Here is the series so far:
Part 1 — Hypergamy is a Myth
Part 2 — Hypergamy Note
Part 3 — Luck
Part 4 — Reasons for Divorce
Part 5 — A Case Study on Marriage (Intermission)
Today we will discuss:
Part 6 — What is Hypergamy?
Since the “Cooldown,” I’ve decided to alter my publication plans. I will not be directly interacting with the participants of the blog that caters to slanderous insults. By using anonymous links, I will not be alerting participants there about what I am writing nor attempting to drive additional engagement here. If they choose to read and respond to what I write, there is a very good chance I will not see it.
I’m just going to write about the topics as they interest me. It is not a back-and-forth debate. That window has closed. It is now one-sided and impersonal.
What Is Hypergamy?
Some people were foolishly claiming that I don’t know what hypergamy is. So let’s start with something foundational: What is hypergamy? And, to prove it isn’t just me, we’ll let the other sources speak for themselves and see if they agree with me.
According to Oxford Languages and Wikipedia (here), the term was invented in the 19th century on the Indian subcontinent. It’s a term that comes from Hindu law and refers to mésalliance, a marriage to an unsuitable partner. Typically this involves marrying a lower or higher caste, outside of one’s social group.
The term itself is a combination of the English prefix hyper—meaning “above”—and the Greek gamos—meaning marriage. “Above marriage” adequately captures the sense of marrying above your station.
The term has been used in the Dalrockian Manosphere for some time. Here is one such use in 2018, during the Golden Age of the Dalrockian Manosphere.
Hypergamy is an overused word in the sphere, but it is well-defined as the practice of women seeking to “marry up.” The hypergamous nature of human females is incredibly consistent. In every human society, from the beginning of recorded history, there has always been a general, instinctive drive by women to mate with someone in an equal or greater dominance-caste.
The term “dominance-caste” captures two different Red Pill claims: that women want a higher social standing than they deserve and that women are attracted to dominance and success. We’re not here to defend or refute that claim, merely to point out its use in the ‘sphere as late as 2018.
This is notably not based on physical attractiveness, nor does it imply an insatiable desire to cheat for a more attractive man. While physical attractiveness is correlated with social standing, dominance, etc., there is no direct causation between physical attractiveness and “hypergamy.”
Interestingly, my old friend Earl—also writing in 2018 at Dalrock’s blog—agrees with the standard definition too.
What’s Wrong With That?
There is a problem, though. Hypergamy, as described above, is a myth. As I pointed out in “Hypergamy is a Myth” and “Hypergamy is a Myth, Part 2,” if women were actually hypergamous in a non-polygamous society, then a sizeable percentage of people would be unable to get married. But, even today, most people get married and a majority stay married to people who they have assortatively paired with. So we know that hypergamy in modern societies—like America—does not exist.
Given that classic hypergamy isn’t actually real, some people have tried to get creative. Here is another post from 2018:
A comment that I received the other week on my post titled, “Men are attracted to youth and beauty, not careers and power,” from someone named Bob Sykes:
I don’t know if this is a deliberate attempt at misdirection or just a complete misunderstanding of the term.
So far so good. Piggott trashes the notion that hypergamy boils down to women having multiple sexual partners (e.g. the ‘alpha widow’ syndrome). He calls this a complete misunderstanding. But, keep reading for more context and clarification:
The best definition of hypergamy that I have found comes from Keoni:
While this is a nonsensical category error—”sexuality is attracted to status”—you can still see where he is going with it.
Let’s explore this quote from Keoni in some more context:
Hypergamy is not a negative female trait. Nor is it a positive one. It just is.
For men, the most important thing here is to understand what hypergamy is, and observe how she acts on it. By observing this, you can determine her character and suitability for investing resources into a committed relationship…if that’s what your looking for.
What do you mean, “determine her character?” I was told that all women lacked character? This Keoni Galt person must not know what he is talking about. He should spend some more time in the Manosphere!
So, it turns out that I’m not the only one in the ‘sphere who says this effect—if real—is amoral, just as I said in “A Note On Hypergamy.”
We’ll discuss the amoral nature in contrast to character in another post. For now, let’s see what another commentator had to say:
How many people outside the manosphere and pickup community even know what the term hypergamy means? And even dictionary definitions that I have seen don’t really capture the full essence of what we mean here when we use the term. Merriam-Webster has it as:
Hawaiian Libertarian’s recent post on the definition of hypergamy addresses this:
The problem isn’t that women are wired to only find a very small subset of men attractive, the problem is that many have an irrationally high view of themselves.
I’ve written previously about choice addiction, and how this is a very common theme in entertainment targeted to women. This fits fairly closely with the game concept of hypergamy; women have a primal fear that by committing to one man they will lose the potential of finding a better man.
Women do want to marry. What they don’t (innately) want is to stay married. More accurately, they want the exclusive option to unilaterally end the marriage should they feel that they have better options. Women’s natural desire for marriage needs to be understood in the frame of the feral woman’s script. The flawed assumption is that a woman marrying naturally represents a woman who has found her rock and intends to stay there.
Here we have Dalrock, leader of the Dalrockian Manosphere, explicitly denying the standard definition of hypergamy, but also denying that sexual attraction is the driving force behind hypergamy. Dalrock strongly maintained that a woman’s overvalued self-image was the driver of hypergamy.
Here is another article from way back in 2011, from another voice in the sphere:
Across the manosphere, hypergamy is an oft-discussed meme. Based on my informal mental count, it’s second only to feminism as a catch-all explanation for dysfunctional female behavior. “Hypergamy unleashed” is a typical response to stories of the college hookup scene, harems, endless serial monogamy, the 80:20 sexual pyramid, apocryphal “rainbow parties” and other sexual dynamics driven by the use and misuse of women’s status as sexual gatekeepers.
While I agree the concept is an important one, I fear we’re getting away from a bounded definition, and thus hurting our ability to use it to describe and discuss the SMP. Hopefully this post will spark some discussion.
I see “hypergamy” used to reference three typical situations:
- The desire of women for a partner of higher social status than her and the alleged inability of most women to feel attraction to a mate she perceives as lower or equal in social status. (To this point, the role of media culture in teaching women to find most men unworthy and unattractive is a huge problem.)
- The instinctual desire for a woman to mate with the highest-status man she possibly can. (In my mind, this is no different from a man’s desire to mate with the hottest woman he can seduce.)
- The alleged tendency of women to “trade up” in the SMP, in violation of social mores if need be (this would include dumping your beta date when the quarterback asks you to prom, and more nasty things like frivolous divorce, cuckolding and paternity fraud). Dalrock has made such “choice addiction,” and fantasies thereof, a regular discussion item at his blog.
Female hypergamy is often paralleled to the male desire for sexual variety. What’s interesting about that parallel is that doesn’t tell you what women actually find attractive, it simply relays the female Body Agenda and unconscious mating strategy. That men find long hair and hips attractive is a non sequitur to the fact that the male hindbrain is optimized to find many women attractive so as to motivate him to be sexually ready to “spread the seed” when the opportunity presents itself. Likewise, the hypergamy strategy doesn’t tell you how a woman’s brain evaluates status, it simply says that given the choice, she should choose the higher-status male, and choose him exclusively.
I agree with Badger that common definitions of hypergamy are insufficiently bounded, particularly those that are unicausal and claim universality. However, while it used to be okay for the cool kids to say this, it now results in vulgar insults.
The first and second definitions of hypergamy reflect the desire to avoid assortative pairing and mating (respectively). We’ve discussed at length how this is just a desire, not something in which men and women are successful at doing. Everyone wants a better mate than they deserve, but few actually get it.
That leaves us to the third definition. We’ve also discussed this third definition of hypergamy at length, and we’ve determined that this only applies to a minority of a minority.
But that last paragraph is especially interesting. Badger notes that male desire is mostly sexual and obvious, but that it isn’t the same for women. Hypergamy as a strategy says nothing about about women’s motivations. Concluding that female hypergamy is about sexual attraction is, to put it simply, males projecting their own simplistic evaluations of how attraction works onto females. We know that women—like men—would choose a better mate, but hypergamy itself doesn’t tell us why. It certainly isn’t focused exclusively on sexual attraction.
In any case, we can see from the above comments that the various definitions of hypergamy that I’ve been working with throughout this series have all been expressed at one time or another by the Manosphere itself. If there is any “confusion,” it is that the Manosphere’s definitions of hypergamy are unbounded.
L’éléphant Dans La Pièce
Now consider this old comment from 2011 at Dalrock’s blog:
Women seek alphas and dump or ignore betas precisely BECAUSE the old restraints on hypergamy have been been removed. There is no more shame in divorce. There is no more shame in sluthood. There is no more shame in single momhood or in promiscuity. Women drive the market because they are the sex gatekeepers. Women can now pursue alphas with impunity, and get them for a night or two, but that’s it.
Reinstitute shaming, and sluthood would be reduced and pushed to society’s margins where it used to be. Assortative mating would return and order would appear from chaos. It would take a generation or two, but it would eventually happen. I don’t think shaming will return, but it would work if it was returned.
According to this commenter, assortative mating would return if hypergamy—unrestrained sexuality—was restrained. The problem? Assortative mating never went anywhere. Men and women were assortatively pairing then, and they are assortatively pairing today. To wit:
Men and women are marrying their looksmatches
Men and women are marrying good matches
In science, we reject a hypothesis if it fails to make predictions. The prediction that hypergamy was inversely related to proper assortative mating failed. Thus, I have yet another reason to reject it.
Here is another old comment from 2012:
All women are hypergamous, all the time. Single women, engaged women, widows. Women who have been married for decades. Every woman wants to know she is with the best man she can get. If things get bad enough in a marriage, her hypergamous subroutine runs louder and faster. Her subroutine is kicking into high gear to search for a replacement husband. She can’t control this, but she can control her response to it. What controls it are her internal morals and external, family and social pressures (if any).
If it were true that married women aren’t hypergamous, we wouldn’t have a 50% divorce rate. We wouldn’t have “I’m not haaaaaappy” divorces. We wouldn’t have sexless marriages. What we’re seeing is the hypergamy subroutine kicking in, and prodding the woman to trade up.
This sounds a bit like Bob Sykes’ explanation above.
As I wrote in “Is Staying Married A Matter Of Luck,” the great thing about these numerically-based claims is that we can test them and potentially falsify them. That’s why I made a detailed breakdown of divorce to show a number of things, including: (1) Men are behind at least a third of divorces; (2) only a minority of a minority of divorces could even possibly be attributed to hypergamy; (3) a successful marriage is not primarily a matter of luck.
The fact is, hypergamy isn’t driven—caused—by sexual desire and it isn’t behind even a majority of divorces where it might plausibly be involved. It might be, generously, behind 10-20% of divorces. That’s high, and explains why the men in the Manosphere have experienced it anecdotally, but it is not an epidemic and certainly not universal. Like men, most women will attempt to cling to a marriage, even a bad one.
But hypergamy is supposed to be some inherent trait that all women share, something built-in. Such a low incidence of something that is supposedly unchecked falsifies the claim.
Let’s go back and evaluate that statement just a little more closely:
The divorce rate for first time marriages is much less than the divorce rate for remarriages. In my studies, I’ve only considered first time marriages. It is quite possible that hypergamy—if it exists and however you define it—is most strongly reflected in women who are already divorced (and may have had multiple marriages). Avoiding women who are already divorced is a must (and rather obvious), but the trick is avoiding those women before they’ve had their first marriage and divorce. That appears to be the key.
(Speaking of “the divorce rate” without qualification risks erasing all the real and meaningful differentiation that exists between various populations.)
Nevertheless, by inverting the claim…
…we can see that claiming that all women are hypergamous—even when they are not actually hypergamous—begs-the-question. You can’t have it both ways: either hypergamy is about desire or it is about actions. If the former, then all men are hypergamous too, because men prefer to be hypergamous. If the latter, then the statistics disprove it.
This demonstrates why ill-defined, unbounded definitions of hypergamy are not useful.
Men are OK with their matches
Women are not OK with their matches (in bold so readers understand where the problem is)
The reason women are not OK with their matches is either (1) they had sex with objectively more attractive men than they settled on for marriage and they’re unhappy with having had to settle; or (2) they have the chance to have sex with or get with a more attractive man after marriage and they’re unhappy that they’re foreclosed from it.
These situations produce enormous resentment in women
Men are not universally okay with their matches. They are often the reason—whether solely or shared—behind divorce.
Women are not universally dissatisfied with their matches. Some minority of a minority of women are dissatisfied, but a majority of women will marry for life, especially factoring in marriages where only the man wants a divorce. Moreover, the trend for many decades has been that married people are consistently 20%-30% more satisfied and happy than unmarried people.
The reason a minority of a minority of women are dissatisfied and choose divorce is multivariate. It may or may not include sexuality, and it may involve multiple simultaneous concerns.
In the current era women are empowered to relieve that resentment through either (1) exert enormous amounts of pressure and control in their marriages through the threatpoint of divorce; or (2) divorce, and destroy everything in their paths. Either of these make everyone around them miserable
This claim seems to be a rather twisted, inverted form of wishful thinking.
The “resentment” applies to, at most, a fraction of married women. The relative rarity is why you need esoteric Red Pill knowledge to reveal the hidden secret that “all women are secretly resentful.”
In any case, hypergamy does not logically follow from the social dynamics behind divorce. This is illustrated in the feminist tropes “I don’t need no man” and “I need a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” as well as the general belief that career is more important than marriage, sex, and family.
These all are evidence of lack of character in women.
THAT is “hypergamy”.
It is NOT a myth.
If “hypergamy” is a lack of character, then why call it hypergamy at all? At this point, why not just say that hypergamy is a myth and women have bad character? This has the added benefit of covering many non-hypergamous divorces. Don’t obfuscate the word by trying to press it into a meaning that it doesn’t have:
Hypergamy is not “lack of character”
We’ve already more-or-less admitted that hypergamy—as properly understood—is a myth. In order to save it, various attempts to redefine it have been tried and failed.
Redefining “hypergamy” to mean “lack of character” is just as absurd as saying “hypergamy” is “the tendancy to talk loudly in the movie theater.” This attempt to save the term “hypergamy”—which literally comes from terms meaning ‘marrying up’—by giving it a new meaning devoid of ‘marrying’ or ‘up’ is not an approach I consider valid. Your mileage may vary.
Here is what I really want to know.
If all women have bad character, why would anyone still want to marry them? Why are men attracted to bad girls? Do they think “I can fix her?”
If all women have bad character, why would anyone still want to marry them? Why are men attracted to bad girls? Do they think “I can fix her?”
Could this be the Answer?
Profile photo for Joe Nathon
Joe Nathon
30 years of political wonkery Author has 13.6K answers and 21.9M answer views10mo
Well the best a guy can hope for is a woman that acts like a good girl around everyone but you. Then acts like a bad girl when you’re alone.
Bad girls are hard to resist because they’re incredibly fun for a short term thing. But good girls are highly disable for long term things because they’ll have your back and won’t embarrass you.
Women do the same thing, they want to fux around with the bad boys but then look for the high earning good guys for marriage.
Best case scenario for a man or woman, is that you’re in a marriage to someone who’s good hearted and wants to be your biggest fan.
Well the best a guy can hope for is a woman that acts like a good girl around everyone but you. Then acts like a bad girl when you’re alone.
i wonder if that means what Rollo means in this:https://therationalmale.com/2012/01/06/the-slut-paradox/
Every man wants a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut.
ANDREW DICE CLAY: Hey, is that your chick there?
GUY IN THE AUDIENCE: Yeah!
DICE: Damn she’s pretty hot!
GUY: Yeah,..
DICE: You been together a while?
GUY: About 6 months.
DICE: Nice. She faithful to you?
GUY: Oh yeah.
DICE: She good in bed?
GUY: *nods head enthusiastically*
DICE: She tickle that pickle brah like thedeti says she should as DaGBFM laughs to himself at how fuxxed up modern life and MEN are
GUY: (laughing) Ohhh yeah,..hehehlzlolzzlollzz,..
DICE: I suppose the next question would be, “How do you suppose she got that way?”
If you had an idealized Quality Woman girlfriend who was smoking hot, well adjusted mentally, loyal, would make a good mother, came from a good family, etc. etc., but would only ever begrudgingly have sex with you, in missionary position only, never consider tockling your pickle even on tickle his pickle, and only once a month (in 13 minute increments) because she’d been conditioned to believe that sex was immoral and she didn’t want to be thought of as a slut, would you marry her?
This is the Slut Paradox that vexes contemporary man; what number of prior lovers can a woman have that would be acceptable for you? Seven? Five? How many hobby horses should there be on the cock carousel before a woman is a slut? Don’t bother answering this, because for your average (beta) man, the number – even if you could get full disclosure – is irrelevant to him.
You see, thanks to the pre-existing social infrastructure that the feminine imperative has established, the average man can’t believe his luck when he finally does become sexual with a woman – whether it’s his first time or it’s the hundredth with his wife. So high is her pedestal that it’s literally a twist of fate. The gods have smiled upon him with the sexual favors of a woman, and his good fortune is made all the better when his lover already knows how to perfectly suck his cock just like the women in all the porn he’s watched since he was twelve. No questions are asked – you don’t qualify a gift from the gods, you just accept it.
The Slut Paradox is a very complex issue because it wraps up so much social, emotional and biological importance and details. I’m using the ‘average’ man here as a starting point because he’s the social majority; he’s the benchmark for how both genders approach the paradox, because it’s his discretion to give a woman’s sexual past any kind of gravity. For as much as women will bleat on about “slut status” and double standards, it really all comes down to how the average – in this case beta – male contends with (or doesn’t) a woman’s sexual past. As enlightened Game-aware Men we’re largely exceptions to this rule, or at least blamefully aware of the mechanics of it.
In the initial attraction and arousal stages of a sexual pairing, the average guy doesn’t care about a woman’s prior sex life. It’s only after that pairing becomes solidified that it becomes a consideration.
Unless a woman is a porn actress, I don’t think it’s the number of guys that bothers Men; and I don’t even think it’s the details of how many dicks she’s had. What’s bugs men is that they want to possess her. Men want her genuine desire, but know other guys have had it already and moved on – and they’re cool with it, and she’s cool with it, but he’s not because he wants to own her. He wants to know that he’s getting the best of what she has to offer sexually and emotionally. He wants to know that HE’S the guy who brings out the slut in her that no other guy has experienced fully.
This is the root of the paradox issue. The average guy is playing by the feminine imperative’s stated rule set. He wants monogamy, he had to work at it. He had to negotiate with her for what she willingly, genuinely, desired to do with 5 other guys (assuming she’s honest). And on some level, he knows her desire for him is compromised because he had to plead his case with her so she’d warm up to him. Only now that he’s gotten what he’s idealized for so long he realizes other’s have had it before him without anything that comes even close what he invested to get.
Alpha Widows
Now before I get run up the flagpole here, I’m completely aware of the studies indicating a woman’s capacity to bond monogamously is inversely proportionate to the number of sexual partners she’s experienced prior to monogamy. I wont argue the merit of that concept, but I also don’t think that it fully encompasses the dynamic. I say this because, as Katy Perry so adequately illustrated recently, even ONE prior lover (or even unrequited obsession) can be Alpha enough to upset that bonded monogamous balance. These are the Alpha Widows – women so significantly impacted by a former Alpha (or perceptually so) lover that she’s left with an emotional imprint that even the most dutiful, loving beta-provider can never compete with. A woman doesn’t have to have been an archetypal slut in order to have difficulty in pair bonded monogamy.
That Katy Perry song that also rattled Dalrock(as he somehow thought
that the entire world is ”Christian” as if it was the 1950s instead of the 2010s back then):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahha3Cqe_fk
Katy Perry – The One That Got Away (Official Music Video)
All that adds up to one thing Derek, are you going to do a post on Alpha widows and the Dalrockian manosphere?
If all women have bad character, why would anyone still want to marry them? Why are men attracted to bad girls? Do they think “I can fix her?”
Because a friendly member of the Dalrockian manosphere might have such a daughter that they need to off-load perhaps? And they just want to be ”helpful” perchance like Farm Boy at Spawnys says too(the perhaps and perchances i mean)?
Also ”We’ve already more-or-less admitted that hypergamy—as properly understood—is a myth. In order to save it, various attempts to redefine it have been tried and failed.”
YEAH like game was somehow going to save feministic marriage and Satanic Western Civilization-a decade ago both deserved to be saved-now both should burn(something only evilz ”blackpillers” used to say back in the 2010s) according to ”redpillers”-even though, most MEN could barely remember all the steps and routines.
Professor,
I’m sorry, what? Your biggest fan? Do these people really want a groupie for a spouse? Ugh, that sounds horrible and degrading for both spouses.
I was mocked when I suggested that men are getting what they actually want, but here is Rollo saying exactly what I said. That they don’t really want a religiously conditioned woman, they want a slut who is a slut just for them. And so they go out and invariably find a slut and then complain that she’s a slut. Apparently there is even a term for this: the Slut Paradox.
That’s a big caveat.
There is a reason that the biblical command is that you can only marry a virgin (or an actual widow, though it suggests not doing so even there).
I’m not sure. It depends, I suppose, on how it intersects with hypergamy.
But I will say this. Both men and women experience the alpha widow effect, and it’s not just based on sex. Here is another song. This time by Mat Kearney “Stuck in the Moment” that also describes “the one that got away” from the male perspective. Men are assuredly capable of experiencing this.
It is curious to me why the men in the Manosphere are so obsessed with what women think while almost completely ignoring what men think.
Peace,
DR
Here’s the Rollo post that better explains the Katy Perry version(about that above music video that shook up Dalrock so-i can’t remember what post it is but Elspeth told him in the comments she hadn’t heard of the song before and she was down with the teens in that scenes-DIG?) of the Alpha widow/Hypergamy stuff for Derek to think over for a possible post:
January 4, 2012by Rollo Tomassi
https://therationalmale.com/2012/01/04/five-minutes-of-alpha/
Five Minutes of Alpha( Roissy (aka Heartiste) made that term famous in the Roissyosphere that was then co-opted by the lefty blankslatists in the manosphere(later known as the ever-failing Dalrockian manosphere made mostly up of DAL’ lackeys,flunkies,trolls & never-was’s that hated,dispised,impunhged and castigated MOSES,JESUS & GBFM so much that God cursed their lands and sites as fedpiller turf for fools and deranged
nutballs) who thought that through Republicany® talk of ”pick yourself up by your bootstrap(or you wife’s straponzlolzzzlollzzlzzlzllz) and ”hard work” could overcome any icky God-instituted rules and bounds on Reality as long as one had ”enuff game” & ”red Pillness” self-help knowledge from those they called ”sinner”,heathens & the Godless AKA the PUAS)
Back in September of 2010 the inimitable Roissy (aka Heartiste) graced the manosphere with an insightful post about Katy Perry and an intriguing meltdown she had whilst spotting an old high school crush she had in the audience at one of her shows. My how time changes the landscape of our realities in so few years.
As is Roissy’s gift for prophecy, he accurately summed up the whole affair thusly:
Five minutes of alpha — even worse, five minutes of alpha rejection — can fuck with the heads of even the most desirable women. And continue fucking with them years later. In comparison — if the reports are to be believed — women who divorce beta schlubs after years of marriage pretty much forget them before the ink is dry on the papers.
Flash forward to January of 2012 and we find our previously boastful, pre-marriage Katy Perry in divorce proceedings with a situationally famous Russel Brand. But,…wait you say, isn’t this the same Katy Hudson Perry who so publicly shamed her first Alpha love Shane Lopes?
Perry dedicated her next song, a kiss-off anthem from her double-platinum 2008 disc “One of the Boys,” to her former crush and even tweaked a lyric in the middle of the song for the occasion, singing, “I can’t believe I fell in love with Shane Lopes.”
At the end of the tune, she looked directly at Lopes, held up her hand — which prominently displays her engagement ring [ed. Russel’s dowery investment] — and said, “That’s cool, I got mine,” and mockingly blew him a kiss.
Yeah, that same one. Yet the plot still thickens with the billboard chart topping hit/video released by Hudson Perry aptly entitled “The ONE that got away” (*apologies for subjecting my readership to this audio mayonaise), wherein we find a visibly aged Katy retrospectively pining away for her post high school Alpha artist lover of a bygone decade in the luxurious home of whom we presume is her icky(like ”Christian” False Teachers in the sphere think of God & his son JESUS if ye ask dis guy)aging beta providership for the duration of her soon to be ending life.
For all the internal conflicts and psychology that caffeinates the rationalization hamster in women, I’ll admit that it occasionally makes for some convincing artistic statements. I was almost feeling sorry for the young Katy, that is until her past lover comically swerves to avoid a Laurel Canyon rockslide and dives off a cliff in his 70’s Mustang. The premise that the guy plummets to his death then absolves our heroine of the liability of her next most significant life choice; settling for the unexciting beta provider responsible for what we presume is the duration of her lavish, yet empty & icky, life. He’s not the One that got away due to any reason she implicitly enacted, he’s the one who was blamelessly taken from her by fate. Tragic reality replaced by an icky fairytale mandated by the ”Patriarchy” of foolish simps in the sphere no less TBH).
Poor, poor Katy. Her Alpha love is forever denied to her. I wonder how Russel Brand feels after watching this? Like maybe a (situationally) Alpha high school QB with little more than a GED can still upstage a Hollywood actor if his impact is significant enough on a woman? I can’t help but imagine that Katy is oblivious to the irony of all this. That’s the real tragedy; that women would be convinced of this soul-mate pornography, while still subject to the War Brides dynamic. Still more ironic is Katy Perry’s story as a parallel to contemporary western women’s. Party and dance, settle in with the provider before the inevitable Wall impact and pine for the One that got away.
GBFM conclusion to the above!?:Suprise!! Poor Katy later divorced Russel Brand!-SHOCKED???
I’m sure everyone but him(then he looked on the net’s Dalrockian manosphere and discovered like Sparkly ”it was my parents,church,society and evilz feminism’s fault-”AS THEY TWICKED MY GENIUS BRAIN”-NOT MINE OWN FAULT THANK DALAWD!!!!!!”
Is this the one you are referring to?
Yeah rhat’s it.
As Dalrock said(mainly in the comment section on that post)it’s the music video scenes that disturbed him so(of old lady Katy NOT caring about the guy who married her BUT the guy who didn’t!),NOT the lyrics.
This is what I found about Dalrock discussing the video contents:
(click to make bigger)
My mentioning of the Elspeth comment was from a later post where Dalrock mentioned the song again(as he would of the Fireproof film,Gregoire & the ”HOW DARE YOU” video by Mark Driscoll), almost 13 years later it’s hard to keep which post was which straight when stuff carried over to another one later.
Fair enough. Dalrock linked to the video one other time here but there were no comments by Elspeth there. I did, however, find these back-to-back comments:
What a stark contrast.
And then then, this crowd throws their supermarket-styled christianity into this mess muddling it further.
* All women, secretly, or not so secretly want to upsur the man / husband in his authority in everything. The “curse of eve” so to speak. They cannot help it, it is something God made them to be / are. Women are not in the image of God, they are a thing…something get sexual pleasure from only.
* Any man that indeed does have a good marriage is “deluded stuck in blue-pill thinking / is whipped / a cuck / is beta” or was just “lucky” but “luck” in the world of christians cannot exist, everything is ordained by God, was preplanned. Born ugly? God did that to teach you a “lesson” on how to love Him more. Born under 5’5″? Doesnt matter. God knew you before you were born. Drug addict? God knew every choice you were going to make. He made you this way to teach you a lesson! Married well? You are blessed by God! You followed His will for your life! A ladies man? God invented sex, he want you to experience it…those Betas and Incel, just need to go to the gym, get some confidence and follow Him!
At the same time, telling you God “only looks at the heart” and not the outside.
I went to church yesterday, Fuller Seminary here in Pasadena. I was politely invited by a friend of a friend. The sermon / lesson was about the “yoke” Jesus offers all of us. It is light, and not a burden.
Yes. I can agree and be refreshed by a message like this
Then, the message went into how “being busy” and working and “deadlines” and our horrible western culture and society doesnt allow us to “slow down” and enjoy our Christian walk. The Pastor then lectured us on Mexican / Latin American culture and how its a culture that is family, fellowship and cherishes “not being in a rush” and how we Americans can learn something from this.
He went on about how Jesus was never in a rush, nor should we be. We work too much, we dont take time to share the Gospel with the poor, the migrant (but I thought all these people were supposed be teaching us a lesson), and our co-workers (you’ll be in an HR office in California faster than a ticking clock iof you start ‘preaching the Gospel’ at work)
Again, a super-market styled Christianity sermon given to people who never had to worry about paying their mortgage. People who have two vacation homes. People who dont suffer from food insecurity. People who hate their country and want it turned into Honduras. Lots of people here co-habitating and not married.
And this seminary is supposedly a “conservative” and “biblical n bold” one.
And no one introduced themselves or welcomed me. They all hugged spoke to the friend of a friend that I came with. Typical of 99% of churches today….
I ramble
* Any man that indeed does have a good marriage is “deluded stuck in blue-pill thinking / is whipped / a cuck / is beta” or was just “lucky” but “luck” in the world of christians cannot exist, everything is ordained by God, was preplanned. Born ugly? God did that to teach you a “lesson” on how to love Him more. Born under 5’5″? Doesnt matter. God knew you before you were born. Drug addict? God knew every choice you were going to make. He made you this way to teach you a lesson! Married well? You are blessed by God! You followed His will for your life! A ladies man? God invented sex, he want you to experience it…those Betas and Incel, just need to go to the gym, get some confidence and follow Him!
YES!-Where does God say he made the mute,deaf, sighted or blind as a test in this heated exchange with MOSES?:
Exodus 4:10 Then Moses said to the LORD, “Please, Lord, I am not a man of words (eloquent, fluent), neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; for I am [b]slow of speech and tongue.” 11The LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute or the deaf, or the seeing or the blind? Is it not I, the LORD? 12Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and will teach you what you shall say.” 13But he said, “Please my Lord, send the message [of rescue to Israel] by [someone else,] whomever else You will [choose].”-Amplified Bible
Yet Sparkly is the main supposed ”knowledgeable” one, that always speaks of tests and testings!
Good on Jack for writing this honestly today:
As I’ve said many many times, relationships and marriages (especially around so-called ”MEN” in the sphere or at a Bold N Biblical church) are like full-time jobs. The only difference is at work, if you’re lucky, [the time] when you clock out [at the end of the day] is [the time] when you clock out [of doing and thinking about your work]. You go home. You chill. You watch a film. You play video games. Go free-style with your joystick and two buttons. You go for a jog in the park. Whatever. But in a relationship or in a marriage, it’s never done. It’s a full-time job as a man, because you’re always being tested, always being sniffed out for weakness to make sure that you are “worthy enough” of the relationship by the so-called ”MEN” in the RP® church and the sphere would as they stab you in the back as any Judas would.
Case Study — Chris Bumstead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE34I8vuMqY
Going To The Gym To Forget Life Problems by chilling while bicep curling | Chris Bumstead
Chad Williamson has made many videos about Chris Bumstead. Chris Bumstead is the six-time classic physique Mr. Olympia. He’s a multi-millionaire. He looks good. He’s tall, ripped to shreds … he’s a Chad Lite.
Chad Williamson is usually just playing his audience and not being honest, but here’s one of the few videos where CW spoke actual truth that was ”Heart trust TRUTH even.*
In some moment, Bumstead was really Under Pressure, enduring a lot of stress, and so he started to cry. But his wife didn’t take umbrage at that like the ”MEN” in the RP® church and the sphere would as they tried to sneak a bang with his wife behind his back. Bumstead said he was so thankful that his wife supported him in that moment of weakness, instead of criticizing him as so many other women like to do to their men when in similar circumstances or his supposed”bros” who like in the RP® church and the sphere would stab him in the back in a instant.
But CW offers some unusual insight in this interview. He said, “you can’t be a puddle on the floor 24/7”, making the point that Chris Bumstead was ‘allowed’ to be weak. He said something to the effect of “Well, you know the reason why [Bumstead] was able to [show weakness and still receive support from his wife] is because he had already reached so far into the clouds with his Fame, with his wealth, with his looks, and all these things.”* He basically had “money in the bank” — essentially “emotional savings” that prevented his wife from looking down on him because of his Never Ending Success™. His never ending streak of successes, as Mr. Olympia, as a businessman, the fact that he looks really good, and all these things accumulated emotional ‘credit’ that allowed him this one moment of weakness.
[As Chinese women like to say, “It is better to cry in a Benz than to laugh in a Toyota.”]
But Chad Williamson, also correctly, was quick to point out that if you haven’t done all the stuff that Chris Bumstead has done, then you don’t have any of this “emotional credit” that you can expend.* So if you show weakness, emotional or otherwise, then you were done. You were out of the game.
The problem though is that we’re all human beings, including men, and most of us don’t have that emotional ‘credit’ in the bank. If you show weakness, she will instantly tear you to shreds internally, and she will look at you in a completely different way. Her perception of you will forevermore be fundamentally different. And for most men, that’s the way it is their entire lives. They’re never going to be Chris Bumstead. They’re never going to be some super-rich multi-millionaire Chad, and so they’ll never have that ‘credit’.
That is another reason why men will always be alone. It’s not a temporary thing, it is the default State: Whether you are actually alone, physically in relationships, married with kids, whatever it might be, that feeling, that sense of cosmic loneliness, that will always persist.
That said, I take solace in the fact that I know some other men take solace in the fact that at least there are men out there who understand that you might feel a certain way but at least you know you’re not the only one.
* I could not find the video segment in which Chris Williamson said these things. If readers know, please leave a comment or link below.
But I did find this one that makes most of us Judas in the sphere hungry for his loot, booty, and wife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHZmPNmK8w
Only Confident Men Are Able To Do This(KEEP IT TOTALLY RIZZLE DIZZLE MY HOMIE, WHILE OUT DAY-GAMING MATES!) – Chris Bumstead
It’s interesting to see all the definitions of “hypergamy.” I guess I’m not surprised at the variation in use since the sphere is a whole bunch of blogs and many commenters. Tens of thousands of posts, hundreds of thousands of comments (or whatever number).
Likewise, I’ve seen the 80/20 mutate into all sorts of claims, some that seem mathematically impossible.
As far as I know the original claims were based on the belief that women are only attracted to approximately the top 20% of men so it wasn’t so much about women desiring or preferring the top men (as men do women) but rather the lack of attraction to the bottom 80%. As I saw it phrased in a discussion at Sigma Framed – the idea was all people “settle” but women tend to “hard settle.”
You say women’s attraction is different than mens’. Will you be doing any posts on how women’s attraction works? I definitely think both sexes can project their tendencies onto the other sex.
I only saw the sphere starting in about 2016 or so. How did all this begin? I assume that it was a combination of the 80/20 OKCupid and similar studies as well as people generalizing the experiences of the PUAs. The PUAs “proved” that there were all these young women riding the “carousel?”
I remain intrigued by Novaseeker’s claim that women have a harder attraction equation to solve. Not so much hypergamy in sexual capital or status but rather that it is harder for women to find all the (sometimes conflicting) qualities that they want in a single man that is available to them.
Cameron,
I was finishing up my first year in college (Vermont / 1989) when a crazed young man from France killed a bunch of people at his college or college neighborhood.
It was discovered after some investigation that he “hated women” and was “mad” that he wasnt popular with the ladies. So, of course he had to go on a rampage and kill people.
The story disappeared from the discourse and memory very quickly. Just another person who “snapped” or “went postal” which was actually becoming more and more common by the end of the 1980’s (the ‘best’ decade ever evidently)
Years later this man is what would be called “LoveShy” or an “Incel”. Of course he was bullied in school, didnt understand “why” he was single and girls got the “icky” around him. He probably was slightly on the Aspey / Autistic spectrum (as most Incels are). He was probably bullied and tormented by fellow guys in school / college as well. Badly. Most men in the modern Manosphere do this now to their fellow brothers……..
Still no excuse at all to do what he did. Or all of them who came after.
Anyway. It didnt bother me at the time. I held no empathy or sympathy for him….but I remember a news report saying or to the likes of at that time by people interviewed “You are not owed or deserve a girlfriend or dates. You just have to ‘be yourself’ around women and be comfortable with who you are / there is someone out there for everybody” nonsense. I even laughed sarcastically when I heard that at the time. “as if” I stated
I had friends in college, and grad school. Not “bros” so to speak but I did get along well with people. The women I did know in my circle were not “repulsed” by me, but none of them were ever going to date me. All of them made that quite clear (usually when I asked them out on a date). Yes, I was told lies / nonsense “a great gal is waiting for you / she will be so lucky to have a guy like you” I really didnt believe it then….or now.
It just went downhill from there after graduate school in 1993. I remember reading “Playboy” and talking to guys who were pretty decent with “the girls” and they all said the “Be confident / be all you can be” stuff. I remember in Playboy reading stuff about fashion, style….and high-class living (jazz music, how to mix good drinks, fashion……and to its credit, Payboy did have solid advice in these areas). I also read that young guys magazine “details” stuff like that.
As I entered the workforce, and moved to California….San Francisco……women were EVERYWHERE. All of them single. Good looking too! A lot of them! Why???? Well, the women would say “all the good looking / cool guys are gay” (and there could have been a kernal of truth in that)
What I slowly learned was……..these women had no problem dating. None. They all wanted the same guys. Chad. Us lower level guys knew what was going on here way before anyone……and after that by the late 1990’s / early 2000’s we had the rise of PUA / game….and then the stirrings of MTOW the ‘Sphere and the gazillion pills, thrills, charts, podcasts, graphs, acronyms, experts, gurus, books, and foolproof advice.
We’re in more of a mess now than we were 25 years ago.
I blame Game.
Lastmod,
I was told “stay sweet and the girls will love you to death.” The idea is that girls liked guys who are kind and “sweet.” I just kept seeing the girls I grew up with, some I was friends with as toddlers, dating guys who beat them up, “cheated” on them, tried to arrange group “fun” with the girl and his buddies, would sleep with the girl and the next day dump her and tell humiliating details about her body to everyone. Somehow I still believed that girls wanted “sweet” guys. The cognitive dissonance was extraordinary.
Sure…..in recent years, I had just had to shrug my shoulders and say “people make bad choices, and its on them in the end”
That includes me
I have to live this out. Alone. Is it fair? is it right? No. I can ask all day long “how come other former drug addicts met decent gals and got married, had children?”
“This guy has three divorces under his belt, a bunch of kids, and couple of illegitimate ones with other women outside his three marriages, but still got a unicorn? Why!?”
I could go on with another fifty….and
what of it in the end. I’m still single, and alone and these other men and women could care less what I think.
At this point and for awhile now…past two three years especially. I have pretty much accepted my fate in this area. I dont cry over at night naymore. I dont “redouble” my efforts and try to date “only nines and tens / women who are twenty years younger than me and not affected by muh feminism”
I dont try at all. And women have not thrown themselves at me because of this. Nor have they followed me home. Nor have they knocked at my door at 2AM and take ff their clothoes (I guess this happens frquently with many men). They dont hang out to talk to me after I DJ.
It just didnt happen. Its not right or fair. There is no explanation now. Too much time, age, time (already said that), and life has flown by.
The reward in the end o this world for me is this:
After I quit drinking and drugs. I slowly. SLOWLY got my life back. I am a productive member of the society and times and culture I was born into. I dont have problems with the police anymore. I dont have the IRS knocking on my door. I dont have bill collectors calling 24 hrs a day. I dont have have people angry or mad at me from my actions (in work / out and about here in LA). I have taken some great long-distance treks difficult hikes / backpacking. I have vacationed in the UK three times in six years….and actually had time. Not “England in three days” nor “vacationing in the UK on 20 bux a day”. Cannot dance all night now, but still can soul step with many of the younger guys. I have my hobbies and the general respect of my remaining relatives (the few that are left) . I have a neat, tidy and very hip early 1960’s looking bachelor pad.
My time is now past the half point for sure. The reward is “you functioned. You maintained. You grew up. You owed your past”
Probably that right there is the “justice” I guess. Many dont get a second chance like I did.
Well, there’s no “like” button next to the comments on this site, but this reply is my “like.”
The various definitions make the topic hard to discuss, but you do a good job defending Deti’s perspective which you seem to mostly agree with.
I don’t love the language of settling, because it implies that a perfect union could exist, but it also implies that at the outset that there was something inherently wrong with the union. But I don’t believe what God has brought together can get separated. A man and women might “settle” but that becomes irrelevant in the eys of God upon consummation.
Do men “merely” settle while women hard settle? Being just introduced to that formulation, I’d have to give that particular phrasing some thought, to see if it affects anything I’ve said so far. If you’d like, you could explain what you mean a bit more.
I’ll defer to the Professor, our resident historian, regarding the origins of the ‘sphere. He also knows more about Novaseeker than I do.
Regarding women’s attraction, I’ve already, over the last week or so, written about the general factors that go into it. I’m not sure a full post is required. I’m also not going to get into personal anecdotes. And, as should be obvious, I’m not a woman. Consequently, per “Talking About Old Women,” I tend not to write about women directly as a primary topic.
Slightly off topic but it’s also confusing how your (and Sharkly’s) view of marriage fits with your observations on the cause of divorce. Since (I believe) you consider marriage to be created by coitus, all these divorces we talk about weren’t really marriages in the first place – they were adulterous concubinages? Given this view, I’m not sure how one can even begin to address who’s causing divorce in America since probably 95% of married people aren’t really married. When a relationship ends, adulterers stop seeing each other. As you mentioned in the Jefferson City High study post, even high school is largely a web of adultery.
I don’t understand when Sharkly refers to his “ex-wife” and his “marriage” since the mother of his sons was never his wife.
Cameron,
I can see why you are confused. Let me see if I can summarize what I wrote in “What Constitutes Biblical Marriage,” “On Divorce,” and “On Divorce, Redux.” If you find this too simplistic, you can read those three posts in that order.
I apologize if the following offends what you’ve learned as an avowed Roman Catholic, but I can only state what the Bible states without shame or reservation. But I will say this, even the Roman Catholic Sacrament of marriage is the only one that doesn’t technically require a priest. The “officiants” are the husband and wife, even if the church has additional requirements.
First, the difference between a concubine (a bond wife) and a wife (a free wife) is that a husband claims a wife—has relations—without her father’s say-so (the other ways to make a concubine do not exist in America). A bond wife has fewer rights, but is still a wife. You could argue that the real hypergamy in America is women debasing themselves by selling themselves as concubines to low and high status men alike.
Second, all sex creates the marital bond: whether girlfriend, wife, mistress, or prostitute. The “one flesh bond” is non-negotiable. It is the “act of marriage” both because it belongs only in marriage and because it produces a marriage. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as fornication, there is just marriage and (possibly) adultery.
Third, adultery is adultery because it is marital theft: claiming another man’s wife as your own wife. It doesn’t matter if this is the intention or not, forming a one-flesh bond with a non-virgin whose mate is alive is adultery in all cases. Adultery is illicit marriage.
Fourth, no man can truly divorce his wife. Only God can do so and he has declared that only death can free a husband and wife. If a husband or wife divorce legally, they are still “married” (one-flesh bonded).
Fifth, in light of points 2 and 3, this is why Jesus said that marrying a divorced man or woman results in adultery. To commit adultery, one partner obviously has to be married already. Similarly, if a person has had premarital sex then they are already married. No Christian may knowingly marry such a person. That would be adultery.
Sixth, almost everyone is already married. The vast majority of marriages should not be happening because they are adultery. When a man or woman fornicates, she should be forbidden from remarriage for life (or at least till her de facto husband dies).
Seventh, if a person (re)marries through adultery, she is now married to that person. She can’t divorce the person she has now married just as much as she can’t divorce the person she was once married to. In order to redeem such a hopelessly fallen situation, she must stay with one of her husbands and not return to any other or to marry another. If none will have her (or having her would result in a polygamous relationship), she must remain single for as long as all her husbands live. The point is that adultery has no solution.
With respect to [Redacted], he was married to his wife and she to him, regardless of any prior experience that they may have had. Even a married forged in adultery is still a marriage. He calls her his “ex-wife” because she legally divorced him, but [Redacted] and I discussed this and he acknowledged that he was forbidden from remarriage.
With respect to America, this is a large part of why it is so screwed up and nearly irredeemable.
Peace,
DR
Baptism in extraordinary cases doesn’t require a priest – only intent to do what the Church does. Confirmation normally requires a bishop although there are extraordinary ministers of this sacrament, Ordination requires a bishop. Yes, the husband and wife are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony in Catholic theology.
Your beliefs don’t offend me. Sharkly seems to like to intentionally offend people.
I was not aware of the specifics of your belief. A person is married to every person with whom they engage in a coital act but they have to pick ONE person – living with more than one of the persons would be polygamy.
Yes, that is an accurate summation.
I’m not aware of any explicit teaching against polygamy in the Bible, but there are at least two implicit or inferential teachings in the NT. There are plenty of prohibitions in church tradition So while I typically state that polygamy is not a sin, I also state that it is forbidden anyway. I might be wrong about any of this.
Presumably, It would be a sin but in effect a person who wants out of their marriage can commit adultery to create a new marriage? They would then stay with their new spouse as the best possible solution to a bad situation. One or both spouses could do this.
Cameron,
a person who wants out of their marriage can commit adultery to create a new marriage?
Yes, but this is no loophole: a person can commit one of the worst sins in order to achieve a goal that violates God’s will.
Since we don’t live in system where such things are punishable by death, they “get away with it.” But you and I know that there is no such thing as “getting away with sin” when God sees everything you do and your choices—even if forgiven—have real-world consequences.
Those consequences—not hypergamy—largely explain what we are seeing.
If you consider what is behind the Deti’s and much of the Manosphere’s definitions of hypergamy, it’s really just an attempt to explain the negative affects of widespread fornication and adultery through pop sociology and psychology. But ultimately, what’s really breaking good matches—assortative pairing—is not alpha widowing, it is adultery.
The consequences of this are reflected in the Rollo quote above:
Now before I get run up the flagpole here, I’m completely aware of the studies indicating a woman’s capacity to bond monogamously is inversely proportionate to the number of sexual partners she’s experienced prior to monogamy.
It only takes one partner to permanently damage a man or woman, and it doesn’t have to be an alpha. Whether or not you believe it is a myth, hypergamy wouldn’t be a problem if men and women would stop committing adultery. Adultery accounts for all the problems we see, not just the ones supposedly driven by hypergamy.
The young and old alike are trying to temporarily form and then discard what are, in actuality, permanent bonds. In his teaching against prostitution, Paul taught that the bond of marriage is as sure as the bond of Christ to his church. The alpha widow effect is just one instantiation of what happens when someone pair bonds for life with someone and then discards them (or is discarded).
A ‘temporary’ hypogamous union is just as damaging to the soul as a ‘temporary’ hypergamous union. That’s the biblical teaching.
Men—who themselves may already be married—are marrying already married women and this leads to a much higher chance of divorce because it is founded in adultery and violates God’s plan. God, through grace and forgiveness, can and does redeem this, but you can’t be surprised that divorce is so likely.
Peace,
DR
Pingback: Tell Me What I Want, What I Really... - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Hypergamy or Adultery - Derek L. Ramsey