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)
Part 6 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 1)
Today we will discuss:
Part 7 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 2)
It is clear that [he] is not talking about hypergamy as that term is used here.
As we’ve seen throughout this series, and especially in yesterday’s post, the three, four, or even five definitions of hypergamy that I have addressed are all compatible with the various Manosphere expressions over the last 15 years.
The problem is that the definition—outside the one in the dictionary—is ill-defined and a matter of opinion. Just consider that Keoni Galt gave three different definitions for hypergamy! It would be projection to assign to me all the confusion inherent in the ‘sphere’s inability to come to a consensus.
My “confusion” stems from having too much knowledge of the ‘sphere’s inconsistency and imprecision. It’s hard to have a single coherent refutation when there isn’t a coherent stance to refute!
That’s assortative pairing. People do not ‘marry up’ (literally hyper+gamy), they pair up laterally.
What [he] doesn’t want to address is women’s natural tendency to want “better”. A large number of those women become very dissatisfied with their marriages and blow up their marriages because they want “better” and think they can get “better”.
This provides a good illustration for why commenters should stick to ideas and not personal motivations (i.e. ad hominem). It really isn’t about what I want or don’t want to do. After all, in the piece that inspired this series—”Hypergamy is a Myth“–I addressed this very concern, concluding from the data that hypergamy is about preferences. Women and men want to do better, at rougly equal levels. But this desire largely gets canceled out.
In actual practice, the human tendancy towards hypergamy is rarely successful. Even when it does happen, risk of ultimate failure is more likely. That’s why hypergamy as a practice is largely a myth. And because unimplemented preferences are illusory, we can call those mythical too.
The hypergamous preferences don’t end up nowhere. Rather, they lead to extra competition and conflict, just not to actually “marrying up.” This competitive sorting process—i.e. assortative mating—takes place rapidly at the early stages of relationships becoming less prominent in longer-term relationships: bad matches get dropped early.
We have a 50% divorce rate in the US. At least 70% of those divorces are initiated by women, mostly because they just do not want to be married to those men anymore.
I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s hard for non-mathematicians to grasp: averages are abstractions, not descriptions of real things. They can be useful approximations, but one must be careful about using them.
For example, the divorce rate (an average) tells you something about what a population is doing, but tells you much less about individuals or their behaviors. If you break it down by things like the number of marriages, geography, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, wealth and income, intelligence, etc. the resulting rates vary considerably from the general average.
Consider the general statistic that women are responsible for two-thirds (not “at least 70%”) of divorces. That sounds high until you realize that divorcese among the highly educated are ~90% driven by women. So in the population with the lowest divorce rate—the higher classes—women dominate the divorces. In the rest of the population women divorce less than the average of 2 in 3. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find any sub-population that has exactly the average of the entire population. Most are higher or lower according to their tendencies.
The problem then, with respect to hypergamy, is that you’d expect women in the lower classes to be responsible for a higher than average number of divorces as they ditch their low-class husbands for higher-class men. But that’s the opposite of what we see. In the lower classes, men are more likely to divorce than in the higher classes, and in the higher classes women are more likely to divorce than in the lower classes! Once again, actual behavior in practice does not support the claim of female hypergamy.
Similarly, the divorce rate itself is artificially high because of divorce prone men and women getting multiple marriages and divorces. Among those who shun divorce or remarriage, the divorce rate is lower than the average. As above, you’d be hard pressed to find an actual population that has an average divorce rate: most are higher or lower according to their tendencies.
Yes, men are marrying their SMV/RMV counterparts. So are women. Men are OK with that. Women are not OK with that. Men don’t mind their looksmatches. Women do mind. Women want “better”. Men are satisfied with their matches. Women are not.
We discussed this in “Reasons for Divorce” where we determined that both statements are false.
Both men and women exhibit satisfaction and dissatisfaction. It is simply not the case, especially among low-status men and women, that there is a strong distinction between the satisfaction of men and women with their marital choices. Divorce is highest where you should expect it to be: among the less educated and intelligent, the less wealthy and prosperous, those of lower status, the less religious, and the political left. And, as you’d expect, who files for divorce—and who is to blame—is more evenly split among men and women who meet those descriptions.
I find it extremely interesting that the closest thing I can find to female hypergamy is among the higher classes where a subset of women are dissatisfied with their high class marriages to high status men while their husbands are largely satisfied with their high class wives. This suggests to me that the Manosphere is predominately made up of wealthier, more intelligent, mostly White and Asian men, religious, higher status, and/or politically right men. These men are the only subset or group I know of mwhere the description “Men are satisfied with their matches, women are not” and “only women are blowing up perfectly good matches” could be widely perceived anecdotally as being rationally true.
The problem is not that people are marrying their looksmatches. The problem is that men are satisfied with that situation and women are not.
That’s hypergamy. That’s evidence of “attracted only to those people who are more attractive than me”.
Now we are just spinning our wheels. In the last post, hypergamy was defined as “lack of character.” Now it is defined as “attracted only to those people who are more attractive than me.” This is a perfect example of the Dalrockian Manosphere’s ill-defined ‘hypergamy’ as it deviates from the standard, easily understood dictionary definition. The goalposts are constantly moving. It also fails to distinguish between hypergamy as a desire and hypergamy as an action. Is hypergamy defined by what a woman wants or is it defined by what she does?
This is not an insignificant question. If you include what she supposedly “wants,” you can claim that all women are hypergamous, even the happy ones who would never divorce their husbands. Why? Because you think you know that their true motivation is to ditch their husband as soon as a better option presents itself. This is not science, because it’s not a falsifiable position. No matter how many times a woman proves she loves her husband and wouldn’t divorce him, the assumption that she is hypergamous remains assumed.
In short, the broad definitions of hypergamy that we’ve seen are just thinly veiled ad hominem, argument from authority, and guilt-by-association. The ‘sphere presumes that they know the motivations of women even when the data says otherwise and even when the women and their husbands say otherwise.
Who you marry has absolutely nothing to do with this. How you feel about it and how you take action on those feelings has everything to do with this.
“Who you marry has absolutely nothing to do with this.” That’s a blankslatist claim, encompassing the idea that everyone is a tabula rasa—a blank slate—interchangeable cogs in a big machine. It’s the idea that there can’t be inherent differences (nor, thus, inherently different outcomes)
“How you feel about it and how you take action on those feelings has everything to do with this” encompasses the blankslatist view that everything is a matter of environment. Any differences are thus attributed by different external factors that are not inherent to individuals.
Few in the ‘sphere are aware that their view of women is rooted in this leftist philosophy.
This is why despite the strong and obvious evidence that different groups have different motivations and outcomes, the blankslatist simply ignores it because it doesn’t confirm his bias that all are inherently equal.
When you hear a sentence that starts with “All women…” you are about to hear a blankslatist claim; a claim that could only be true if blankslatism were true.
Blankslatism is not a true description of reality. It is false. Any claims that rely on it are also false.
Who you marry has a massive impact—but not absolutely everything—on all of the things we’ve been discussing. Were it not for leftist philosophy, this would be obvious.
Note that this is different from determinism. If “All women…” statements were about some global inherent attribute, then there would be no sense in making moral judgements about—and assigning blame for—something that can’t be changed and isn’t a matter of agency. After all, you don’t blame the apex predator for eating baby seals: it’s their nature, not a character defect.
Men were happy with their looksmatches. Women are not. And women are now empowered to do something about it. Women have to settle for their looksmatches, and they are NOT happy about it. They seethe with resentment about it.
I just don’t know how I can explain it any simpler. I just do not know how this can be dumbed down any further.
The problem isn’t with the complexity or simplicity of the explanation. I understand quite clearly what is being said. It’s just that what is being said is obviously wrong.
Men are not happy with their looksmatches. They often complain about their miserable choices, both of their available choices and of those they actually chose. Just look at the Manosphere, where I could find a nearly limitless supply of dissatisfied men. Many of those men are seething with resentment. Some men will willingly divorce if things don’t go their way, for example:
So why say that men are happy when this is obviously false? Why make such simple, but obviously incorrect, claims?
Perhaps Deti would counter by saying “women divorce their husbands because they want a better-looking husband, but men divorce their wives because they don’t like her as a person.” Even if this were true as a rule, should we award men a prize for this? It’s curious to me why one of these is truly terrible, but the other one is not.
This is happening all over the place. It’s literally everywhere. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t invent it. I’m just a guy who saw it and experienced it. Just like millions of other men. Cameron sees it too. He understands it. The only person who doesn’t seem to understand it is Derek.
I won’t presume to speak for Cameron, who can speak for himself.
What I will say is this: I’m not going to embrace something that is obviously false. I’m not going to generalize personal anecdotes. I’ll repeat what I said:
Calling hypergamy a myth is not a denial of the symptoms that hypergamy supposedly explains.
In closing, here is the thing I’d like to share. Believe in something greater than yourself. Don’t worry about the approval—or disapproval—of others. Find a spouse and latch onto her for life. Speak positively about your wife, so that no one can claim that you spoke ill of her. Be kind, generous, and polite. Don’t bully, but instead go and do something good! Exude gratitude, graciousness, joy, hope, and optimism. Be self-aware. And avoid unhappy people. If you can’t do that, make boundaries (such as primarily posting on your own blog, utilizing anonymous links, and obscuring your sources). Try starting there, men.
Consider the general statistic that women are responsible for two-thirds (not “at least 70%”) of divorces. That sounds high until you realize that divorcese among the highly educated are ~90% driven by women. So in the population with the lowest divorce rate—the higher classes—women dominate the divorces.
Do you think Heartiste has it mostly right here then?
https://heartiste.org/2015/04/28/smarter-women-more-likely-to-be-romantic-failures/
Smarter Women More Likely To Be Romantic Failures
Apr 28th, 2015 by CH
In my years of living, dating, and loving across these United Plates, I’ve come to certain conclusions about women drawn from a wellspring of eagle-eyed observations and red raw experiences. One of my personal observations is that smarter women tend, for various reasons among which female hypergamy must surely loom prominent, to have more difficulty locking down a long-term boyfriend, and to stay single far longer in between relationship bouts, than do women of less Hollywood-sized prefrontal-pectorals. And this romantic failure is worse the smarter the woman.
But, I didn’t have the benefit of ¡scientifical! studies to confirm my observations, so I guess I should have washed my brain of any pattern recognition inputs and waited the requisite fifty years for the scientific consensus to come to a prevailing view.
As I’ve always said, if you keep your eyes open and live not by pretty lies, 80% of the patterns you observe about human nature will eventually be proven true by laboratory analysis (or at least recognized as a real phenomenon by cultural gatekeepers). (15% of the remaining 20% are too difficult to properly measure by social scientists, and the last 5% of your observations can be grouped under conventional wisdom that science manages to overturn, usually by data-twisting legerdemain.)
From the article relevant to this post, the quotes that make feminists choke:
A study conducted with 121 British participants reported findings that females with high intelligence in male/female relationships were seen as problematic.
Their intelligence were predicted to cause problems in the relationships. Whereas, high intelligence in the male partner was not seen as problematic, but desirable. […]
Why don’t men want women with whom they can converse and who challenge them? [ed: spot the false premise] When did the aversion to strong and intelligent women become a code orange? When did everyone just want to go to the Bahamas and lie around?
In an article by “The Wire,” financial reporter, John Carney, gives one explanation for this phenomenon, deducing, “successful men date less successful women not because they want ‘women to be dumb’ but rather because they want ‘someone who prioritizes their life in a way that’s compatible with how you prioritize yours.’”
Basically, they want someone who isn’t ever going to let her career come before making dinner and pleasing them first.
My take is that men, especially smart men, instinctively recoil from very smart and/or educated women (in the same way women instinctively recoil from needy niceguys) because men know that a woman of equal or greater brainpower or academic achievement is a high risk for future relationship instability and a latent threat to paternity assurance. Men are aware, consciously perhaps, subconsciously definitely, that female hypergamy is real and therefore it’s personally advantageous to find women who aren’t too much more gifted in traits that double as male mate fitness cues.
In short, it pays men to date up in looks and date down in everything else.
The inverse is also true. It pays women to date down in looks and date up in everything else.
Everyone’s happier all around if they abide the above two Heartistian precepts.
A reader contemptuously adds,
Nearly schizophrenic incoherence, self-loathing, generalized rage, sexual frustration, pride that she can’t admit that a life has been spent believing pretty, stupid lies and making irretrievable mistakes, contempt and hatred for men on one hand, yet demands and pangs of hopeless desire for their attention and affection and love on the other hand, unabashed hatred for women who are young and attractive and willing to make love and devotion to a man a priority in their lives.
This hamster wheel is spinning at 10,000 revolutions per second. The axle is going red-hot from the friction. The spinning wheel is making a sharp, high-pitched, painful screeching sound, which sets your teeth on edge. If you listen carefully millions just like it are audible all over America.
This can’t go on much longer. 10 years, maybe. But not 50. Probably not another entire generation.
Future generations will look back on the women of this era with disgusted amazement.
Before then they are going to spend the second 50 years of their medically extended lives alone and filled with a despair and a hatred for their own lives and for the lives of those around them who have managed to be happy which is going to poison our society for many years to come.
If they weren’t so vicious and destructive you could almost feel sorry for them.
I do think we Americans are living through a period (heh) when women are at their absolute worst. Porn addicted manlet men aren’t much better, but this dystopia is largely a female-centered implosion.
There’s a gene-culture co-evolution process that describes how groups have self-balancing mechanisms, so that when one type of organism within the group becomes too numerous, a competing type will start to have greater reproductive success to “bring balance to the force”. I forget the term for it, but the classic case is the “cheater-cooperator” evolutionary strategies, in which cheaters prosper (and hence reproductively prosper) in cooperative societies, but then lose ground to cooperators when cheaters become too numerous and start poaching each other.
Well, a similar thing could be happening with SMRT women. The more smart over-educated over-credentialed women a society has, the less reproductively fit they become at the same time women with average smarts become more reproductively fit. The group shifts its evolutionary strategy toward smarter or dumber women as each becomes prominent. Maybe this is why human IQ hasn’t continued upward into the stratosphere…. smart men get tired of the haranguing from smart women and smart women get locked out of the dating market because there aren’t very many men smarter than them who can satisfy their hypergamous urgings, and they resist settling for dumber men.
Related, the supply of beta males in a group could also fluctuate according to some cosmic balancing mechanism that favors or disfavors betas depending on their numbers. The rise of pathologically altruistic white beta males in the West is producing blowback as their ranks swell with self-abnegating ankle-biters. Ultra violent thugs or ultra charming cads are starting to increase in impression, if not yet in number, and women are turning to them for relief from the effete beta male masses.
It’s a spitball, I know, but maybe it’s high time for the patented CH BOSSS strategy to invigorate our culture to take center stage? Maybe it already has and we’re just now waking up to the fact?
PS Really smart women fux like demonesses. They love their contraceptively-enabled fuxxing as much as any sub-mensa slut.”
Then people wonder why so many women are having fewer children?
Also relevant
https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-babies-for-the-rich-the-relationship-between-status-and-children-is-changing.
For women in the U.S., there is an emerging U-shaped relationship between education and fertility. However, as in many countries, there is still a negative relationship between personal income and fertility for women, such that high income women tend to have fewer children than low income women.
Figure 4. Fertility by women’s education, 1980 and 2010 (Source: Federal Reserve Bank)
Most of the negative relationship between personal income and fertility for women in the U.S. likely represents tradeoffs women face between earning income and bearing and raising children. This is borne out by data from Sweden where these tradeoffs are ameliorated by generous state benefits for parents: both parents each receive about 8 months in paid parental leave while being paid 80% of their salary. While including such benefits in total income means there is a positive relationship between income and fertility for both men and women, when earnings from work are examined, excluding all of benefits and transfers from the state, high earning women still have fewer children than lower earning women.
Now see why all the ”MAGA MEN” who supposedly want tons of grandchildren shouldn’t be sending their daughters to college but to Lancaster U(which is based outside on the farm, NOT some fancy schmancy building) in Pennsylvania for their Magnum Cum Laude PhD in Amishnomics( as Derek has also hinted at before at SF)?
Professor,
Do you think Heartiste has it mostly right here then?
That is my opinion, yes.
Intelligence in men is inversely proportional to divorce risk. For women, it is a little more complicated. Fewer women in those groups divorce, but there seems to be a subset of intelligent women that account for most of the divorces.
I believe this is where the anecdotes of hypergamy are coming from. Men in higher tiers and higher intelligence—engineers, programmers, lawyers, psychiatrists, etc.—occasionally experience how very intelligent women blow up their’s (or their peer’s) marriages for basically no good reason at all. Then these men cluster together online, sharing their tales, and making it seem like this is everyone’s experience.
However, the motivation is often not for hypergamy but for career (and often “I don’t need no man” going it alone). Notably, hypergamous infidelity is not really the point of female independence and empowerment.
Now consider Heartiste’s advice:
It pays women to date down in looks and date up in everything else.
Recall that I said that statistical looksmatching is where a woman is perceived to be more attractive than her properly paired man? Heartiste doesn’t realize it, but he’s just recommending that women assortatively pair with their statistical looksmatch. Bravo for getting it right!
Where Heartiste gets it wrong is criticizing intelligence in general. Intelligence not an inherent liability in a wife, as intelligent women share the lower divorce rate with men. He just gets it right that intelligent women who divorce are doing so for, perhaps, novel reasons that only people of their intelligence would come up with.
When Deti—a lawyer—talks about how men are satisfied with their wives but women are not, he seems to be describing the environment where virtually every man is satisfied with his match. With only 10% of divorces filed by men, and relatively few marriages even getting that bad, it will be quite rare to find a man who filed for divorce (at most 4% of first marriages in this cohort will result in the man filing for divorce, and it’s probably closer to 1-2%). Almost all divorces in this group are driven by women, for seemingly nonsensical reasons. One can almost tell that Deti is in this group, because he thinks that at least 70% of divorces are driven by women. In his anecdotal experience, I wouldn’t be surprised if that number is…90%. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he doesn’t know a single man who has divorced his wife (without cause).
But this is only true in a very limited environment.
…but to Lancaster U…
If men in the ‘sphere were to move to Lancaster, the results are not easy to predict. However, the questions of “nature vs nurture” and ‘wants’, ‘blame’, and ‘deserve’ would probably be answered by such a test. But, the result of that test might not be to everyone’s liking.
Can you imagine a man in the `sphere moving to Lancaster, getting rejected, and failing utterly to find a mate? Would he admit that he was the problem the whole time?
Or can you imagine that a man in the `sphere went to Lancaster, found success, and everyone else would just say that he got lucky?
I don’t think the Manosphere is ready to find out what would happen, and I don’t think it would accept the outcome either way.
Peace,
DR
Over the decades I have noticed men that were naturals with women, or at least had much more ease in getting dates were:
Very good looking on a cultural standard or norm (above average). Learned from an early age (early puberty) directly or indirectly socially on what women respond to (and that in itself can cover a wide swath of actions / behaviors) and they could be average looking guys.
The rest of the men out there either were paired up a more traditional way with helps (family, friends….introductions, stuff like that)
The remainder actually got some help from PUA / Game (yes, I will admit some men it did indeed help…especially in the early days) or they were pushed out of the market by age, social IQ, below average looking (too short, balding at 19, too tall, overweight, underweight, gawky, lower than average social IQ, on the spectrum of mild Aspergers or mild Autism).
This lower end is way, way larger than the ‘Sphere admits.
For women, when I was younger, the ones I met in San Francisco / dot.com era I noticed that sure, she’s pretty. Cute. Sexy. She opens her mouth…….out spews political / ideological / dogmatic stuff, and always of the Left bent. It was a huge turn-off to me. Not that she was going to date me anyway…..but to the men who could date her? Sure, they had their fun with her for a one nighter, or a few weeks. This in turn causes the woman to get more rigid in this thinking or just angry as well. Defensive.
I also noticed many of these women…..like in college and grad school would indeed get involved with a player type. Get used. Whatever….cheated on and then I became the guy that had to *listen* to her and *make her feel better* for her piss poor choices. Thankfully I quit that as I hit my thirties. Of course then I was “cold and mean” according to them.
Women my age in my general meeting them out and about are not attracted to me per say, but I can have an okay conversation with them at this point. Small talk. Her kids. Work. Fun things she did when she was younger……similar music tastes…..we both went to college in New England kind of stuff……….but
They still think and believe they can get a very rich, handsome man their age who has a full head of hair, is over 6’ and has the car, a dream house or condo and doesnt have children.
The delusion is still real here. I blame the Internet and movies / shows like “Sex In The CIty”
“For women, when I was younger, the ones I met in San Francisco / dot.com era I noticed that sure, she’s pretty. Cute. Sexy. She opens her mouth…….out spews political / ideological / dogmatic stuff…
I also noticed many of these women…..like in college and grad school…
Women my age…still think and believe they can get a very rich, handsome man their age who has a full head of hair, is over 6’ and has the car, a dream house or condo and doesnt have children.”
Would you describe most of those (San Francisco?) women as above-average intelligence, highly educated and such? I’m trying to get a sense for whether they are the kind of people described in the Professor’s Heartiste post.
That’s a hard one Derek. San Francisco is on hard times right now, and has become a punching bag for the rest of the nation (much of it rightly deserved mind you).
I lived there from late 1995 thru 2008. I was working down in the Silicon Valley (San Jose) and living it up in San Francisco.
Smart women? Well…..sure. I guess. The women back then I knew or met were not “stupid” I am sure IQ wise. I can bet many had a better IQ than me (probably). Met lots of RN nurses (passing the RN boards is not easy, it takes work, and yes intelligence). Met flight attendants who were very well read and knew a lot more than just nail color and shopping. Met lots of quasi-professionals like myself working at related companies while I was at IBM (Apple, HP, Intel, Adobe, Yahoo, Ebay…).
I dont think they were all “super high IQ” we’re not talking engineers here or “scientists”. Many were HR (go figure). Many were managers, project leads. Techs. Supervisors. People *thought* I was smart because I was at IBM (it still was a bigger player in the game back then, and lets be real…it was THE American high teach company for decades, and it did have a reputation)
Most likely….and I have zero proof of this……..most of the women in San Francisco that I met back then probably had an IQ averaging 110-120…..higher than average IQ but the problem was they were lording it off like it was 121 / 130.
And way too many….because they voted for Clinton, assumed they were just “smarter than you / better than you”
It wasnt that all of them were nasty people personality wise. Just an arrogance. An entitlement. An attitude (there was such a pecking order in that City back then). And frankly, why not right?
We lived in a beautiful city. And it really was. No, not perfect. It had its problems then. But it was a nice place to live. The streets were fear free. Yes, you had homeless / bums back then…..but it wasnt like now or the later years before I left. You could walk home at 3 AM drunk or high (man or woman) and no one would bother you or harass you. Everyone walked in San Francisco. Women didnt look down on you because you didnt have a car there. You didnt need one in San Francisco (you still dont if truth be told). People came to visit YOU. If you needed to leave San Francisco, you rented a car for the day, that kind of thing.
San Francisco always had a high tolerance, free spirit, drug culture vibe…..underground. Party scene spanning generations. Always. But there was still something back then “holding it all together”
We could afford the rent. The City had a huge population of people under 35. I think it was cresting almost 40% by the time the early 200’s came.
It was a long time ago. Some very happy and good years there for me.
Men are not happy with their looksmatches. They often complain about their miserable choices, both of their available choices and of those they actually chose. Just look at the Manosphere, where I could find a nearly limitless supply of dissatisfied men. Many of those men are seething with resentment. Some men will willingly divorce if things don’t go their way, for example:
comment by Deti
I’ve told Mrs. deti point blank that if she ever takes sides against me and for someone else in public, I’ll divorce her.
So why say that men are happy when this is obviously false? Why make such simple, but obviously incorrect, claims?
Perhaps Deti would counter by saying “women divorce their husbands because they want a better-looking husband, but men divorce their wives because they don’t like her as a person.” Even if this were true as a rule, should we award men a prize for this? It’s curious to me why one of these is truly terrible, but the other one is not.
This is happening all over the place. It’s literally everywhere. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t invent it. I’m just a guy who saw it and experienced it. Just like millions of other men. Cameron sees it too. He understands it. The only person who doesn’t seem to understand it is Derek.
I won’t presume to speak for Cameron, who can speak for himself.
What I will say is this: I’m not going to embrace something that is obviously false. I’m not going to generalize personal anecdotes. I’ll repeat what I said:
Calling hypergamy a myth is not a denial of the symptoms that hypergamy supposedly explains.
In closing, here is the thing I’d like to share. Believe in something greater than yourself. Don’t worry about the approval—or disapproval—of others. Find a spouse and latch onto her for life. Speak positively about your wife, so that no one can claim that you spoke ill of her. Be kind, generous, and polite. Don’t bully, but instead go and do something good! Exude gratitude, graciousness, joy, hope, and optimism. Be self-aware. And avoid unhappy people. If you can’t do that, make boundaries (such as primarily posting on your own blog, utilizing anonymous links, and obscuring your sources). Try starting there, men.
-Derek honorary member of the Roissyosphere (and perhaps one day the GBFMosphere) as declared by MOSES, JESUS & GBFM
Or as put by another Derek-type of fellow over 1600 years ago:
“When we teach children to be good, to be gentle, to be forgiving (all these are attributes of God), to be generous, to love their fellow men, to regard this present age as nothing, we instill virtue in their souls, and reveal the image of God within them.” — St John Chrysostom
i ‘am persuaded that Deti and even Sparkly would agree with both versions!
Despite Chrysostom’s unfortunate place in history, I do find a lot in common with him. His style of writing, his method of argument… I find a lot in common with that.
I’m pretty sure that Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas would only say that teaching the boy children reveals the image of God.
[comment]
[citation]
Derek,
In the other thread you suggested I broadly agree with Deti’s view. Yes I do. I think the average woman has low romantic-sexual attraction to the average man. I also think women have a harder time solving their attraction/mate-choice equation. I am not prone to the type of absolutes that some use. For example, I saw someone a month or so ago say that all men that use porn do so because of frigid marriages. I don’t believe that for a second. The perfect wife could have a porn-addicted husband. I don’t agree when people say “all women….” . I don’t think all divorces are caused by the wife’s lack of attraction.
But yes, I mostly agree with deti’s basic perspective. Average men are more attracted to average women than the reverse.
In your reasons for divorce post, you mentioned men commit adultery more. Adultery is sex. Yes adultery is grave sin. Husband ddultery is not detached from the problem that deti describes. Many men are in frigid marriages and adultery is often the (immoral) response to this condition. Wives’ “having a headache” is a ubiquitous joke OUTSIDE the manosphere. Lori Alexander was constantly counselling women to have sex with their husbands and my wife has described frequently counseling women who don’t want to have sex with their husbands. The invisible women’s auxillary has also described to me counseling other women on this. No – I do not condone adultery. In my faith, it destroys the santifying grace in our souls and sends one to eternal damnation. But as a practice, it is not unrelated to what deti is describing.
Cameron,
I’ve noticed that you avoid absolutes. This is one reason we are able to converse so easily in a civil manner. Ironically, the way you portray Deti’s position is superior, by far, to the manner in which he portrays his own view.
While I think about the substance of what you have to say, I’ll ask you to consider the logical conclusion of what it means for hypergamy that women are disinterested and frigid.
Hypergamy, as Deti describes it, is women having unrestrained attraction to higher-tier men and a corresponding disappointment or dissatisfaction with their lower-tier husbands.
But that’s not fundamentally what we see. We see women who don’t have interest in any man at all. Frigid marriages are not typically associated with female infidelity—which affects between 5% to 15% of marriages—but with no activity at all. With respect to alpha widowing, frigid marriages happen even in marriages between virgins.
We’ve lost the plot. It used to be understood by everyone that male drives were much stronger than the female drive. But somewhere along the line, the Red Pill decided that women had voracious appetites equal to or greater than men. I’ve seen those Dalrockian arguments, which we must apparently now take on faith. But it was never true. There is a reason that the appetite goes from strongest to weakest: gay men, heterosexual couples, and lesbians.
Females lose interest. They lose interest in low value men. They lose interest on high value men. They lose interest in cad and husband alike. Of course not all do, nor do they all do so at an equal pace, but it holds in general, especially over decades of time.
Moreover, your premise—the lack of attraction—simply does not imply attraction elsewhere to other men.
Roughly half of women who divorce are not even interested in finding another man, let alone a better one. They certainly are not divorcing in order to find another! Without even considering any of the many other reasons for divorce—which I’ve done in my posts—hypergamy already explains less than half of all divorces. There is a reason I concluded that hypergamy could, generously, only explain maybe 10%-20% of all divorces.
So we can have a discussion about that other stuff you mentioned here, but hypergamy as an overriding principle is dead-in-the-water. It simply lacks explanatory power. I’m still convinced it is a myth, but even if I didn’t, I wouldn’t pay much attention to it because of its minor influence.
Peace,
DR
Lack of attraction to their husband doesn’t necessarily result in divorce. Not all completely sexless marriages end in divorce and it’s often the case that marriages aren’t completely sexless, the man just has to beg, behave, etc. to get the marital debt begrudgingly paid once in a while.
I don’t know that most women are divorcing to trade up. I think by the time many women divorce they can’t really trade up anyway. I don’t think they could land a better guy in the first place so of course they aren’t going to land him now, after aging and kids, etc. Not surprised at all they stay single. I’m sure there’s lots of damage done by a woman’s lack of attraction so when they divorce I’m sure there’s all sorts of accumulated problems – angry, frustrated husband with harsh words, husband porn use, possibly infidelity. As far as frigid wives cheating, I’m sure many have sufficient shame and guilt not to cheat. I’m not surprises frigid wives don’t always turn into adulteresses.
I only recall Jim of “Jim’s Blog” claiming women have voracious sexual appetites. Women have a strong desire to be wanted but that desire is to be wanted by a high value man. And they like sex with high value men.
I mean it’s a sample size of three but it’s really hard to not see this when the women’s auxillary confirms it – when the alphabux husband “cranks my engine 99% of the time”, when the ladies auxillary wife “has sex with her husband EVERY single day” (that he’s home), that the non-commenting ladies auxillary wife has frequent love fests with her alpha husband. Meanwhile guys like “Red Pill Apostle” have years of sexless marriage.
Cameron,
I looked up some stats here which suggest that 75% of sexless marriages end in divorce, much higher than the population average. If that is true, that really constrains their relevance to our wider discussion. It also adds to the theory that the Manosphere participants are self-selected for certain phenomena.
I also know from previous research that the average frequency for married couples is about once a week. Other than that, I have little to offer on the subject. Your small sample sizes suggest the same. I’m not sure what else we have to say on this topic.
I’m not sure how common begging and pleading is. In a recent post I listed the primary causes of dissatisfaction and (generic) intimacy was listed, but wasn’t top 3.
I’m mainly concerned with how frigid marriage pertains (or doesn’t) to hypergamy. If women are not divorcing to move up nor engaging in infidelity nor showing interest in men, then that would seem to militate against Deti’s view of hypergamy and its primacy.
You say women want high value men, but I see women ditching men like Tom Brady, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and countless Hollywood celebrities like Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp.
Do you have a study that suggests that women are more physically into high value men?
Note: unless Jason or the Professor can confirm otherwise, I’m going to assume my memories of people discussing voracious women are faulty and drop that line of discussion.
Peace,
DR
You say women want high value men, but I see women ditching men like Tom Brady, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and countless Hollywood celebrities like Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp.
Derek,
These ”MEN” are NOT dominant or were created to be like an all-consuming fire like a GBFM or ROISSY and thus are discarded in wimminz natural big eyes and open heart(trust) quest for a GBFM or ROISSY to give her the tingles she craves as told here:
https://heartiste.org/2013/07/22/study-dominance-not-looks-predicts-mens-mating-success/
Study: Dominance, Not Looks, Predicts Men’s Mating Success
Jul 22nd, 2013 by CH
A solid, thick, tight study has scraped the shins with a loaded deadlift bar, and the findings are nothing short of an ECA stacked validation of CH teachings. For as long as the Provencal sun has shone its ethereal light on the Chateau, we have been saying that male power and dominance — and the outcome independent attitude that conveys those traits — are the primary male attractiveness cues that women LOVE LOVE LOVE. And where there’s LOVE LOVE LOVE, there’s TINGLE TINGLE TINGLE.
Although recent research has increasingly focused on human sexual selection, fundamental questions remain concerning the relative influence of individual traits on success in competition for mates and the mechanisms, form, and direction of these sexual selective pressures. Here, we explore sexual selection on men’s traits by ascertaining men’s dominance and attractiveness from male and female acquaintances. On a large American university campus, 63 men from two social fraternities provided anthropometric measurements, facial photographs, voice recordings, and reported mating success (number of sexual partners). These men also assessed each other’s dominance, and 72 women from two socially affiliated sororities assessed the men’s attractiveness. We measured facial masculinity from inter-landmark distances and vocal masculinity from acoustic parameters. We additionally obtained facial and vocal attractiveness and dominance ratings from unfamiliar observers. Results indicate that dominance and the traits associated with it predict men’s mating success, but attractiveness and the traits associated with it do not. These findings point to the salience of contest competition on men’s mating success in this population.
“Only looks matter” shut-in dorks wept bitter, Cheetos-laced orange tears.
This study is chock full of quotable goodness, and the experimental breadth is wide enough to spur further discussion.
[P]rior studies have typically focused on either female choice or male contests without attempting to quantify the relative contributions of these mechanisms to the total sexual selective pressure on a particular trait (Hunt, Breuker, Sadowski, & Moore, 2009). Second, to our knowledge, no study reporting relationships between a male trait and mating success has investigated whether these relationships were mediated by attractiveness or dominance. Third, most studies of sexual selection in men have measured success under female choice or male contests from limited information, such as body size, strength, or ratings of faces or voices made by strangers in the laboratory. Attractiveness and dominance have thus frequently been assessed devoid of relevant information, such as personality and intelligence, and in isolation from the complex webs of social relationships in which we live.
Your charmingly egotistic Chateau lords have insisted for a long time that a major shortcoming of studies attempting to measure male sexual attractiveness is the lack of examining the all-important components of personality and attitude, or what we in the business call charisma, aka game.
Although we are interested in how past selection produced present sexual dimorphisms, we take a behavioral ecological approach, which emphasizes contemporary selection. We take this approach because we expect that, in general, current function will provide insight into past function. However, attractiveness, dominance, and even mating success have likely been at least partly decoupled from reproductive success by features of modern industrial environments such as effective contraception and socially imposed monogamy.
“Only men who have kids are alpha” game haters wept as well. In CH shorthand: The Pill and condom thwart reproduction, but encourage copulation. And which men are doing the bulk of non-marital copulation? Alpha males. (In fact, I’d bet that within marriages alpha males continue to comparatively monopolize the share of copulation events. Chicks dig dominant men, with or without a ring on it.)
As shown for female choice and male contests, the combination of significant positive and negative eigenvalues suggests that the fitness surface for mating success is best described as a multivariate saddle (Fig. 2C). There was also significant positive linear selection on m2 and m3, which favors increased girth and decreased vocal masculinity (m2) and increased height and girth (m3).
There’s a lot of juicy math in this study, so you abstraction pros can hash out the details for make benefit of haters’ anguish.
When mating success was used as the fitness measure and success under female choice (attractiveness) and male contests (dominance) were treated as traits, there was directional selection for dominance, but not attractiveness (Fig. 1, Table 3).
Reread the 16 Commandments of Poon. Most of the Commandments are essentially power laws, instructing men how to act like a more powerful man. It works because, as ♥science♥ is now discovering and in the process catching up to the observations of real world field soldiers, chicks dig dominant men more than anything else. And perhaps chicks have no choice but to dig dominant men!
Although facial and vocal attractiveness (Table E2a) and related eigenvectors (Table E3a: m1, m2) positively linearly predicted success under female choice, they did not predict mating success (Tables E2b, E3b). Again, linear, but not quadratic or correlational, sexual selection on male traits acting through female choice differed from that acting through mating success (see ESM).
What this means is that men’s efforts to get laid matter just as much as, and perhaps more than, women’s choice in matters of male sexual success. So… bust a move, gentlemen! As long as you’re imposing yourself, you can override the female sexual choice imperative.
When mating success was used as the fitness measure and attractiveness, dominance, and sociosexual psychology were treated as traits, there was directional selection for dominance, sociosexuality (Table E8), and an eigenvector onto which dominance and sociosexuality loaded heavily (Table E9: m1), but not attractiveness (Table E8). Dominance and sociosexuality also positively interacted in predicting mating success (Table E8).
Sociosexuality is basically willingness to engage in flings and sexytime outside of committed relationships. So again we see that where high dominance and sociosexuality interact to turn a man into a stone bone lady slaying machine, attractive male looks as perceived by women don’t really do much for a man’s mating success if he’s neither dominant nor highly sociosexual. Dem handsome betaboys are gonna struggle to get the same amount of poon that uglier badboys with devil-may-care attitudes will pull.
Female choice exerted positive directional selection on height and stabilizing selection on an eigenvector that was heavily weighted by girth. These results corroborate previous research finding that women prefer taller males particularly for short-term mating (Pawlowski & Jasienska, 2005), and that they prefer men of intermediate brawniness (Frederick & Haselton, 2007).
Lifting weights is great, but the biggest benefit comes not from bulking up to the size of a house (which chicks don’t really care about), but from reaping the reward of that wonderful elevated testosterone, the hormone elixir that nourishes the desire to approach and close.
Moreover, both multiple regression analysis and canonical analysis indicated selection under female choice for negative covariance between girth and facial and vocal masculinity, suggesting that the brawnier a man is, the more important it is for him to have a feminine face and voice, and vice versa. Female choice favored more attractive, but not more masculine, faces and voices, and facial attractiveness became more important as height increased.
This is a bit of heartening news for short men. Women will want tall men to have pretty boy faces, but short men can get away with uglier mugs if they have brawnier bodies (and more masculine, if less pretty, faces). There appears to be some kind of competing interplay within women that compels them to find attractive men who, in various ways, balance their masculine traits with feminine traits, leading to counterintuitive results like female choice that favors brawny men with feminine faces and voices, and less physically imposing men with more masculine faces and voices. But…
These results indicate that beyond height, masculine features tend not to make independent positive contributions to success under female choice, suggesting that other factors may have operated in the selection of masculine traits in men.
… female choice doesn’t matter as much as male dominance to men’s mating success, and masculine features aren’t a winning combo by themselves. As the study authors state, masculine traits were favored by evolution for reasons beyond any innate female preference for them.
Given little evidence that men generally deferred to, or that women preferred, men with masculine faces in the present study, perhaps facial masculinity evolved in men not so much as a dominance signal or sexual ornament but because robust facial skeletal structure was protective against facial fractures incurred in physical fights (Puts, 2010).
Veeeery interesting. In related news, Steven Pinker wondered why the world is getting both less violent and more manboob-y.
Overall success under male contests (male acquaintance-rated dominance) predicted mating success, but success under female choice (female acquaintance-rated attractiveness) did not.
In the field, who wins? Answer: men whom other men perceive as dominant. The pretty boys get glowing Facebook likes, but not much real world action if they don’t back it up with a powerful presence.
These results suggest stronger sexual selection through male contests than female choice in the population studied. Much research in evolutionary psychology states or implies the contrary: stronger sexual selection in men through female choice (reviewed in Puts, 2010).
Feminists and assorted butthurt haters who assert that women do all the choosing and solely anoint the male winners in the sexual access sweepstakes are, as per fucking usual, wrong.
At the same time, these results appear incompatible with the apparent autonomy with which Western women choose their mates. One possibility is that female choice determines men’s mating success, but women choose dominant men (i.e., men’s attractiveness and dominance are functionally equivalent). However, women preferred different traits from those favored under male contests, and dominance rather than attractiveness predicted men’s mating success. Another possibility is that women choose from among dominant men—that is, men’s attractiveness and dominance posi- tively interact, so that the influence of attractiveness on mating success increases with increasing dominance. However, in predicting mating success, we observed no statistically significant selection for positive covariance between attractiveness and dominance: in fact, if anything, the correlational selection gradient was negative in sign.
Readers can issue a correction if this interpretation is wrong, but what this study result shows is that dominant men with good looks actually had LOWER mating success than dominant men with rougher looks.
Nevertheless, perhaps women rate men’s sexual attractiveness differently from how they ultimately choose.
Maxim #something or other: Never listen to what a women says she prefers in men; instead, watch what she does.
For example, attractiveness ratings may not adequately capture women’s differential resistance to men’s seduction attempts.
In the future, Chateau Heartiste will devote a number of posts to what we term Monthly Cycle Game. That is, there are two distinct schools of game every man should use: One tailored to women during the one week they’re ovulating and demanding of more dominance signals, and one tailored to women during the three weeks they prefer more signals of attainability and commitment. How will you know when to use each? Stay tuned.
Finally, men’s dominance may limit female choice in subtle ways. For example, in the bars, clubs, parties, and other venues in which sexual affairs are initiated, a dominant man may have little compunction against interfering with the mating attempts of a less dominant man, whereas the reverse would be less likely.
There is also a school of game haters who bleat about how BETA it is for men to actively pursue and woo women. In their warped view, making any sort of seductive effort beyond “JUST BE YOURSELF AND SAY A FRIENDLY HI UNTIL A GIRL TAKES YOU HOME” is the SMV equivalent of crying in public when it rains on your new shoes or begging for sex from land whales. So stupid, it hardly deserves a response, (but here’s one for them: are women losers when they try to improve their mate prospects by wearing make-up and sexy clothes and keeping fit?), but luckily ♥science♥ has stepped in to put the lie to their fantasies of how sex relations work in the real world. And the obvious is made more obvious: When you are the only man out of ten men in a room to approach a cute girl and try to seduce her, you just DOMINATED the nine other men who stood around waiting for traddork-approved female recognition. See how that works, good family men?
Despite the coherence of these results, we note several limitations. First, although we measured what we believe are some of the strongest candidates for sexually selected traits in men, traits that exhibit large sex differences that emerge at sexual maturity and have been implicated in men’s mating competition, we did not assess all possible traits. Among those that we might have included are psychological traits, such as aggression (Archer, 2009) and humor (Miller, 2000).
A scientific study of that nature would be the gold standard in game studies, and the results you can safely bet would lay to rest any lingering doubts about the efficacy of game. We live in a fluid world with a sexual market that responds to attractive male mate cues on a dime, each cue winning and losing all the time in context with competition from other male attractiveness cues. How will the laconic meathead do against the loquacious funnyman? How about the suave smooth-talker versus the caustic frat boy spitting one-liners? The pimp full of promises versus the brooding artist full of torment? Men simply have more options for sexual market victory than do women, who must rely almost entirely on their looks. It’s just a shame that most men don’t realize this and choose the road of dreary corporate paper pushing to get their shot at settling for chubby chicks with vaginas scarred by years of cock pocketing.
Third, the use of hormonal contraception may have affected some female participants’ and raters’ mate preferences (Roberts, Gosling, Carter, & Petrie, 2008) and decoupled male participants’ copulatory patterns from their reproductive success. However, copulatory patterns can predict the reproductive success that would be realized in the absence of effective contraception (Perusse, 1993).
CH has predicted that widely available cheap contraceptives encourages women to sleep with cads more than they would in an environment where non-marital pregnancy was a real and constant threat. However, this encouragement would only be incrementally stronger than the sexual urges that women inherently feel for cads. Copulatory patterns would remain roughly the same between environments of available or absent effective contraceptives, with the former somewhat favoring a higher cad notch count. The reason is that cultural or technological incentives can exert only so much influence on the mating market, since the psychologies of the players originate in the primal limbic system of the brain, which is more resistant to social conditioning.
Fourth, our data on mating success were based on self-report, which may be unreliable. However, we found a highly significantly correlation between self-reported numbers of sex partners and male peers’ assessments of men’s numbers of sex partners.
Dudes know who’s winning the only game that matters.
Fifth, although we measured success under female choice and male contests, sexual selection in men likely involves other mechanisms, such as sperm competition and sexual coercion (Goetz & Shackelford, 2006).
REGRET RAPE!
Finally, we measured men’s mating success by their number of sex partners, but additional variables are clearly relevant to mating success, such as the quality of men’s mates, the number of copulations with each, and mates’ fecundability at the time. Nevertheless, the number of women with whom a man has copulated likely strongly reflects his ability to obtain mating opportunities (Faurie et al., 2004; Hodges- Simeon et al., 2011).
Das true. If you bang nothing but fugs and fatties, your artificially pumped notch count is like a nationally ranked college football team going undefeated against Male Feminist Community Colleges. However, the notch count measure is still fairly predictive of a man’s womanizing skill. The few rare fatty fuckers aside, most (non-black*) guys with big numbers have got the talent to score with some bodacious babes.
*Come on, man, you know the bros love swimming in the bottom of the barrel.
The present study begins to fill significant gaps regarding the mechanisms and forms of sexual selection in men and the relative salience of men’s traits to different mechanisms of sexual selection. We do not, however, consider these questions resolved. Future research should explore additional traits and other measures of mating success in different populations, especially in traditional societies.
Next big study: The neg, and why men who use it have higher mating success than men who talk about the weather and their jobs.”
Your charmingly egotistic Chateau lords have insisted for a long time that a major shortcoming of studies attempting to measure male sexual attractiveness is the lack of examining the all-important components of personality and attitude, or what we in the business call charisma, aka game.
Although we are interested in how past selection produced present sexual dimorphisms, we take a behavioral ecological approach, which emphasizes contemporary selection. We take this approach because we expect that, in general, current function will provide insight into past function. However, attractiveness, dominance, and even mating success have likely been at least partly decoupled from reproductive success by features of modern industrial environments such as effective contraception and socially imposed monogamy.
“Only men who have kids are alpha” game haters wept as well. In CH shorthand: The Pill and condom thwart reproduction, but encourage copulation. And which men are doing the bulk of non-marital copulation? Alpha males. (In fact, I’d bet that within marriages alpha males continue to comparatively monopolize the share of copulation events. Chicks dig dominant men, with or without a ring on it.)
Your charmingly egotistic Chateau lords have insisted for a long time that a major shortcoming of studies attempting to measure male sexual attractiveness is the lack of examining the all-important components of personality and attitude, or what we in the business call charisma, aka game.
SEE?”Men” (if you can even call them that)like Tom Brady, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and countless Hollywood celebrities like Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp don’t have the personality and attitude, or what we in the business call charisma, aka game to keep the galz happy,giddy and ready for bed 24/7 like a GBFM, Roissy or now Derek!!!?
That’s my point.
I don’t buy it. Women are leaving these men even as they still dominate other men.
Gisele left Tom Brady for jiu-jitsu instructor Joaquim Valente. On a looks level, both are physically fit:
But I’d give the W to Brady. I would suspect that Brady would completely crush Valente in any type of wrestling (i.e. arm; full body). Valente wouldn’t last a second on a football field.
And, let’s be serious here: Brady is the more dominate man by far.
Gisele didn’t leave Brady for the better-looking or more dominate man.
“”Men” (if you can even call them that)like Tom Brady, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and countless Hollywood celebrities like Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp don’t have the personality and attitude, or what we in the business call charisma, aka game”
I don’t buy it. Women are leaving these men even as they still dominate other men.
Gisele left Tom Brady for jiu-jitsu instructor Joaquim Valente. On a looks level, both are physically fit:
But I’d give the W to Brady. I would suspect that Brady would completely crush Valente in any type of wrestling (i.e. arm; full body). Valente wouldn’t last a second on a football field.
And, let’s be serious here: Brady is the more dominate man by far.
Gisele didn’t leave Brady for the better-looking or more dominate man.
But women don’t think like MEN as they are from another world, Derek!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT9B82y3T-4
Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: A 2024 Update with the Author, Dr. John Gray
SEE?& REMEMBER don’t listen to what women say, but what they do!
You are making my argument for me, eh?
There is a fundamental problem here. What qualifies as ‘alpha’ is circularly defined to be whatever women are attracted to at any given moment. Whatever women are attracted to at any given moment is ‘alpha’ and whatever is ‘alpha’ is what women are attracted to at any given moment.
There exists no objective basis to determine what ‘alpha’ or ‘female attraction’ actually is. Because of the circularity, saying that women are attracted to alphas is a meaningless assertion.
But it’s even worse! What qualifies as ‘alpha’ for one woman may be completely different for what qualifies for ‘alpha’ by another woman. And for individual women, that changes on a day-to-day, hour-by-hour, or minute-by-minute basis. There is no objective standard for what qualifies as alpha. It’s just an arbitrary stand-in. Doesn’t Game teach that if you let down your alpha-ness for even a moment, she’s gone?
You can point to someone who is supposed to be an alpha, but then his wife divorces him. “Whoops, guess he wasn’t an alpha after all!” That’s just circular reasoning.
When Deti says that I’m lucky and my luck just hasn’t run out yet, that’s the same kind of circular reasoning (or perhaps just a meaningless tautology).
“How do you know I’m lucky? Because I have yet to be unlucky.”
Doesn’t Game teach that if you let down your alpha-ness for even a moment, she’s gone?
Yes, that is why ROISSY & every gamer in history said ”DON’T GET MARRIED TO ANY WOMAN!”
Or as ”The disciples said to Jesus, “If the relationship of a man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”Matthew 19:10-Amplified Bible
But certain ”Christians ” couldn’t handle that TRUTH of the majority of women being unfit for marriage so Keoni Galt, Athol Kay, Dalrock, Susan Walsh(who was all about getting young college ‘hos married), and Deti came along teaching the bastardized
version of game called ”married game” which is about combining the ”right” amount of ”beta”(i.e. very little just enough for ”security & comfort”so the wife could sit on her lazy bum all day as the husband ”won her without a word”)with ”alpha”(i.e. a lot of tough-talking,macho -posturing and such)
I’ve always had the ”right balance” of ”alpha and beta” traits so i never needed to learn any game nor especially ”married game”.
So this list of supposedly high value men like Tom Brady, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and countless Hollywood celebrities like Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp are obviously unfit for long-term relationships and marriage as the women they were with, once is all i, Roissy, Most old-school gamers and even Keoni Galt, Athol Kay, Dalrock, Susan Walsh and Deti would also agree i’am sure
Keoni Galt said that his wife married down to marry him….in his article on hypergamy. His article here is very interesting in light of everything we’ve discussed. He seems to believe that anecodotes are egocentric selfishness called “female solipsism” (including when men do it!). It would be hilarious to apply this standard to today’s interactions.
How dare you! You can only be one or the other, not both! Let me go find some rope, kindling, and a Medieval magisterial tribunal…
Ah yes…Tom Brady……gave us all a lecture a few years back on why “Americans need Unions” (was specifically talking about his Union, for professional footballers like him)
You know the usual, Unions provide and get and fight for “free healthcare” for the people they represent. Protects them from unfair firing or discipline by “mean corporations” and how Unions provide a stable economy and workforce.
And you know….because he has that dimple on the chin, nice head of hair…….he is deemed very smart and speaks up for most of his viewers who “dont have a voice” (really tired of that phrase btw)
If a man like Brady cant keep his x supermodel wife “happy” because of his looks, money and status……and evidently not satisfied in the bedroom….well, there really isnt any hope for any man. We should just shut the blogs down. Call it a day. Pulp the books. End the podcasts. Retire like Dalrock.
For real.
And he is just one example of this. If a superjock like him cannot keep a wife…..if a superstar like Brad Pitt who evidently got tired of looking at Jennifer Aniston’s naked body…..well???? What can Mr Young 24 Year Old who is a 4 on the looks scale, a virgin and has finished college with a STEM degree but can only get warehouse work gonna do?
Try this.
Women will ditch a low-tier man for a higher-tier man. The Dalrockian Manosphere calls this “hypergamy” and blames it on women (and their now-beta former husbands for not being masculine enough to keep her).
Women will ditch a high-tier man for a lower-tier man. This is referred to as AFBB (regarding switching to a “beta male”). This time it is just blamed on the new beta-husband for not being masculine enough. Amazingly, this is still hypergamy.
Back-and-forth, rinse-repeat.
Women will also ditch an any-tier man for a same-tier man. Shockingly, this too is hypergamy, just by cherry-picking some ‘alpha’ trait in the second man that wasn’t in the first. As with all the others, the ‘beta’ gets blamed for not being masculine enough.
Does this summarize your experience?
Well, Im sure she has told her friends about how “no good” or “abusive” he is. He’s hardly a pillar or “morals” I might add. He had the nickname “bareback Brady” for awhile.
Now, in his “defense” here, Tom Brady wont have ANY problem of finding a new girlfriend to show off on a Red Carpet, or out and about in high profile restaurants, events, award shows or the like. He will have zero problem. I am sure many women in his circle and scene probably feel confident they could snag him (todays women, even mousey, round shoulder ones think and believe they are on the level of his x-wife in the looks dept)
Neither would Bezos, or Gates (men without the checkbook of physical looks to back their wealth up)
The level of men like this (and women), they operate on a totally different world, metric, and standard; while lecturing us “they are just like us” (the rest of us)
Yes, in many ways actually.
You see, Red Pill “lore” through Saint Dalrock, Rollo, and the countless others out there gaslight most men.
Have you ever read Mao’s “Little Red Book”? (cultural revolution in China 1966-1970)
I have. Its a great book (rolls eyes). Full of “The Chairmans” infinite wisdom. His sayings. His fortitude. His stances. Its broken up into three sections. Each section works on how you can debate, uplift, encourage, END conversations and discussions with people with his quotes.
They are interchangeable and give the illusion that “Chairman Mao” is indeed “infallible” and “perfect” and his sayings and stances and life is back by “human nature” and “cannot be changed” there LAWS and AXIOMS that are immoveable.
Dare you question????????????
Well, in late 1960’s China, you would be shamed in public. Smeared. Denounced. Jailed. Given the perp walk. You would be shunned. You would have “half truths” said about you. You might even be killed!
Now, thankfully here in the West, we are not at that extreme yet in most cases concerning thoughtcrime…..
But
Mao’s “Little Red Book” models Red Pill’s answers in thinking, (cough) logic, female nature, “proven” statistics, and has an-answer-to-everything concerning male and female nature. The contradictions are not mentioned…..and if there are any, its a “new” model added. A new addendum. A “justified” happenstance. Red Pill is “science” and its “proven”
And….in the end, this whole “red Pill” thing is not mainstream, but it has been “codified” and the people that purport it the loudest to the masses of men, dont live it.
Just like Mao’s “Little Red Bok”
The gaslighting of hypergamy is how it subtly blames the beta men for not being masculine enough. Even saying…
“it’s all women’s fault for not being content with their beta husbands”
…carries the very necessary implication that if he was not an inferior beta husbands, she wouldn’t be leaving him. The ‘sphere teaches that he could have had a different outcome if he had been alpha (or had proper Game).
No matter how much you try to pin the (moral) blame solely on women, you can’t get past the logical conclusion that it wouldn’t have happened if the man had done something different. This doesn’t mean that in a perfect world he should have had to do this, but it does mean that there was (an amoral) something he could have done to prevent it but didn’t.
After all, why teach a man Frame or Game if fixing her character is what is actually needed?
The gaslighting of hypergamy is how it subtly blames the beta men for not being masculine enough. Even saying…
“it’s all women’s fault for not being content with their beta husbands”
…carries the very necessary implication that if he was not an inferior beta husbands, she wouldn’t be leaving him. The ‘sphere teaches that he could have had a different outcome if he had been alpha (or had proper Game).
No matter how much you try to pin the (moral) blame solely on women, you can’t get past the logical conclusion that it wouldn’t have happened if the man had done something different. This doesn’t mean that in a perfect world he should have had to do this, but it does mean that there was (an amoral) something he could have done to prevent it but didn’t.
Yes Dalrock like his supposed successors has basically said that.
After all, why teach a man Frame or Game if fixing her character is what is actually needed?
YES, which was prescribed here long ago:
i propose a Renaissance to restore the Christian soul in Marriage, Family, church, schools, universities, and Society -did any ”redpillers” or RP® Genius Leaders join that cause or pile onto the ”learn married game” failurous crusade that even they say failed?
It’s easy to tell which from the constant whines, groans, and ”I should haves” from the same people yes?
Pingback: Hypergamy or Adultery - Derek L. Ramsey