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.
“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, Moore, 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, Moore 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, Moore 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 Hegelian dialectic, as I’ve written about that in “Gnosticism, The Trinity, and the Dialectical Method.” Maybe I’m not a complete idiot.