction and tiers of attractiveness has little bearing on what women prefer.
Men who want one thing can’t seem to comprehend that others might think differently.
He definitely didn’t argue that 80% of women marry or even long term date 20% of men – that would be absurdly visible and obvious as well as requiring legalized polygyny.
I think that there were a lot of men in the mob who shouted “80/20” without realizing this. It is curious why Dalrock did not correct those in his comment section who made this error. If Dalrock had reasoned this one through, why didn’t he behave as if he did? It’s easy to go along with the crowd. I once thought that the Pareto principle for dating and marriage was real too, and I’m well-trained in mathematics. Questioning one’s deeply held beliefs is difficult, even when those beliefs are obviously false.
I guess you can say that women’s attraction is more than “visceral” and that’s true in the sense that women will pick men for marriage that have good finances or financial prospects, etc. but the point of Dalrock is that visceral attraction matters to women too (whether or not it did 100 years ago).
The term visceral refers to instinctive feelings. So I’m not following your logic. How does a feelings-based instinctive selection process cause women to be more likely to pick a man with good finances? Instincts don’t typically lead to hyper-rational decisions! Shouldn’t impulsive feelings-based decision making result in the opposite? That is, feelings lead to attraction to poor matches and/or men of lower-quality?
For men in sexless, frigid marriages, or ones where they have to jump through hoops for the wife to pay the marital debt, it really doesn’t mean much that Melinda Gates was attracted to your financial prospects.
Calling hypergamy a myth is not a denial of the symptoms that hypergamy supposedly explains.
I don’t think these problems have much of anything to do with marrying up or marrying down. They are found in marriages of both the “good match” and “bad match” categories, and in both the heterogamy and hypergamy types. In other words, these problems that men are facing are not caused by hypergamy and so they would not be solved if hypergamy were to hypothetically disappear.
Do you have any hard evidence to suggest otherwise?
Any one of 4 billion women can get a Tiktok account and say things.
I agree. And even if a tiny fraction of women are hypergamous, that’s still countless millions of them. The Manosphere is not a random collection of men. That is, after all, why there is a disproportionate number of “the 2%” INTJs.
But Dalrock used to show examples of mainstream female authors e.g. that New York TImes writer, who would tell women to make sure to try out the “funboys” and “badboys” but not to expect an LTR because the same qualities that made them “fun” didn’t make them good husbands.
These are not random selections. Alongside Hollywood elites, the mass media is one of the best examples out there of extreme bias. A New York Times writer is a hyperliberal athiest feminist? No kidding! But what are the long-time married-for-life evangelical conservatives in the North East or Midwest saying?
Yes, a Cooldown is required as i want to say something that i think has gone unsaid in the Dalrockian manosphere for way too long as i was inspired and moved to write this from elsewhere today:
Unhappily married MEN always know the right thing to do after the right time to do it has passed.
Being Unhappily married for either sex is a choice that is made without much awareness, precognition, or preparation, mainly to please bodily urges, attempt to keep up with the jones, and parental or societal expectations, or to look ”good” to the RS & DS Soros sellouts ye praise . Maybe when the decision comes up to find a spouse WE should weigh the cost like a Man who is a builder of towers,”For which one of you, when he wants to build a watchtower [for his guards], does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to finish it?”Luke 14:28-30
Simple huh? But it seems NOT so for some of ye.
When one chooses a spouse out of careful thought and constant contemplation this person will be happier than the one who does it out of the necessity of bodily urges, attempting to keep up with the Jones, parental or societal expectations, or to look ”good” to the RS & DS Soros sellouts ye praise, for if ye do you might later look like a deranged nutty fool foaming at the mouth yelling how ye was twicked into marriage on a former Coloradoian turned Texan site or if it be possible on a former American turned Taiwanian site or just on a former anti-tradcon turned pro-tradcon Limey’s site even!
Exit Question: What can we do to plan ahead to ensure the satisfaction and sanctification of our youth’s human sociosexual needs?
Most likely what does the youth need to hear? Just be an average & ordinary Sigma(as the sphere also says) like Derek, GBFM & Cameron323 who have always had decent, average & ordinary gals to wife similar to women like the Manosphere Auxiliary Ladies Liz and Elspeth.
YES, a cool down to think and reflect on all the past mistakes that way too many Geniuses have made was needed!
Calling someone a “twat” in British culture is an insult. A serious one. Its not just “quit being obnoxious”
Its just not thrown about in daily banter. Its usually tossed out and down, daring you to defend yourself or honor or status………
“thems fightin’ words”
It can be in reference to female genitalia as well…….
Its not a a good or nice, polite word to use.
Derek. Instead of a cooldown. Just leave them alone. They know anything and everything anyway. You are dealing with a social IQ of people who never left “jr high school”
You are dealing with people who I would guess in the end are jealous perhaps of you? Not that they lose sleep over it…..but your marriage, your stances fly in the face of everything they hitched their lives to concerning women, marriage, society, dating, sex and complex female psychology
They see themselves that indeed this “red pill” is actually not infallible and they cannot accept that
i especially like this from a guy who was all about pleasing=tickling=encouragfing women’s hypergamy with game.
”If nothing can be known or established about hypergamy; then he and his ”independent alliance” partners AKA the ”king of commenters” GBFM & his best buds who eternally ride shotgun with him MOSES & JESUS, don’t know any more than I do.”
Hey Deti you might NOT have any answers but Roissy did!
https://heartiste.org/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
You once told us they were the secret to a good marriage and now claim ”I NEVER SAID THAT”tet if ye , follow them with all your gamey heart, might, strength & mind, you will never need to whine again”why does Derek, GBFM, MOSES, JESUS, SAM, Liz’s MIKE & Cameron323 get the dedicated babes that I don’t!????????”
Of course, you could see what JESUS(Quoting MOSES NOT Roissy,Rollo nor Iceberg Slim) has to say here, but it will offend thee i suspect & thy gamey mind and heart:
19 Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, He left Galilee and went into the part of Judea that is beyond the Jordan; 2 and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there.
3 And the gamey Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him (while the gamey Pharisees lusted for hot and wanton poon)and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason(such as hotter poon)?” 4 He replied, “Have you never read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined inseparably to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 The Pharisees said to Him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because your hearts were hard and stubborn Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery[a].”
10 The disciples said to Jesus, “If the relationship of a man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been born that way from their mother’s womb [making them incapable of consummating a marriage]; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men [for royal service]; and there are eunuchs who have [b]made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”-Amplified Bible (AMP)
You along with Dalrock, Jack, Scott, and Sharkey with their hammering -offering fanboys choose the 16 poon commandments over JESUS & THE GREAT BOOKS long ago and now in these latter days say ”WHEREFORE ARE THOU MY God and LORD JESUS & WHERE IS MASCULINITY HIMSELF WRAPPED IN AMPLIFIED KNOWLEDGE & MAJESTY BEYOND TIME & SPACE BETTER KNOWN AS GBFM?”
WE are where you abandoned us on your gamey quest of poon, that supposedly going
ro save marriage and western Civilization over a decade ago with societal and Governmental approval through the Satanic feministic game instead of the TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE & SALVATION that passes beyond all thy and others gamey understanding. Many of the younger MEN are finding us as Alas y’all gamey gamians remain ignorant of the day of your SALVATION from the lust & deceitfulness of the earthly fallen flesh! Perhaps one day you will join us Brother Deti but sin lieth at the door.it’s hoping and looking to devour you like a Lamb before a wolf.
I’m going to try to spend some time rereading your original post, the linked substack article and your follow up post.
It has been useful to think about the various ideas I’ve seen described by various redpill authors and commenters and to try to discern what they/we are trying to say.
I agree, it is useful. And, to be clear, I’m not saying that all Red Pill ideas are wrong. In this case, I’m hyper-focused on hypergamy as an illusion, and of the role (or lack thereof) of luck. Whatever else you might say, it is that one thing—hypergamy—that I call a myth, not necessarily all the other ancillary topics.
.And, to be clear, I’m not saying that all Red Pill ideas are wrong. In this case, I’m hyper-focused on hypergamy as an illusion, and of the role (or lack thereof) of luck. Whatever else you might say, it is that one thing—hypergamy—that I call a myth, not necessarily all the other ancillary topics.
That’s good Derek, but not good enough for the RP® Genius Leaders and their yes-men
minions(as Deti says) who fear reality and criticism that just reminds them of their tremendous failure to keep so many of us here who brought tremendous and incredible success to them and even more the people who used to go to their RP® sites, but don’t now
mainly by knowing that they can’t stand the fire in the kitchen as being so-called truth-seekers who claim to be RP® Genius Leaders.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-need-others-to-agree-with-them-to-feel-right-or-else-they-dont-like-people-criticizing-their-choices
Profile photo for Susan Scher
Susan Scher
Author has 14.6K answers and 30.1M answer views7y
Because they don’t have enough confidence in themselves. They need to have other people tell them, “Yes, you’re right” for them to believe it. They think it matters that people approve of them. That’s why they are sensitive to criticism. In their mind, they are being told they are wrong.
My mother told me all my life, “Tell them the truth once. If they don’t believe you the first time, they’re not going to believe you the second time, either.” It only took about 20 years for me to accept that she was right.
&
Profile photo for Mwanandeke Kindembo
Mwanandeke Kindembo
Author has 1.5K answers and 2.7M answer views7y
Why do some people need others to agree with them to feel right or else they don’t like people criticizing their choices?
It seems like you know the answer already, but you are asking just to verify if it’s true.
We have all been there where you want people to hear your voice or to persuade others to take your opinion. In the case of those who need others to agree with them in order to feel right, they are still got the mindset of teenagers.
Upon this a question arise: At what age is a person considered as an adult?! Well, age doesn’t matter. All which matter is how you behave towards yourself and those around you. Be ready to take criticism like a man/woman and don’t take everything personal.
You have to consider the opinions of others but keep an open mind so that you won’t fall into their trap against you. Stick with your opinions even if no one is ready to digest them. In short, expect less from people and you will live happily afterwards.
&
Profile photo for Assistant
Assistant
Bot
6mo
The need for validation from others can stem from various psychological factors and social dynamics. Here are some key reasons why some individuals may feel this way:
Self-Esteem: People with lower self-esteem may seek external validation to feel better about themselves. If they receive criticism, it can reinforce their negative self-image.
Fear of Rejection: Many individuals fear social rejection or disapproval. They may feel that if others don’t agree with their choices, it reflects poorly on them, leading to anxiety and defensiveness.
Cognitive Dissonance: When someone makes a choice, they often want to believe it’s the right one. If faced with criticism, it creates cognitive dissonance—a psychological discomfort that arises from holding conflicting beliefs. Seeking agreement helps resolve this discomfort.
Social Identity: People often derive part of their identity from their social groups. If their choices are criticized, it can feel like a personal attack on their social identity, prompting a defensive reaction.
Confirmation Bias: Individuals may have a tendency to seek out information or opinions that confirm their beliefs while dismissing or reacting negatively to opposing views. This bias can lead to a strong need for agreement.
Cultural Factors: In some cultures, conformity and group harmony are highly valued. People from these backgrounds may feel particularly distressed when their choices are criticized, as it can disrupt social cohesion.
Past Experiences: Previous negative experiences with criticism can lead individuals to be more sensitive to disapproval. They might have learned that criticism leads to conflict or hurt, making them more defensive in the future.
Understanding these factors can help in addressing the underlying issues and fostering healthier communication and relationships.
This has a little to do with these discussions of marriage,” luck” and what makes success.
https://x.com/constans/status/1880630352265584841
constans
@constans
The woke right is saying how hard work doesn’t matter and success is due to luck and circumstance.
Nate Hochman
@njhochman
Those of us who “made it” in conservative politics—high pay, stable employment, doing something we love as we get opioids by the thousands—got really lucky. Doesn’t matter how hard we worked. Luck was still a big factor. That’s the first thing we should acknowledge before lecturing young men about their work ethic
”Those of us who “made it” in conservative politics—high pay, stable employment, doing something we love as we get opioids by the thousands—got really lucky”
Yeah like Elrushbos’ Grandfather Rush Hudson Limbaugh I was the city attorney for Cape Girardeau, Missouri, from 1917 until 1919. He began to take an active interest in politics during this period and in 1919 was among those signing a convention call to establish a new progressive political organization, the Committee of 48.[2]
Limbaugh began his own law firm in 1923. He served as city councilor of Cape Girardeau from 1924 until 1930. He served in the Missouri State Legislature as a Republican from 1931 to 1932,[3] and during his service advocated the consolidation of Missouri school districts and the formation of the Missouri State Highway Patrol.[citation needed]
Limbaugh was Chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust Law (1954–1955) and President of the Missouri Bar (1955–1956).[4] He also served as an ambassador for the U.S. legal system to India during the 1950s. When he retired from his law practice at age 102, he was reportedly the oldest practicing attorney in the United States.”
”Lucky”Lesson here?
You can fool some, part, or most of the people(especially so-called RP® Genius Leaders and their minion fanboys who don’t provide them with success beyond ”YOU DABEST, EVEN THOUGH YOUR BLOG BE DEADER THAN A DOORNAIL DUDE!!!”)some, part, or most of the time, But you can NEVER fool MOSES, JESUS & GBFM!
Zlolzzzlolzzz
“When something good happens to you, it is luck. When it happens to me, it was merit.”
After rereading them, I thought I’d comment on the first two “hypergamy” posts here.
I’m assuming you’re not just arguing over terminology i.e. “the manosphere is misusing the word hypergamy.” I’m assuming you have substantial disagreements with the Dalrockian narrative not just their misuse of “hypergamy.” So your words here confuse me:
“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).”
That sounds pretty much like the Dalrockian narrative. They say that women commonly go “up” for short term relationships (including one night stands) and end up with their rough matches for LTRs (including marriage). The former is captured by the Dalrockian aphorism “15 minutes of alpha trumps 15 years of beta.”
As far as I can tell, the 80/20 is supposed to be based on female attraction (or lack of really) and NOT the proportion of males who they are getting LTRs (and maybe even STRs from). It is true that some of them ran with the 80/20 and started applying it to “who gets the girls” but I don’t recall Dalrock applying the 80/20 to who women have LTRs with. WRT short term dating there was a narrative about the “carousel” but I don’t know that this meant 80% of women “the carousel” with 20% of men until they marry. A reasonable interpretation of Dalrock is that it’s common (maybe not 80% common) for normal young women to have at least one “alpha” partner that “imprints” on her or miscalibrates her attraction, creating “alpha widows.” He definitely didn’t argue that 80% of women marry or even long term date 20% of men – that would be absurdly visible and obvious as well as requiring legalized polygyny. So I’m not sure it matters whether “hypergamous relationships typically don’t last as long” in the Dalrockian narrative since his whole point was it’s female attraction as well as their behavior in short term relationships that creates the problem.
It’s an interesting note that women are perceived as more attractive than men but I’m not sure how much it matters because the effect is the same – women attracted to relatively few men. A lot of the Dalrockian narrative seems to emphasize the flip side of “hypergamy” – not the fact that women (and men) are highly attracted to top members of the opposite sex but that women, either by their nature or by their experiences with top males, aren’t really attracted to average men – thus the median/mode female rating of male attractiveness of 2 out of 7 in the OKCupid data and the fact that 1 out of 7 was the 2nd most common rating of men.
I guess you can say that women’s attraction is more than “visceral” and that’s true in the sense that women will pick men for marriage that have good finances or financial prospects, etc. but the point of Dalrock is that visceral attraction matters to women too (whether or not it did 100 years ago). Bill Gates has great finances but women aren’t really “attracted” to him in the way Dalrock means. For men in sexless, frigid marriages, or ones where they have to jump through hoops for the wife to pay the marital debt, it really doesn’t mean much that Melinda Gates was attracted to your financial prospects.
I don’t pay much attention to e.g. the Tiktok videos of women behaving badly that are posted at Spawny’s. Any one of 4 billion women can get a Tiktok account and say things. But Dalrock used to show examples of mainstream female authors e.g. that New York TImes writer, who would tell women to make sure to try out the “funboys” and “badboys” but not to expect an LTR because the same qualities that made them “fun” didn’t make them good husbands.
Just a note: the manosphere frequently mentions that women also display traditional hypergamy (if only of the “desire” type) when they talk about women wanting the six figure salary part of the desired “sixes.” The mainstream seems to suggest this when you see women going on and on about men “not keeping up” in terms of education level and salary.
You say a lot of interesting things in the 2nd post and I’m going to try to comment on that one later.
The Nuance Pill post is very long and dense (almost 100 foot notes and sources). I admit I just skimmed it. A commenter at the bottom of that piece says he ran a dating site and found data similar to the OKCupid data (I think he found a 72/28 skew.
Cameron,
It’s fine. It’s a hypothesis to be tested, not scripture. It opens up the discussion, it doesn’t end it.
I assume this refers to 72% of women selecting from 28% of men?
It’s not so much that there is a skew. That doesn’t actually tell us all that much. What is informative is why there is a skew: there are more men on dating sites than there are women. When you have this kind of supply and demand inbalance, the market always tilts towards those with the advantage.
Of note, if you, hypothetically, saw a 50/50 split despite there being more women than men in the dating market, the failure to achieve better results would actually prove female hypogamy. Thus, just to maintain heterogamy, you must see an imbalance (such as the 72/28 skew) in favor of female selection.
Have you asked why men dominate the dating apps? Where are the women? It may not be hypergamy at all, but something a bit more straightforward:
Peace,
DR
Cameron,
“I’m assuming you’re not just arguing over terminology”
It’s not an argument, more of an observation.
You’ll want to read my posts over the next two days. But I’ll save you some time: the Manosphere is not consistent in its definition of terminology. I won’t lie to you: you can’t avoid at least some debate or confusion over terminology, because the Dalrockian Manosphere doesn’t use the term consistently.
I’m comfortable using whatever definition you prefer, because as I’ve examined the 3, 4, or maybe 5 different definitions, I’ve not found any of them to be meaningful across the whole population. Don’t feel obligated to discuss the ones you don’t care about. I don’t consider the debate to be overly relevant, because no definition really matches reality. No matter which definition you prefer, hypergamy only applies in, at most, a restricted sense.
Men like Deti can complain that I’m not exclusively using their preferred proprietary definition, but just like preferred pronouns, I’m not obligated to do so.
That said, it is objectively the case that the Manosphere’s definitons of hypergamy do not match any known definitions outside the Manosphere. They are unique terms-of-art within the ‘sphere. Such esoteric usage is why I call it misuse. I make the same objections when the left steals words and redefines them for political or ideological reasons.
That sounds pretty much like the Dalrockian narrative. They say that women commonly go “up” for short term relationships (including one night stands) and end up with their rough matches for LTRs (including marriage). The former is captured by the Dalrockian aphorism “15 minutes of alpha trumps 15 years of beta.”
First, I agree that this describes a Dalrockian narrative, but it isn’t the narrative of hypergamy. The term has been misappropriated to describe other alleged behaviors and their general applicability.
Say a woman has an N count of 8 when they marry. The men she was with will likely have been across the value spectrum. Why think that only the high value men spoiled her? This is certainly not the teaching of God which is that any and all fornication is defiling. But the Manosphere will claim it was the highest tier man that corrupted her and her future marriage, not the seven other men or the mere fact that she was willing to play the harlot to so many men. IMO, hypergamy is a poor explanation for this phenomenon.
Second, that’s not the argument that Deti is making. He’s suggesting that hypergamy pertains to “all women” including those who married as virgins, or those who have been married for decades. I don’t buy it, but I’d be misrepresenting him if I didn’t at least acknowledge this view.
Third, women who are into short-term relationships often pick low-value men as well. Lower-value men successfully fornicate almost as much as high-value men, which shouldn’t be possible. The proponents of the version of hypergamy you describe have to explain this obvious factual counter to the “female hypergamy” narrative.
normal young women to have at least one “alpha” partner that “imprints” on her or miscalibrates her attraction, creating “alpha widows.”
That’s fine as a theoretical description of certain behaviors, but it must be tested against reality. And the reality is that this “alpha widowing” does not prevent a majority of first marriages from succeeding, not does it adequately explain all—or even most—divorces.
Where are the predictions from the Dalrockian view? Where have the predictions actually come to pass? The “alpha-widow” hypothesis isn’t very predictive.
It might apply to specific populations and individuals, but that’s not good enough for the AWALT crowd that’s been shouting for years.
his whole point was it’s female attraction as well as their behavior in short term relationships that creates the problem.
“The problem” is woefully ill-defined and generic. I’ve literally been told I was lucky because all women, including my wife, are supposedly deep down looking to drop their husband for a better man.
women, either by their nature or by their experiences with top males, aren’t really attracted to average men
That’s because men in the sphere don’t understand what drives attraction in females. Men’s own evaluations of what constitutes proper attraction and tiers of attractiveness has little bearing on what women prefer.
Men who want one thing can’t seem to comprehend that others might think differently.
He definitely didn’t argue that 80% of women marry or even long term date 20% of men – that would be absurdly visible and obvious as well as requiring legalized polygyny.
I think that there were a lot of men in the mob who shouted “80/20” without realizing this. It is curious why Dalrock did not correct those in his comment section who made this error. If Dalrock had reasoned this one through, why didn’t he behave as if he did? It’s easy to go along with the crowd. I once thought that the Pareto principle for dating and marriage was real too, and I’m well-trained in mathematics. Questioning one’s deeply held beliefs is difficult, even when those beliefs are obviously false.
I guess you can say that women’s attraction is more than “visceral” and that’s true in the sense that women will pick men for marriage that have good finances or financial prospects, etc. but the point of Dalrock is that visceral attraction matters to women too (whether or not it did 100 years ago).
The term visceral refers to instinctive feelings. So I’m not following your logic. How does a feelings-based instinctive selection process cause women to be more likely to pick a man with good finances? Instincts don’t typically lead to hyper-rational decisions! Shouldn’t impulsive feelings-based decision making result in the opposite? That is, feelings lead to attraction to poor matches and/or men of lower-quality?
For men in sexless, frigid marriages, or ones where they have to jump through hoops for the wife to pay the marital debt, it really doesn’t mean much that Melinda Gates was attracted to your financial prospects.
Calling hypergamy a myth is not a denial of the symptoms that hypergamy supposedly explains.
I don’t think these problems have much of anything to do with marrying up or marrying down. They are found in marriages of both the “good match” and “bad match” categories, and in both the heterogamy and hypergamy types. In other words, these problems that men are facing are not caused by hypergamy and so they would not be solved if hypergamy were to hypothetically disappear.
Do you have any hard evidence to suggest otherwise?
Any one of 4 billion women can get a Tiktok account and say things.
I agree. And even if a tiny fraction of women are hypergamous, that’s still countless millions of them. The Manosphere is not a random collection of men. That is, after all, why there is a disproportionate number of “the 2%” INTJs.
But Dalrock used to show examples of mainstream female authors e.g. that New York TImes writer, who would tell women to make sure to try out the “funboys” and “badboys” but not to expect an LTR because the same qualities that made them “fun” didn’t make them good husbands.
These are not random selections. Alongside Hollywood elites, the mass media is one of the best examples out there of extreme bias. A New York Times writer is a hyperliberal athiest feminist? No kidding! But what are the long-time married-for-life evangelical conservatives in the North East or Midwest saying?
Also noteworthy:
(click for more)
Peace,
DR
Pingback: What is Hypergamy? (Part 1) - Derek L. Ramsey