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)
Part 7 — What is Hypergamy? (Part 2)
Part 8 — Wants and Choices
Part 9 — Hypergamy or Adultery
Part 10 — Hypergamy and Adultery
Part 11 — Matters of Selection
Part 12 — Matters of Fath (Intermission)
Today we will discuss:
Part 13 — Relationship Satisfaction
About a week or so ago I responded to Cameron’s comment about frigid marriages—characterized by a lack of physical attraction—by saying this:
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.
This was not strictly correct. Here is what I was referencing:
Source: Western University
While I was right about the fifth item on the list, the second item for relationship success also directly pertains to what Cameron and I had been discussing. Just spit-balling that image, it looks like getting all forms of intimacy right accounts for ~20% of relationship satisfaction.
Other important factors include love and appreciation, but commitment—related to loyalty—is the most important attribute. I would suggest that partner commitment is number one because it is the most holistic attribute on this list. Commitment includes or influences virtually ever factor you can think of for relationship success. This points to the complexity of factors that goes into making relationships work.
Today’s post was mostly put here just to correct the mistake I had made in the comments and to provide a little context and opinion. Based partially on the Pseudonymous Commenter’s original comments, there remains are a few more topics to potentially discuss further in this series (in no particular order)…
- Character, Masculinity, and “Bad Boys”
- Agency
- Hypergamy and The Early Manosphere
- Hypergamy vs. Evo-Psych (re: Bruce Charlton’s post)
- The Role of Education and Intelligence
…but I have fallen behind again in my publication. In case I don’t catch up this weekend, there may well be gaps in my publication as I can’t keep up with the 5-posts-per-week schedule while also responding to comments in the comment section (and doing family activities).
If anyone has a preference as to which order I discuss which topics, or if they’d like me to cover something not on this list, please let me know.
Hypergamy and The Early Manosphere
The reason why the early Manosphere was so popular was that it was based on the Roissyosphere-which was based on Roissy=Heartiste himself, which was all about his POV of life being one sexual conquest after another as shown here by this ”Secular Right” site on November 24, 2009(where was the so-called Manosphere then?A?-it was mainly divorced and ”unhappily married” male readers & commenters of the Roissyosphere envying Roissy’s sexual prowess and the younger MENS MGTOWosphere’s freedom away from their gynocentric churches they loved to beat up young MEN up at to try to get the wimminz their interested in their false masculinitylzlolzzlollzzzz)
I’m a big fan of Roissy in DC — who isn’t? — but someone should tell him that he’s got the alpha-beta stuff all wrong.
In hierarchical primate societies, the alpha males are the ones with power. They have legions of subordinates who help enforce their will. They say what goes and what doesn’t. They engage in power-challenging with each other. They may get laid a lot, but that’s a side benefit. Power is the thing.
In Roissyworld, an “alpha” is single-mindedly intent on sexual conquest. He likely has no subordinates at all — would probably find them a hindrance, in fact. Roissyworld is neither the hierarchical society of high primates and neolithic humans, nor the egalitarian band of paleolithic hunters. It must be great to be a Roissy-style loner (I wouldn’t know), but that lifestyle has nothing necessary to do with either hierarchical or egalitarian social order — nothing to do with society at all, really.
BIT as stated here by Aaron is TRUE that
Roissy’s actually talked quite a bit about how the increasing dominance of alphas in the mating/dating world is not good for society. Our society was healthier in this regard when we had stronger laws and taboos about marriage, when the mother was as dependent on the father for sustenance as the father is on the mother for reproductive faithfulness. Maybe women weren’t always excited by their beta-type provider husbands, but they needed them. Feminism, no-fault divorce, and mother-slanted child custody have skewed that relationship. A provider husband is certainly a big convenience, but it’s not a need anymore, socially or financially, so women have more freedom to pursue the kind of men who excite them. That leaves more beta men with less incentive to be the kind of hard-working cubicle-dweller who can offer a quiet suburban home in a good school district. Too often, that way lies a few years of fighting followed by fortnightly visits with your children.
Of course, it’s possible to be for a man to be “alpha”—to be a man’s man who carries himself with confidence, who has a certain amount of self-control, who doesn’t see women as a superior species to be feared and supplicated to—and also be a good provider and loving family man. My grandfathers were men like that, as is my dad. But they grew up in a society that encouraged that kind of manliness, that looked up to men like Cary Grant instead of Alan Alda. To be that kind of man today is kind of like being a paleo-conservative—it’s something you have to go out of your way to learn on your own, because you certainly won’t get it from the mainstream.
See?
Also as for” Character, Masculinity, and “Bad Boys””
These six comments from the above post might help you there Derek:
“Game” starts out as a trick, wherein you mimic the behaviors of the kind of man who, in the ancestral environment, would have maximized a woman’s reproductive fitness, if he were chosen as a mate. But there is a bit of a feedback loop involved.
What makes a man the most “beta” is the pedestalization of women. ‘She is a delicate little flower whom I must not defile with my impure lust.’ Men who internalize that idea are unsure of themselves in making the approach. ‘Since she is so morally pure, if she rejects me that proves I’m worthless.’
The simplest way to get over that is to despise women. Not hate, despise. ‘Her possible rejection of me means nothing since bitches ain’t nothin’ but hos and tricks.’
If you grow up watching your mother fall for “players” who treat them (and you) badly, you will naturally form a low opinion of women. Therefore, a woman who gets impregnated by such men is potentially giving her sons a “gift” which will get them laid a lot as adults. And hence bolstering her reproductive fitness.
Chasing such men isn’t good for her personally, and it isn’t good for “society,” but from a Darwinian perspective, that’s not the point.
If a man who grew up pedestalizing women begins to mimic the behavior of someone who despises women, he will experience sexual success that he did not experience while still blatantly idealizing them. Over time, his actual opinion of women will change to match his new behavior, and his “game” will no longer be a trick.
Sorry Namloc, I cannot provide a source for the man’s alpha, woman’s alpha distinction. I picked it up somewhere in the Roissy-sphere, but I can’t remember where. And Google didn’t turn up anything in the first 20 hits, so laziness forces me to give up the search.
I’m not smart enough to have come up with the idea on my own, so it must be out there somewhere. Good luck finding it.
To me, it’s an issue of semantics. Whether or not Derb’s definition above is correct for the term “alpha” is inconsequential. The fact is there SHOULD be a term for that category of men and the traits that generally correspond to such status, like determination, willpower, intelligence, expertise, etc…, should be lauded.
There should probably be a breakdown of Good Alpha/Bad Alpha and Good Beta/Bad Beta. And if we accept those categories, determining which qualities belong to each category of men would make for an interesting discussion.
And, you think you’re telling Roissy something he doesn’t already know?
Well, its not the first time someone has taken a word with a clear definition and given it a new meaning of their own, but at least Roissy is quite honest about it.
He says clearly that he uses the term Alpha simply to refer to the guy who women find most desirable to sleep with.
But Roissy is a bit dishonest, too – for one, by choosing a word with a clear meaning and then giving it a slightly different meaning, he is clearly trying to piggy-back the on the words original meaning and the associations it conjures up in peoples minds, while giving himself room for maneuver. Allow me to explain.
Roissy simply shifts between the words Alphas two meanings – the literal one and the one he has given it – as it suits his arguments. I have seen this happen on his blog. He will say that behaviors that fit the literal meaning of Alpha are what attract women, like dominance or confidence, etc, and if someone presents him with an example of a man acting in non-Alpha ways who attracts women, Roissy will simply say that by his definition, any man who gets women is Alpha, so this man is, in fact, Alpha.
Its tautological, and it lets him muddy the waters about precisely what behaviors do or do not attract women as it suits him, because if any behavior that attracts women is Alpha, yet Alpha also has a clear meaning involving a clear set of behaviors taken from the animal world, then you can simply shift from one meaning to another as the season dictates and never be proven wrong.
Clever, but ultimately unavailing. Ive seen this happy little exchanges countless times on his blog.
Roissy is hilarious and a pleasure to read, but I dont think anyone should take him too seriously. The discerning reader will spot countless faulty reasonings and errors in logic in any single post, and some of his advice is just disastrously wrong.
The guy loves to shock and tiltilate, and we should appreciate him for that, and amidst the carnage he drops the occasional pearl of wisdom, and whats more important, even though he gets so many details wrong and his basic attitude is in so many ways flawed, his outrageous exaggerations are a useful counterweight to the sickly sweet feminization of our society. Sure, no discerning reader will take his extreme statements as balanced and just estimates of reality, but then, perhaps they arent meant to be taken as such.
Also see this part in the above comment JN?
-Does anyone has to wonder why many thought Roissy and GBFM were in cahoots or as some thought possibly one and the same?
BUT GBFM always said that the terms Alpha & Beta had been inverted and the Alphas were the loyal, dedicated to their families & God & the Betas were your clintons,Kennedys & rockstars only loyal to their penis and lust, and to the debased bernankefied dollar.
As said and shown below:
All men should begin immediately by reading the following books which the central bankers and their fellow churchians hate, fear, and detest:
0. THE BIBLE
1. Homer’s Iliad
2. Homer’s Odyssey
3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
4. Virgil’s Aeneid
5. Socrates’ Apology
6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
7. Plato’s Repulic
8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
9. Aristotle’s Poetics
10. Dante’s Inferno
11. The Declaration of Independence
12. The Constitution
13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
15. Newton’s Principia
16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
26. THE BIBLE
Please note that neither Dr. Helen Smith nor Michelle Malkin ever, ever, ever quote nor acknowledge THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN. Next time you see them, ask them why they never salute our EXALTED FATHERS and our NOBLE HERITAGE and the FOUNDATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS, THE FAMILY, FATHERHOOD, and NATURAL LAW.
Why does DR. HELEN SMITH never quote JEsus? 3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
So one can see that MOSES JESUS and GENESIS all agree dat der is to be no sectirve tapings of butthxte nor any transfer of a man’s welath to da beernnake state nor shall any other man be allwedz allowedz to buttcock nor ginacock your wifez. WHY DOES HELEN SMITH NOT QUOTE MOSES, NOR JESUS, NOR GENESIS? lzozoz DOES SHE NOT SEE THAT RETURNING TO THE EXALTED PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN WOULD RESURRECT MARRIAGE?
Ask the neocons next time you see them–what do they have against the exalted wisdom of MOSES, JESUS, HOMER, and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN?
And as men are reading the Great Books for Men, they must start enacting their principles in the living world, so as to exalt our legal system and universities, for it is not enough to think and read, but virtue is ultimately defined by *action*.
One of the remarkable things you will learn by READING THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN is the contemporary inversion of Alpha and Beta.
In THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, the Alphas were ACHILLES, JESUS, ODYSSEUS, AENEAS (THE PIUS AENEAS), JEFFERSON, WASHINGTON, ADAMS, MADISON, HAMILTON.
In all too much of pop manosphere and neoconthz culture, the Alphas are teh secrtetive tapers of buttehxt and the negging wearers of furry hatsz. While Odysseus and Christ and Aeneas resisted womanly and worldly temptations, the modern peacockingz neoconcth gamerz buttehxtesz them. Note how while Charlotte Allen of the Weekly Standard refrains from ever speaking of Odysseus or Achilles or Aeneas, she dutifully repeats the lies of sectrieve taperz of buttehxt whose films lost $10,000,000+ on $12,000,000 budgets, thusly fitting the neocons’ definition of “Art” scucucctetehe” and “”manliness” by creating more debt than wealth while butthetxingz.
MAny churchian commenters at Dalrock’s blog preach that “Women crave exalted, manly, alpha leadership,” and what they mean by “exalted, manly, alpha leadership” is secrteive tapers of buttehxt buttehxting themz, instead of, say, the wisdom of MOSES, JESUS, ODYSSEUS, PAUL, ACHILLES, MISES, AENEAS, HOMER, VIRGIL, AND DANTE. One of the remarkable aspects of Dalrcok’s Christian/Churchian blog is how THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN and Jesus and Moses are constantly under attack as his commenters oft teach that 1) Jesus came not to fulfill the law, but to abolish it so as to sanctify their lust for buttcockingz, 2) The gospel of Jesus is “noise,” 3) High-value men are those who stick their cockasz in other men’s potential wives the most, 4) Homer’s Nobility is Satanic, and 4) Women crave exalted leadership and it is men’s fault that they do not get it: (BREAKING CHURCHIAN NEWS: All evil ever perpetuated by women is a man’s fault. For women naturally crave manly, exalted leadership. Sometimes it appears otherwise, but really, this is just a woman’s way of testing a man to see if he is strong enough to make her butt and gina tingellzlzo simultaneously. For instance, when a woman checks herself into an abortion clinic, by her choice, and has the baby vacuumed out of her womb, by her choice, it is no cause for alarm, as it is just a “sh!t-test” of the men in her life. Manly men will rise to the occasion, whence her butt and gina will tingle, and they can conceive another b@stard out of wedlock, so she can sh!t-test him again by murdering her baby.)
One commenterzz at dalrockz blogz claimes but but but WOMENZ CRAVE MALE LEADERSHIZP (meaning of course not the exlated form of male leadership fournd in THE GRETA BOOKSF FOR MENZ but the domiznziece of peacockingz buttccoekrz). lzozoozozo
but, it is simply not true dat womenz crave exalted male leadership. read tehir cosmo and you will see dat womenz crave tipz on buttehxt and anal lubez, as opposed to, say, MOSES, MISES, HOMER, SHAKESPEARE, VIRGIL. any time a woman is given a leadership pososition, it is for teh puroppoees of debauching and destorying the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ and NATURAL RIGHTS and FAMILY, GOD, and FAITH.
SEE in the above how the early Manosphere was mainly for younger MEN disillusioned with modern society?
And NOT for the miserably divorced & unhappily married MEN(who kicked out younger MEN in their teens,20s & 30s for NOT worshipping them as sageslzlolzzlollzzz of divorce & unhappily married wisdomzlolzzzlollzzz & non practical nor reasonable advice as they did at their churchian churches they trashed on their way to the ”early Manosphere”) like the ever-failing latter-day Manosphere that is barely keeping the lights on with its bare minimum page views,amount of comments, and commenters?
Thanks for the research. I knew I could trust you, of all people, to provide background context on that topic.
So, do you agree with the Pseudonymous Commenter?
It was a clear description of something that men were seeing in women for decades. It was just that Devlin was one of the first to describe it and put into words what more and more men were seeing.
I don’t care what we call this phenomenon. If you don’t want to call it “hypergamy”, then call it something else. If it bothers Derek to call this “hypergamy”, then fine. Call it whatever you want. The point is that this is real, it’s not contrived, it’s not made up, and it’s not a figment of my imagination. It’s happened to literally millions of men in the West. It’s a prime reason for divorces over the last 30 years and it’s a prime reason men are increasingly avoiding women.
Is hypergamy the founding principle of the Manosphere?
This is obviously wrong (rolls eyes) for over 12 years now I have been hearing the only thing that men in a relationship need is: sex and submission.
LOL
[NOTE: This is a reply to this comment]
MAny churchian commenters at Dalrock’s blog preach that “Women crave exalted, manly, alpha leadership,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-4HyWOiazY23.1
Iceberg Slim – The Destructive Forces of Pimping- 1973
In that Black Journal TV show from June 12, 1968 through November 7, 1972, the mini-documentary Iceberg Slim tells how foolish MEN are for trying to imitate his lifestyle of pimping women, but the Manosphere tried to make it ”Christian” and was cursed by God for NOT hearing his Gospel message through the teachings of MOSES, JESUS & GBFM.
Iceberg Slim talks about rationalizing stupidity. Maybe that’s the founding principle of the Manosphere.
Or how about this…
— Iceberg Slim
…whenever you hear about submission.
Professor, where does that phrase you use…
…come from? I could only find it in this Dalrock comment regarding Sunshine Mary and (of all things) prostitution:
I was reading SSM’s blog.
Now here’s a woman who followed her tingles to marriage, and kept married despite unfaithfulness from her husband.
Mainly men comment on her blog, taking instruction from her – men who in real life wouldn’t have had a chance with her in her prime, men whom she would have frivorced because they aren’t “alpha” enough to make her tingle.
The irony (is that the right word?) is rich.
Lord help us, man, there needs to be some manliness instilled in men.
Action is the cure to whining.
The Christians – no godly women? Migrate, be celibate, or (God forbid – forsake God for sex)
The non-Christians – visit prostitutes (they’re cheaper and have the same traffic as the chicks you’re trying to ‘game’.
Speaking of action,
Joseph of Jackson interests me but his schtick can only work with:
1) small churches – thus he will be able to coopt the church to his way of thought.
Bigger churches have strong churchian alphas whom he will not be able to depose by stealth or force of argument. They will simply kick him out.
2) And only as long as he or one of his followers resists temptation to become a churchian alpha.
This is the temptation of success – which is more likely than number 1.
As they grow in power, and they get more female attention, then they might believe they can provide ‘Manly Alpha Leadership that Women Crave’.
…and the reply ties it in with hypergamy:
@Marlon
Yes, SSM is a product of her hypergamy, she dumped plenty of good men, to find her dark triad alpha husband …
Oh yea, she also says dont judge women for their hypergamy repeatedly on her blog .. no surprise … lmao
Yeah, it was SSM. Who was actually a friend of GBFMS!
BUT as Deti now says ”Women don’t want these ”good, loyal,dedicated and nice Christian MEN”
Where is any of that when a woman says ‘Manly Alpha Leadership that Women Crave’?
Where’s their qualifiers for ”good, loyal,dedicated and nice Christian MEN”?
Women are supposed to be like the RP® Genius Leaders who claim their words,writings and false teachings are ”clear, qualified and should be easily understood besides all their nonsensical turdish(as Feeriker says) word salads about ”sanctification” & ”only MEN in God’s image?””
Yet where are theirs and the women who say ‘Manly Alpha Leadership that Women Crave’ success, besides all their blaming their non-success on ”Google is hiding my blog from search results-so that explains my low pageviews, amount of comments and commenters, NOT THAT MY SITE HAS BEEN CURSED FOR WICKED WORDS AND DEEDS AGAINST MOSES, JESUS AND GBFM” or ”WHERE HAS ALL THE GOOD MENZ GONESZ,& CAN YOU SHOW ME DAPLACE THEIR AT?”
I too would like to know where all the testimonies and success stories are. Probably at this page here that lists every one of them that exists.
Yeah, that pageview thing is pretty ridiculous. Remember when I wrote “Irrelevancy of the Manosphere?” If Dalrock wasn’t relying on pageviews from external sources, then no one is. As this blog and Spawny’s Space—a completely non-indexed site—shows, page views are driven almost entirely by word-of-mouth among a select group of people who read more-or-less the same set of interconnected related sites.
All the success stories are:
*Made up testimonials “Just wanted to say thank you, I was a loser with round shoulders, bad breath and no confidence…..but I read your blog and now I’m dating only nines and tens. Thank you for telling me to shower and brush my teeth! It changed everything!”
*Outliers and not the norm. A man who probably was deemed decent looking by women, had a job. Friends. A rare date now and then. That kind of thing, and just needed a brushing up on style perhaps, and some communication skills. Most of the men who flocked to Game and PUA sites en masse back in the day were men who were pushing thirty and absolute zero’s with women. Never a date. A kiss. A hand held. Most of these men were below average in physical looks.
*Divorced / separated men. For reasons known and unknown. Divorced men in their thirties for some reason are NOT a red flag to women. Probably because they too are divorced or latch on to men like this thinking “she will be the one to change him”. If the man is above average looking also works in this area.
*The man who is already an Alpha and he “doesnt know it” but needed the ‘sphere to tell him so
“Bad boys” and early history of the manosphere would be interesting.
Someone once commented that the early sphere was kicked off by F. Roger’s Devlin’s essay(s) on these subjects. I found a copy of his “Sexual Utopia in Power” which seems to be a collection of several essays. I’ve been reading it and have seen several interesting things e.g. informal definitions of “hypergamy” and “alpha.”
The timeline of these essays confuses me because at least one of them references Dalrock.
I used to read nothing but traditional conservative websites. I remember them referencing Roissy and a website called “In mal fide” and condemning those as nihilist. Roissy was condemned for his “let the world burn…..enjoy the decline” take on things.
I agree, it is an interesting topic, but it can only be disappointing if I’m the one to write on it. Prepare yourself in advance for some truly massive disappointment.
I found a copy of his “Sexual Utopia in Power”…
Which has a publication date of June 16, 2015, so it must have been revised.
Someone once commented…
You don’t say?
It was a clear description of something that men were seeing in women for decades. It was just that Devlin was one of the first to describe it and put into words what more and more men were seeing.
I don’t care what we call this phenomenon. If you don’t want to call it “hypergamy”, then call it something else. If it bothers Derek to call this “hypergamy”, then fine. Call it whatever you want. The point is that this is real, it’s not contrived, it’s not made up, and it’s not a figment of my imagination. It’s happened to literally millions of men in the West. It’s a prime reason for divorces over the last 30 years and it’s a prime reason men are increasingly avoiding women.
From the SPLC (lol!):
In the summer of 2006, ****, as Devlin, published the influential essay “Sexual Utopia in Power” in The Occidental Quarterly, a journal published by the Charles Martel Society, a secretive white nationalist group.
In a 2021 appearance on Edward Dutton’s podcast, The Jolly Heretic, **** described the inspiration for his essay.
“The ideas that came out in ‘Sexual Utopia in Power’ are basically the result of slumming about on the internet, looking at dating sites, pickup sites,” he said.
As Devlin, **** continued to write for The Occidental Quarterly and joined its editorial advisory board in early 2009, according to online archives. At the time, the Quarterly board consisted of several prominent racist academics, including Richard Lynn, the late president of the pro-eugenics Pioneer Fund, and Kevin MacDonald, a now-former psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach, whose work has sought to portray antisemitism as a logical reaction to Jews’ roles in American society.
I am completely unsurprised that the Manosphere is rooted in the writings of a man who specialized in the Hegelian dialectic, which I’ve written in “Gnosticism, The Trinity, and the Dialectical Method.” Maybe I’m not a complete idiot.
Of course, what does the SPLC know…
Interesting. The only “Devlin” essay I had read was the book review of a book by a woman explaining how women aren’t any more naturally monogamous than men.
I do remember the dust up in the comments section between “Devlin” and Thomas Fleming as I was a long-time reader of Chronicles Magazine.
Anything important to the topic of hypergamy?
I think he just mentions it as if self-evident or at least, like the manosphere, he lays out the rationale for it. I guess he does mention research into the biochemistry of the female brain but more with respect to what he calls the four year female mating cycle. I haven’t gotten very far. So far, no studies referencing proof of dating-hypergamy in practice. It’s not like he’s a terrible writer and it’s not very long so it’s worth a read.
I think WRT the book review you would criticize the fact that the (female) author of the book collects examples of women with fidelity issues so there’s a strong sample bias there.
Well, I guess I’ll stick to covering/reviewing Devlin’s famous 2006 paper for the next post.
In the late 1990’s I was reading “Martian Bachelor Weather Report” and “Deep Water Web” (and met creator of that blog, Eric….had dinner with him several times in that period. We both worked in the Silicon Valley). I also read “The Misanthropic B*itch” which was actually hilarious takes on late 1990’s dating, young Millennials (she hated them) and how ” single women ruin everything”
All these blogs were blocked by the IBM firewall, so I could not read them while at work at the time
The dating advice they did give…..wasnt “be all you can be” but more of “if you and she be willing…well, why not? Give it shot! Take a chance!”
The blogs mostly focused on Liberal / Progressive politics ruining the country. A dislike of the Clintons. What single men can do to make their lives bearable…fashion, jazz music, mixing a good cocktail. Keep your living space in order / picked up. Basic saving / running a budget.
Proto MGTOW stuff mostly.
In London in 2019, I did meet up for drinks (well, he had a drink or three…I enjoyed a tonic water on the rocks) with Peter Lloyd . More of a MRA guy but him being English….well……they just have a way!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xmUZ3KUjZw
Anything important to the topic of hypergamy?
YES there was From DaGBFM on Devlin, here on July 4, 2013 / 2:56 pm
ROGER DEVLINEZ ROGER DEVLIN STATES THAT WOMENZ MATE LIKE BABOONZ lzlzozozo BABOONZ U KNOW ITS TRUEZ!!! Lzozozozoz which is WHY CONSERVATIVESZ AND NEOCONS HATE DA GREAT ROGER DEVLINZ lzozozoz SPEAKER OF TRUTZH AS WELL AS DA BIBLE lzozozozo
MODERN CONSERVATIVES HATE H8 HATE DA BIBLE AND THEY HATE GOD AND THEY HATE GENESISZ: “The Punishment of Mankind
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
MODERN CONSERVAITVES LOVE BUTTCKCONERSZ AND SECRTEIEV TAPERS OF BUTTCOKING AND FIAT DOLALRZ IN THEIR BUTTCOCKED POCKETZ AND DEY H8 HATE h8 HATE THE BIBLE AND DEY HATE HOMER AND THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZZ ZLzozlzolzozolozlozlozl
ROGER DEVLINEZ ROGER DEVLIN STATES THAT WOMENZ MATE LIKE BABOONZ lzlzozozo BABOONZ U KNOW ITS TRUEZ!!! Lzozozozoz which is WHY CONSERVATIVESZ AND NEOCONS HATE DA GREAT ROGER DEVLINZ lzozozoz SPEAKER OF TRUTZH AS WELL AS DA BIBLE
lzozozozozozozo
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm “But whether based upon knowledge or pleasing illusion, the regard in which our civilization has held women depends utterly upon their practice of monogamy, and makes no sense apart from it. As long as cases of female adultery were few enough, they could be passed off to men as freaks of nature, akin to two-headed babies. When, on the other hand, wives in their millions act upon the feminist plan of “liberation,” walk out on their husbands, separate them from their children, bankrupt them in divorce court, and shack up with other men, that system breaks down. That is where we are today.
–Roger Devlin–read it all here:http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_01.htm
From: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_05.htm
“Obviously the restoration of the marriage covenant is a necessary condition for the restoration of the family and any sustainable civilization. But is it also sufficient? Many female commentators assume so. This, I believe, is because women are naturally programmed to play what Michelle Langley, in her book Women’s Infidelity, calls “the commitment game.” They naturally see “getting him to marry me” as the entire goal of dating and courtship. Accordingly, they focus on their dissatisfaction as the cohabiting girlfriend, and call marriage a “simple solution” to the problem.
I disagree. The rate of female-initiated divorce is conclusive proof that dragging or driving the selfish bastards to the altar is not going to solve anything. As men vainly try to explain to their girlfriends, a marriage ceremony in and of itself changes nothing, and certainly does not cause anyone to “live happily ever after.” Today, in fact, much of the same confusion and aimlessness observable on the dating scene is found in family life itself. The deeper problem, as I see it, is an atrophy of function.”
From http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_home_ec_05.htm
IN ADDITTION TO ROGER DEVLIN, CONSERVATIVESZ MODERN CONSERVATIVES ALSO HATE H8 HATE h8 DA BIBLE GENESISN lzozozozozo:
God Arraigns Adam and Eve
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. 9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The Punishment of Mankind
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
About this entry
You’re currently reading “ROGER DEVLINEZ ROGER DEVLIN STATES THAT WOMENZ MATE LIKE BABOONZ lzlzozozo BABOONZ U KNOW ITS TRUEZ!!! Lzozozozoz which is WHY CONSERVATIVESZ AND NEOCONS HATE DA GREAT ROGER DEVLINZ lzozozoz SPEAKER OF TRUTZH AS WELL AS DA BIBLE lzozozozo,” an entry on Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Published:
July 4, 2013 / 2:56 pm
12 Comments
m 7.4.13 / 4pm
good quotes!
i liked the shopenhauer ones more
we come a full circle, one of ur first posts was on devlin,
titled woooooooooo aobbns mate laike womynz hoooooooooho
an he did not write anything since
yes ive read home “economics” back then
it needs to be repeated, but u need fresh material! now!
an aside – evolutionary psychology is incomatbile with bible,
how do yo square this circle?
Reply
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.4.13 / 4pm
evolutionary psychology IS compatible with da BIBLE
Reply
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.4.13 / 5pm
evolutionary psychology is completely compatbile with da bible
in da day i read da bibelzlzozo
at night i sploogegezlzoo on her face zlzlzozoozozozoozoz
so it is dat da bibkelez and evolutionary psychology
live in perfect harmony
zlzozozzo
m 7.4.13 / 5pm
“Obviously the restoration of the marriage covenant is a necessary condition for the restoration of the family and any sustainable civilization.”
– Devlin
I’d go one step further and say that restoration of covenants between sovereign human beings is the way to restore civilized inter-human relations.
State mediating between parties just pushes this meddler onto the path of divide et impera. Court of law is not a state court, and difference between government and rule was known to Jefferson.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.4.13 / 5pm
yes
but then if men live by HONOR
how will da neoeocnthsz make moneeyz zlzozooz?
Nietzsche 7.6.13 / 10am
It’s amazing to me how many of the regular readers and commenters here, who most likely found their way from Roissy, are still so ridiculously blind to the ultimate and complete wisdom to be found in The Bible.
Reply
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.6.13 / 1pm
yes i know
it seems dat
many of their momsz were beenrnakified so deeply
dat da cocoakss slapped upside agaianzt their headssz lzlzolzlz
m 7.4.13 / 6pm
ur all jokes… lolz so am i!
“The approach to a grasp of economic problems does not consist in an indiscriminate assimilation of more or less disconnected facts and figures. It consists rather in a careful analysis and examination of conditions by reasonable reflection. What is needed above all is common sense and logical clarity. Go right to the bottom of things is the main rule. Do not acquiesce in superficial explanations and solutions. Use your power of thinking and your critical abilities.
It would be a serious blunder to believe that this recommendation of economic studies aims at a substitution of another brand of BLOG for the BLOG of the various PHARISEES and PUAS. BLOG is one of the worst evils of DECKOCKORACY and socialism. BLOG is always the BLOG of lies, fallacies, and superstitions. Truth does not need any BLOG; it holds its own. The characteristic mark of truth is that it is the correct representation of reality, i.e., of a state of affairs that is and works whether or not anybody recognizes it. The recognition and pronouncement of truth is as such a condemnation of everything that is untrue. It carries on by the mere fact of being true.
Therefore let the false prophets go on. Do not try to imitate their policies. Do not try as they do to silence and to outlaw dissenters. The liars must be afraid of truth and are therefore driven to suppress its pronouncement. But the advocates of truth put their hopes upon their own rightness. Veracity does not fear the liars. It can stand their competition. The propagandists may continue to spread their fables and to indoctrinate youth. They will fail lamentably.”
– mises, DECKOCKOCRACY
“The GBFM may brilliantly succeed in proving his argument. It is of no use. For his adversary, clothed with the full dignity of his office or his NOTCH COUNT, shouts back: “The fallacy of the gentleman’s reasoning has long since been unmasked by the famous NEOCONTH professors, BENRENKE, MAX TUCKER, and GOLDMAN SACHZ. Only an idiot can still cling to such antiquated and done-for ideas.” The GBFM is discredited in the eyes of the audience, fully trusting in professional infallibility. He does not know how to answer. He has never heard the names of these eminent NEKONTH professors. Thus he does not know that their books are simple humbug, full of nonsense, and that they did not touch the problems which he raised. He may learn it later. But that cannot alter the fact that he has been defeated on the spot.
Or the layman may cleverly demonstrate the impracticability of some project suggested. Then the professional retorts: “This gentleman is so ignorant as not to know that the scheme proposed succeeded very well in socialist AMERIKA and in red DC.” Again our layman is silenced. How can he know that almost all English-language books on AMERIKA and DS are propaganda products badly distorting the facts? He has not had the opportunity of getting correct information from the original sources.”
– MISES – lozlozlz
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.4.13 / 6pm
wot?
wil da real gbfm please stand up please stand up?
m 7.4.13 / 7pm
dude it was a tribute, dont rebute it, read it
and dont attribute all teh wisdoms to urslef, itd be rude.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 7.4.13 / 6pm
lzozozozozozo
Conclusion?In case some might NOT understand,ALL devlin said is what is written in the Bible here:”1 From Paul, a bond servant of Jesus Christ (the Messiah) called to be an apostle, (a special messenger) set apart to [preach] the Gospel (good news) of and from God,
2 Which He promised in advance [long ago] through His prophets in the sacred Scriptures—
3 [The Gospel] regarding His Son, Who as to the flesh (His human nature) was descended from David,
4 And [as to His divine nature] according to the Spirit of holiness was openly [a]designated the Son of God in power [in a striking, triumphant and miraculous manner] by His resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
5 It is through Him that we have received grace (God’s unmerited favor) and [our] apostleship to promote obedience to the faith and make disciples for His name’s sake among all the nations,
6 And this includes you, called of Jesus Christ and invited [as you are] to belong to Him.
7 To [you then] all God’s beloved ones in Rome, called to be saints and designated for a consecrated life: Grace and spiritual blessing and peace be yours from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because [the report of] your faith is made known to all the world and is [b]commended everywhere.
9 For God is my witness, Whom I serve with my [whole] spirit [rendering priestly and spiritual service] in [preaching] the Gospel and [telling] the good news of His Son, how incessantly I always mention you when at my prayers.
10 I keep pleading that somehow by God’s will I may now at last prosper and come to you.
11 For I am yearning to see you, that I may impart and share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen and establish you;
12 That is, that we may be mutually strengthened and encouraged and comforted by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.
13 I want you to know, brethren, that many times I have planned and intended to come to you, though thus far I have been hindered and prevented, in order that I might have some fruit (some result of my labors) among you, as I have among the rest of the Gentiles.
14 Both to Greeks and to barbarians (to the cultured and to the uncultured), both to the wise and the foolish, I have an obligation to discharge and a duty to perform and a debt to pay.
15 So, for my part, I am willing and eagerly ready to preach the Gospel to you also who are in Rome.
16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel (good news) of Christ, for it is God’s power working unto salvation [for deliverance from eternal death] to everyone who believes with a personal trust and a confident surrender and firm reliance, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,
17 For in the Gospel a righteousness which God ascribes is revealed, both springing from faith and leading to faith [disclosed through the way of faith that arouses to more faith]. As it is written, The man who through faith is just and upright shall live and shall live by faith.
18 For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.
19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],
21 Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
23 And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],
25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it).
26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another—men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [d]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
28 And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome,
29 Until they were filled (permeated and saturated) with every kind of unrighteousness, iniquity, grasping and covetous greed, and malice. [They were] full of envy and jealousy, murder, strife, deceit and treachery, ill will and cruel ways. [They were] secret backbiters and gossipers,
30 Slanderers, hateful to and hating God, full of insolence, arrogance, [and] boasting; inventors of new forms of evil, disobedient and undutiful to parents.
31 [They were] without understanding, conscienceless and faithless, heartless and loveless [and] merciless.
32 Though they are fully aware of God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them.”-Romans 1:1-32-Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
IOW?
whether you call it ”hypergamy”, adultery or just sin in general, the following tells you what you need to know:
3:1 Then what advantage remains to the Jew? [How is he favored?] Or what is the value or benefit of circumcision?
2 Much in every way. To begin with, to the Jews were entrusted the oracles (the brief communications, the intentions, the utterances) of God.
3 What if some did not believe and were without faith? Does their lack of faith and their faithlessness nullify and make ineffective and void the faithfulness of God and His fidelity [to His Word]?
4 By no means! Let God be found true though every human being is false and a liar, as it is written, That You may be justified and shown to be upright in what You say, and prevail when You are judged [by sinful men].
5 But if our unrighteousness thus establishes and exhibits the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust and wrong to inflict His wrath upon us [Jews]? I speak in a [purely] human way.
6 By no means! Otherwise, how could God judge the world?
7 But [you say] if through my falsehood God’s integrity is magnified and advertised and abounds to His glory, why am I still being judged as a sinner?
8 And why should we not do evil that good may come?—as some slanderously charge us with teaching. Such [false teaching] is justly condemned by them.
9 Well then, are we [Jews] superior and better off than they? No, not at all. We have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks (Gentiles), are under sin [held down by and subject to its power and control].
10 As it is written, None is righteous, just and truthful and upright and conscientious, no, not one.
11 No one understands [no one intelligently discerns or comprehends]; no one seeks out God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have gone wrong and have become unprofitable and worthless; no one does right, not even one!
13 Their throat is a yawning grave; they use their tongues to deceive (to mislead and to deal treacherously). The venom of asps is beneath their lips.
14 Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
15 Their feet are swift to shed blood.
16 Destruction [as it dashes them to pieces] and misery mark their ways.
17 And they have no experience of the way of peace [they know nothing about peace, for a peaceful way they do not even recognize].
18 There is no [reverential] fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that [the murmurs and excuses of] every mouth may be hushed and all the world may be held accountable to God.
20 For no person will be justified (made righteous, acquitted, and judged acceptable) in His sight by observing the works prescribed by the Law. For [the real function of] the Law is to make men recognize and be conscious of sin [[a]not mere perception, but an acquaintance with sin which works toward repentance, faith, and holy character].
21 But now the righteousness of God has been revealed independently and altogether apart from the Law, although actually it is attested by the Law and the Prophets,
22 Namely, the righteousness of God which comes by believing with personal trust and confident reliance on Jesus Christ (the Messiah). [And it is meant] for all who believe. For there is no distinction,
23 Since all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory [b]which God bestows and receives.
24 [All] are justified and made upright and in right standing with God, freely and gratuitously by His grace (His unmerited favor and mercy), through the redemption which is [provided] in Christ Jesus,
25 Whom God put forward [[c]before the eyes of all] as a mercy seat and propitiation by His blood [the cleansing and life-giving sacrifice of atonement and reconciliation, to be received] through faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over and ignored former sins without punishment.
26 It was to demonstrate and prove at the present time ([d]in the now season) that He Himself is righteous and that He justifies and accepts as righteous him who has [true] faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of [our] pride and [our] boasting? It is excluded (banished, ruled out entirely). On what principle? [On the principle] of doing good deeds? No, but on the principle of faith.
28 For we hold that a man is justified and made upright by faith independent of and distinctly apart from good deeds (works of the Law). [The observance of the Law has nothing to do with justification.]
29 Or is God merely [the God] of Jews? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30 Since it is one and the same God Who will justify the circumcised by faith [[e]which germinated from Abraham] and the uncircumcised through their [newly acquired] faith. [For it is the same trusting faith in both cases, a firmly relying faith in Jesus Christ].
31 Do we then by [this] faith make the Law of no effect, overthrow it or make it a dead letter? Certainly not! On the contrary, we confirm and establish and uphold the Law.-
Romans 3:1-31-Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
23 Since all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory [b]which God bestows and receives.
i was just reminded of all that recently out on the interstate, when in heavy traffic, i was trying to get in another lane when a truck was barreling down that lane, afterward, i got behind the truck and the guy had to be the ”BIG ”MAN””(mainly cuz he had a woman with him to try to mate like Bonobos with i guess and give the middle finger in the rear truck window), from the time i was barely walking as a toddler with my extended so-called ”” family” testing me to see how far they could push me”, things like this make me angry, NOT because of the incident, but the trying/attempt to incite me to anger and violence as i have always preferred to sit outside like with my pack of four or so semi-farm dogs as a child and just pass the day away enjoying the sunlight, wind, fields of grass and NOT the world of anger and violence (or the depraved sexuality)of fallen humanity.