This is part of a series. See the index here.
You are probably familiar with the bell curve. What you may be less familiar with is the concept that males tend to have greater variability than females (i.e. they have different bell curves):
This is why, for example, men are disproportionately represented at the extremes of high and low intelligence. Most geniuses are male, while most people with severely low intelligence are also male. This also contributes to why, for example, most of the homeless, mentally ill, and criminal are male. Females tend to be more average and less exceptional.
In short, males are both better and worse than females at almost everything, whether physical, cognitive, emotional, or spiritual.
We know that humans naturally assortatively pair. But when men have greater variability, this causes a problem:
Men at either extreme are not particularly appealing to women because they are not assortatively paired. When those men—shown in red—are selected, the result is much more likely to be an instance of heterogamy (i.e. hypogamy or hypergamy).
This results in a larger pool of females that are naturally paired with a smaller pool of males. There are not enough assortative pairings in the marketplace to meet demand.
Given the modern environment of widespread promiscuity, this explains why more females lose their virginity than males: there are more assortative sexual pairings available to women than there are to men. I’ve seen statistics that suggest that 50% of males are losing their virginity in high school. When combined with promiscuity, this is more than enough to account for the much large percentage of excess females—shown in green—that lose their virginity early.
This is essentially what this shows:
All this takes place in the frame of homogamy, or assortative mating.
Average men will have low difficulty pairing with average women. The problem is what to do with the leftover women. If they wish to pair up, they will have to move up or down. In practice, the disparity is worse at the lower end where something like, say, lower intelligence, has a much stronger impact on relationship quality. This explains why a woman hypothetically marrying down (female hypogamy) is so much worse than a woman marrying up (female hypergamy) in terms of divorce risk. I represented this by having two red males at the lower end but only a single red male at the top end.
Let’s emphasize this. Heterogamy is due to a mismatch in market dynamics.
On one hand, for average men, there are too many women for too few men. No matter how good each man thinks he is, once most women have assortatively paired, the rest of the available pairings are suboptimal. Some measure of homogamy and hypergamy is mandatory unless Women Go Their Own Way.
On the other hand, for intelligent or unintelligent men, there are too few naturally paired women for too many men. This is why, for example, the Manosphere is full of men with above-average intelligence (> 115 IQ) who are having trouble finding quality mates. In many cases, the only realistic option is for them to pair up with an average women, which is—by definition—female hypergamy. The alternative is involuntary celibacy.
“Hypergamy” is the necessary consequence of above-average men wanting relationships (with average women).
The Manosphere doesn’t recognize this for two reasons:
First, the Manosphere believes that homogamy (or, assortative mating) is the ultimate end point of human relationships, while hypergamy (its opposite) occurs prior to eventual “settling” homogamy. This “hypergamy” is entirely blamed on women across the spectrum. It fails to consider that the some of the early “hypergamous” relationships are, in fact, homogamous, while the later “homogamous” marriages are actually hypergamous. In other words, it fails to consider that some women are failing to assortatively pair and so settle on a bad, non-assortative match.
Second, the Manosphere is overly concerned with physical attractiveness. It believes that the only properly assortative pair is one that is strictly looksmatched (but fails to define what this might be). Thus, when the Manosphere sees a highly attractive, average intelligence woman marry an average attractive, above-average intelligence man, it calls this “settling.” Due to its obsession with attractiveness, it would never call this mismatch hypergamous, even though she married a less attractive man with higher intelligence. To wit:
Both of these lead to anecdotal cherry-picking and circular reasoning.
There is a meme that women are saying “where did all the good men go?” and the men are saying “where are all the good women?” This result is to be expected by mismatched bell curves. Average women and exceptional men just don’t pair up well. Those who fail to marry young—when assortatative matches are plentiful—are much less likely to win this one.
NOTE: the Manosphere view is often blankslatist. It presumes that those good women are just holding out on the good men (“if only they had better character”), not that they are inherently incompatible.
One or two women I know in “ministries”, especially music or “worship leaders”, are married to men they identify as nonbelievers.
Of course, when I look around churches, I fully understand why women don’t want these men. Most of these men are hopelessly unattractive. I don’t even know what else to say about them.
…is indicative of a hard truth. Women choose men who are good at being men over good men ALL. THE. TIME.
Ideally, a Christian man is both the immovable standard holder (good at being a man) and holds standards for the benefit of others and himself (being a good man) rather than merely for his own personal gain (Chads of the world). Good men who are good at being men get locked down quickly. As long as they don’t fall for the HWHL bs and hold standards, they tend to have successful marriages.
“If only…”
“Ideally…”
“Everyone has to just…”
No matter how much a man goes to the gym or takes a hike into the mountains, it won’t matter. No matter how much he becomes a good man who is good at being a man, it won’t matter. He still won’t be chosen because it is a bad match. An exceptional man can never become average.
I dont see “average” men swimming with options concerning women Derek.
Maybe twenty-five to thirty years ago. Average guy could date more, or “spin plates” as the ‘sphere calls it…but there was a change somewhere as the new century came about. Many average men were being lumped in with their lower intellect and physically unattractive male counterparts.
The whole PUA and Game thing. Dating coaches. Books. Podcasts. Leaders of Men arouse out of this. It became a problem when more and more men where now deemed “losers” by women.
Could this be hypergamy? I am sure it could be thrown into that large barrel that term seems to now cover.
What I saw as my twenties ended……a small group of men that seemed to be getting smaller by the year seemed to have plenty of option dating / mating (like they always have had) while a larger base of men at the bottom of the pyramid seemed to be getting bigger.
Cultural factors? Was it because sex was so easy to get without consequences….women decided that if I am going to give it up to a man, might as well be someone I find physically attractive? Was it a cultural shift in general of men being left behind in the classroom, the workplace, higher education that probably started in the 1980’s? I am sure that plays a factor. But its not the “sole” reason.
My opinion. My thought. Not the *only* reason but this plays a part. When the infrastructure is basically built. Stability in the culture or nation is pretty much a given at some point. Hardships like a war….where people actually die en mass, not these border skirmishes we have been involved with post Vietnam in 1975. A large swath of the population…..rich or poor……handsome or not…..urban or rural has a prolonged period of said stability and doesnt have to worry about many other things. This s the result.
We have always had shallow people. The American in 1955 wasnt smarter per say in everything….people still had children out of wedlock. Jails had criminals in them.
A large cultural change (WW II / Great Depression) was still in the recent cultural memory. There was still a personal accountability of sorts. You just couldn’t “sue” McDonalds because the coffee you spilled on yourself burned you. Social Welfare and related programs were not entities fof their own and not full “entitlements” yet. At your job, you didnt spend all day talking to the HR Office about what you thought was unfair in your position……
When a culture has too much free time, too much of a stability of sorts and a growing economy……..wouldnt be obvious stuff like this happens?
Look at China right now. A nation that was third world still in the 1970’s today has a “leftover” woman problem, a falling birth rate and the hardships from the 1950’s thru the 1970’s are a faded memory now.
What do you think about this? Am I way off by your accounts?
Derek,
Your posts are much better lately since your hiatus, more data and less deflection. It is worth responding to.
Although your stated intention is to downplay the concept of hypergamy, overall, this post explains the prevalence of hypergamy more than homogamy.
It is erroneous to speak of the Manosphere as a monolithic authority. It is just an association of men hashing out issues that society doesn’t want to face. The distinction is that the Manosphere has the gall to say what society is loath to say. Likewise, The Red Pill is a collection of models and theories about human nature. Blankslatism is just one type of model offered. Not everyone in the Manosphere agrees with it or how it might be applied. My reading of the Manosphere / Red Pill suggests that blankslatism is less accepted than what you’ve implied. Blankslatism is a rather liberal viewpoint of human nature.
Who is The Manosphere? Much of what you attribute to the Manosphere is just what the Manosphere has observed about women and society, e.g. the emphasis on physical attractiveness. Why not address the ideas themselves instead of the ideas you presume are held by the mysterious Manosphere entity? Your bias is showing, which is not good for your argument.
Not sure where you came up with this idea about assortative mating. I don’t think it’s from the Manosphere.
I agree that there are many different types of mating combinations occurring in the SMP, but some are much more prevalent than others, especially with respect to the participants’ ages. Here, you have reinterpreted the hypergamy glut as a shortage of supply vs high demand explanation for women’s behavior. I’d agree this is true, but the observation of hypergamous behavior remains. Your reasoning omits the other main reason why some (or most) women fail to pair assortatively; it is because they hope to pair hypergamously but cannot for the reasons you covered above, and they ruin themselves in trying. This idea is from the Manosphere / Red Pill, although you said the Manosphere denies it. Why?!?
By writing about these topics, you make yourself part of the Manosphere, whether you like it or not. Why not simply express your own ideas, instead of dishonestly trying to falsify the mysterious monolithic Manosphere / Red Pill entity of which you are a part?
I dont know Jack. When people have questioned your metrics, or ideas….you get defense very quickly and point out the person is “cucked” or “blinded by blue pill thinking” and “puts women on a pedestal” and thats a very “manosphere” tactic used in just about all areas…not just the christian ones. “dont agree with me? ” and you are labeled, given a graph, a study, a chart, a shut down with a one liner and the usual peanut gallery of commenters jumps in to defend and bully the person who spoke up.
Jack,
Considering the alternative, it is better this way. Not optimal, no, but the best choice nonetheless given the constraints I’m operating under. The basis for my arguments has been intentionally obfuscated both by myself and, more importantly, by others. I tried to do it a different, more open way, but this failed utterly.
That said, most of your contextual confusion is answered by simply reading the series in full from the beginning, especially the earlier posts and comments. I’d also suggest reading the commentary on the other forums where my series has been discussed.
It is hard to follow along when the peanut gallery is invisible!
If you need a more detailed explanation, my email is open for a private discussion.
Assortative mating (and assortative pairing) are near synonyms for homogamy and near opposites of hypergamy. All of these terms are used outside the Manosphere (including in research). As they are supported by the data, which have not been refuted, I use them as if they are true depictions of reality.
The Manosphere has borrowed terminology that it did not invent. It uses the terms in ways that are not consistent, and often in an extremely overgeneralized way. I discussed this in part 6 and part 7.
There is no consistent definition of hypergamy in the sphere. Different people are sure that they know what it is. I’ve more-or-less decided not to sort it out, but instead to just refute the whole concept in every form it takes. Much easier that way, but it also means that my arguments don’t apply to each variation of hypergamy equally, as cameron has inadvertently noted by noting the many different alternatives raised.
If I had a “Manosphere Hypergamy Manifesto” to work with, things would be much more focused. By all means, please try to write one!
I don’t think so. Hypergamy is one of those words that is defined to fit the situation in which it is used definitively (i.e. circularly defined).
You may be describing certain behaviors, but it isn’t hypergamy by any well-defined objective measure. Perhaps its the highly ill-defined “sexual attraction” (which can mean almost anything and nothing).
Observation of behavior remains, but it isn’t hypergamy. That’s just the MacGuffin.
If you disagree, I encourage you to try to define it in a logically consistent way. Be specific. For example,
What do “more attractive” and “better” mean? Try to define them in a non-circular way without respect to hypergamy. Explain, concretely, how women objectively and consistently compare female attractiveness with male attractiveness. If you can get even a single other person to agree with you, even better!
Explain why women can’t get commitment early on if they (supposedly) want it and men are (supposedly) not picky about who they mate with. Try to explain it against the data.
What is an unattractive man? Be specific. Explain, precisely, why all women don’t actually go after the same men, but tend to avoid clustered mating with the same men (elite or non-elite).
How can wives be blowing up marriages through infidelity when men are the ones most often guilty of it? Without using circular reasoning, explain why it doesn’t count when men do it, but it always counts when women do it. Explain how the top two or three causes of divorce (e.g. substance abuse; male infidelity) have nothing to do with female hypergamy.
How can women be hypergamous if, long before they settle down, virtually all of them have lost their virginity to a majority of men.
Peace,
DR
I had no intention of commenting on this post, Derek.
Apparently, however, decisions non-Christian me and my non-Christian husband made in the mid-90s when there was little Internet, fewer cell phones, and no social media are highly instructive. So much so that your research can be disregarded and debunked.
I apologize for the distractions of my old self who was far too chatty back when I was so naive about the Christian corners of the Internet.
You’re free to common or not, as you see fit. And, disregard away! But, I don’t know what you are talking about. Male variability?
The ‘sphere men used her self-described (regrettably now I assume) mid-90s experiences as what they believed to be a demonstration of hypergamy and hold that as higher proof than the Jefferson City High School “dot-data” study. She is objecting by saying that she wasn’t a Christian then. The religion of her husband at the time (IMO) isn’t relevant because the men are describing HER reactions, decision making process, etc.) not her husband’s.
I wasn’t around for those early manosphere discussions but it seemed to me the women’s (E., Liz, E’s friend) descriptions of their CURRENT marriages sounded rather like they jelled with some of the ‘sphere’s ideas. However I’m not going to mention the things I noticed they said.
If I may, who is “E.”?
“E” is our venerable (former) manosphere commenter Elspeth above. We sometimes refer to her as “E.” I believe you are the young lady who comments under “E.”
Aah okay! Lots of similar names here it seems.
Interesting.
” descriptions of their CURRENT marriages sounded rather like they jelled with some of the ‘sphere’s ideas”
– Yes, when cherry picking.
I did marry a student who was an aerospace engineer (before he found out he could fly in the USAF, his plan was going to major in artificial intelligence and go to some PhD program). His girlfriend treated him like crap (the only girlfriend he had before me). I appreciated him. In the sphere’s estimation that means he is a chad. OR I’m a blue pill liar and we have a blue pill “boomer” marriage.
By contrast, Scott the “meet cutes are everything bro” really had it all figured out. He was a giga-chad right? Why the failures? (that last question is rhetorical)
Liz is right. Internet info is always partial info. While I will concede that my particular marital beginnings are mostly accurately described, there are other things missing as well. Like the fact that my husband came from a long line of intact marriages, a maternal family where all his aunts and uncles had been married for a long time. A family of high achievers (doctors, lawyers, folks with graduate degrees, etc). And this was PRE- affirmative action.
In other words, despite the mistakes he made (apparently he’s the only man in the world who has ever made a mistake!), planted inside of him was a legacy of and an appreciation of family.
I am never NOT astonished at the assertion among ostensible Christians that a person’s life BC and AC are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Of course it is! I read some of that stuff and think: “Tell me you haven’t really read the Bible without telling me you don’t read the Bible. Or worse, don’t care what it says when it rubs up against your personal feelings”.
——————————————————————
Oh, one more thing. There are no approved answers for Scott’s failures except maybe that it was all the wives’ fault because it ALWAYS is.
There only derision is heaped on “Chads” who have been faithful husbands for over 30 years. Because their stories fit the narrative.
Exactly, Elspeth.
Yes you raised this objection before Liz. I don’t know if I cherry picked – I just noticed a few things you wrote. But you’re right when you say you can’t always get a complete picture from a few anecdotes. Reasonable objection.
However, it’s interesting that what I “cherry picked” was the exact same thing described by three different manosphere women and fit the narrative. I didn’t pick something that Liz wrote, pick something different that E wrote and pick something different that H wrote.
Very confusing. As far as I can tell, no one is attacking SAM. I suspect most of the men would say they’d probably act the same way in the same circumstances but just lacked the ability. I sure don’t think I was more virtuous at 18 than SAM. I may well have been less. It always seems to be interpreted as an attack on SAM (who from the description sounds like a virtuous man and sounded like a typical 18 year old attractive man not a three-sigma lecher). I might have acted just the same as SAM if I had been as attractive as SAM.
Since everybody here has developed a phobia about using each other’s names and handles, I assume I now have to defend myself against charges of being an ostensible Christian.
SAM’s redemption through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, through His infinite merits, is a vital part of SAM’s story. The sphere focus on SAM and E’s beginning seems to be directed to understanding how WOMEN tend to think, feel, behave around attractive men, how a woman can be raised by a devout father and still be enthralled with an “alpha” male. That isn’t denying Christ’s salvific work on the cross and its regenerative effect on that man OR that woman (E.).
So I don’t see how pointing all this out makes me an ostensible Christian and I don’t know what Bible verses I’ve missed. Since I’m very open to receiving spiritual advice and correction from a fellow Christian I’d appreciate an explanation unless it’s presumed that I’m not among the Calvinist elect and advice would be a waste of time.
If the comment is directed at deti’s words than forgive the presumption.
I’d be fine if the SAM-E. origin story was never mentioned again but I didn’t bring it up – I think you did E.
As far as Scott, there was never a consensus on the reason for his marriage failure. I don’t know why it is always assumed by our critics that we all agree on everything.
I was quite clear that I suspected that Scott’s first marriage ended because he wouldn’t give his wife a baby – in his defense, he told her he didn’t want kids from the beginning. This isn’t a “hypergamy” explanation and believe it or not, some of us don’t think every failed relationship fits the narrative of “man insufficiently alpha.”
In his case, if his side of the story is true, it WAS his wife’s fault because she had adulterous sex with a balding janitor. jScott’s wife made it very clear to him that she considered him “a good start” when they married i.e. he didn’t grow into the husband she wanted. He made it clear he didn’t cheat, abuse her, etc. I don’t anything else – do you all?
I see the sphere men say all the time that women leave “alpha” males all the time after the emotional cost (via “cheating”, abuse, etc.) becomes too high so I don’t think the sphere narrative is that it’s ALWAYS the woman’s fault. IMO most marriage failures have fault on both sides because of the effects of original sin, or the remaining concupiscence when we don’t fully cooperate with grace.
Actually Cam, I wasn’t referring to you as an ostensible Christian because you’ve never posited objectively anti-Christian perspectives as a necessary evil in order to live as a man in the world.
Someone I will not name went into a deep dive about it somewhere else in response to this post. It’s his go-to story for why all of his assumptions about women are correct, as if I am representative of every woman who ever lived, lol. The “he had impregnated another woman” bit is always offered without the caveat of high school girlfriend. That actually matters and it is a stipulation to be distinguished from someone like a Nick Cannon.
It bothers me because I have never, no matter how many times my name is dragged out, returned the favor. Just like he remembers MY story, I remember stories (including his!), but it just seems wrong and crass to air the sordid past of every person I’ve encountered in the sphere just to make my point.
It’s extra annoying because I am not unsympathetic to the argument that women adjust their expectations as they get older in order to marry. I’ve joked about the 20-year-old wanting a man who is 6’2″, then realizing at 25 that she can still wear heels with the 5’11” guy, before ultimately deciding wearing heels isn’t that important when she meets her 5’9″ husband. It is a real phenomena.
I apologize Cam, if I seemed to target you.
As for intelligence, I was wondering how a guy like my husband, who has always been a whiz at fixing things even from a young age (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, technical) despite hating school, fits into that conversation. He’s an excellent carpenter also. The reactionary sphere squeezes intelligence into the box of SAT/IQ scores. I suspect it’s because most millennial men (as I’ve observed) have few practical skills.
I don’t anything else – do you all?
Yes, Cam, but I will not say anything more than what I’ve already said, because I would like to extend the kind of courtesy to other people that is rarely extended to me.
What I said was clear enough. There were no grammatical errors in my comment.
No problem Elspeth. If other sites refers to wordpress sites, I cannot comment at them because my account stopped working and I don’t have the patience to bother to fix it or get a new one. This site doesn’t seem to require one.
As far as Scott I always assume there is mutual fault in a divorce but since I didn’t talk to his first wife all I have to go on is what he said which was pretty detailed.
I do not consider their marriage to have been valid because he was not open to children. In my understanding she was not his wife anyway but many in the sphere would say that Scott has a bunch of wives – one for every woman he slept with.
Elspeth,
I more-or-less stopped visiting there in March after I finished the research for my INTJ post. Looking at my browser history, I have since visited briefly only three times. Once to read a comment on May 19 and before that on April 30 and April 17 to look at two old comments from 2023 and 2014 (respectively).
I’m not unsympathetic to that argument either, but I wouldn’t call it hypergamy. A 20-year old woman has more value than a 25-year old woman. So too a 25-year old woman has more value than a 30 year old woman who “hits the wall” and “settles.” At each step the kind of man she can homogamously assortatively pair with at any given time changes. The 20-year-old bombshell can command a better product. But, aging—a very real phenomena—not hypergamy, explains the changes.
The point is, that the 20-year old didn’t “hypergamy”, nor did the 25-year old, nor did the 30-year old. At each age, the hypothetical woman gets precisely who she should be expected to get. With decaying value come fewer options.
Is that what hypergamy is supposed to be? Getting older and having regrets about opportunity costs? Is hypergamy a 30-year old woman thinking that she is the same value as her 20-year old self?
That’s not how Devlin defined it. Others define it, not as a matter of biology, but as a matter of morality and character.
Peace,
DR
“There were no grammatical errors in my comment.’
My use of the plural form was also grammatically correct.
(more than one, Cameron)
Liz, you had words with him – I remember. I really hope you didn’t derive any satisfaction in revealing that (plural) information to me, reinforcing what E. already said to make sure I understood. And it wasn’t a reveal since I already knew.
I still don’t remember derision being heaped on SAM. Actually, I’m the only one I remember who insulted SAM and I immediately apologized and walked my comment back as it was a poor choice of words for the idea I was trying to convey. I’ve actually probably judged SAM more than any of the other guys did – in your comments to me E. you tended to place the blame on the other women, the whole “they’re the gatekeepers, they’re the responsible party” bit. The other men’s judgement was much more focused on YOU, Els. although honestly it was more of an amoral “this is just how women react” judgment. I actually tended to pedestalize you Els. and judged SAM. So, honestly, most “SIMP-Y” of the men is actually the one who judged your husband the harshest, FWIW. Now I’ve walked that back to (in the comment in this thread).
As far as Mike being called a Chad and Cad, I think the commenters often use sloppy language. Chad or Cad can just mean “an attractive man” rather than referring to over-the-top promiscuity and n-count.
It’s really satisfying that the meetcutes, IOI bro got his comeuppance and turnabout is fair play. That whole thing makes me want to cry.
“I really hope you didn’t derive any satisfaction in revealing that (plural) information to me”
Most definitely not.
Cameron,
Every @Ssh0l3 (not referring to you) hides behind the skirt of “keeping it real” to excuse their ravings, and every post of Derek’s that even parks alongside sphere topics brings out those folks in one way or another.
Yes. I get highly offended on my husband’s behalf when his pre-marital life is trotted out as some kind of “Exhibit A” of manosphere lore. That’s partly because I hate that I too carelessly shared a part of our life that we are both sorely repentant over, and partly because HE is not proud of what he used to do. There’s no lessons to be learned in dragging it out for titillation. he shares his story as he sees fit, when it will bear fruit.
I don’t feel bad on my behalf. I know from whence I came and I know how far I’ve come. I feel pissed and defensive on SAM’s behalf. That’s what love does.
The worst part about this whole thing is that I began commenting here because Derek broaches really interesting topics that have ramifications beyond red pill reactionary issues. I enjoy philosophy, logic, theology, and their intersection. Additionally, reconnecting with you and Liz here made it easier to engage in some of the conversation.
But alas…some folks can not stand to see others with nice things.
Respectfully, these posts (by a former sphere participant) are about whether the ‘sphere is, at its core, entirely wrong and false so they don’t just park alongside it.
I will try to respect you better by not even tangentially engaging.
He is blessed to have a wife who loves him that much. Not many men have that to that degree.
I hope you are talking about someone other than me (or else engaging in hyperbole).
Also, I wanted to make something clear about Scott. He didn’t say as far as I remember that he was a “giga-chad.” Actually, he was convinced that his first wife did what she did because he became a lazy, out of shape couch potato. Do you wonder why he always did that workout like a demon thing? He said that if he was ever disabled he’d be toast.
Talking to me?
Sorry my comment wasn’t clear.
First sentence: I was objecting to E’s thought that these hypergamy posts “park alongside” the sphere topics. The posts are about whether the sphere is utterly wrong or not so they’re very central to the sphere. So I understand why the men in the sphere are engaging.
Second sentence: I made a commitment to not engage with the stuff E. formerly shared in the sphere. No sense in beating that to death.
Third sentence: I said SAM is a blessed man since his wife loves him so much that she gets so indignant at others who she feels are impugning his character.
That was a very sloppy comment I wrote.
With respect to the bolded part, perhaps you have bought into the propaganda brought by [Redacted], because that’s the claim he made.
I am absolutely suggesting that hypergamy is a myth (but I’ve been willing to concede the possibility that it has some small real effect). Logically, this means that any Manosphere claims that presume hypergamy to be true must be utterly wrong. It’s not possible for hypergamy to be both true and false at the same time. So, on this central topic, I am indeed quite unambiguously taking a contrary stance.
But, here’s the thing. If I had meaningful engagement where people actually refuted my arguments (rather than asserting that I’m wrong and that they’re right), I wouldn’t be so hard-nosed about it. No one, besides you, has given me any reason at all to question my conclusions. So why shouldn’t I uttery reject hypergamy? It’s the most rational course of action. I will choose the theory that best fits the data every time. The best the alternative view has is personal anecdotes and personal testimonies.
But, in any case, I’m only talking about hypergamy. I’m not, for example, talking about solipsism, agency, patriarchy, chivalry, headship, frivolous divorce, feminism, abortion, or general dating and marital issues. At most, references to these are at the periphery of the central claims.
Of course I have, in the past, suggested that the Manosphere is quite often philosophically leftist as well, but I also believe that the political right and left are both philosophically leftist, so take that how you will. Similarly, a number (but not all) Manosphere ideas and behaviors are quite feminine. But, even so, these criticisms do not automatically discredit the Manosphere as a whole.
For example, pointing out specific examples of how Dalrock, Jack, [Redacted], and others have certain hypocritical ideas when it comes to patriarchy does not mean I’m refuting the very concept of patriarchy or rejecting the Manosphere. It is correction, not rejection.
Similarly, I’m probably more aggressively fundamentalist about human sexuality than the Christian Manosphere is in general, so there is no way that it is uttery wrong about that. I mean, I think all sex is marital sex and that all remarriage and divorce is wrong without exception.
So, if you think I’m trying to discredit the entire sphere, you are badly mistaken or have simply fallen prey to the PR (e.g. that I’m persecuting it).
But at the end of the day, the men in the sphere are not engaging. I was asked to leave so that they wouldn’t have to engage with me. There is some discussion going on behind the scenes, but I’m not a part of it. I post here and others (except Jack) choose not to engage with me. They could, if they wanted to.
At the start of my series I tried to engage and it went well for about a week. But, I was ultimately rebuffed by personal attacks, slanderous accusations, unsubstantiated claims, and whatever the opposite of “reasoning” is. I don’t consider one-way polemics to be engagement. It’s all reactionary, which is all that is possible when one side refuses good faith engagement.
I would happily set aside my reactionary polemics if the other side were actually willing to engage. But how many times do I have to be burnt before I stop trying?
“I don’t feel bad on my behalf. I know from whence I came and I know how far I’ve come. I feel pissed and defensive on SAM’s behalf. That’s what love does.”
I feel the same about Mike and our family, Elspeth.
I repeated that last bit again because I suspect it will be ignored.
The problem with the internet is that everyone draws conclusions based on partial information. No one reveals everything about themselves (for many reasons…first, it isn’t practical, nor is it necessarily wise, nor is it even possible for that matter).
You can make some pretty educated guesses based on how people come across online though. I’ll spare details on that, most of us are old enough to know some basic things, for example extremes of endless negativity for years and years would probably indicate something isn’t going well in a person’s life.
———————————————————————————
Joe Rogan had a meme up today where he says, “I’ve been drinking lots of water” and the response from the media is “Joe Rogan promotes ingesting liquid commonly used as engine coolant”
A similar style of “sober analysis” seems to happen with the online analysis of relationships in the sphere (from certain people, not you Cameron). “Ah hah! Gotacha! Look at this sentence…gonna save that”
At any rate, those are my thoughts for this AM.
I’d like to throw in some funny memes as a timeline cleanser, there were some funny ones at SS from Hoyt but I don’t know how to copy and paste images in this forum at any rate, hope you all have a great day….
as a side note, just went to a friend’s retirement who is a doctor and please get screened for colorectal and prostate cancer everyone, there is a lot of it going around, at fairly young ages too. There is a blood test available that screens for 85 percent of cancers, I will ask and post the name of it when I find out).
I hope that my readers were wise enough not to get the mRNA shot. It’s one of Charlton’s Litmus Tests for spiritual awareness. From Ethical Skeptic here:
(click to view the larger image)
Chart 3 – Excess Non-Covid Natural Cause Mortality (USA) – stands at 10.7% or 5,869 persons per week over the last three weeks on average. A total of 834,900 US Citizens have died primarily due to the major factor which has impacted this metric (primarily the mRNA vaccine). This is far more than the 381,995 persons who died from the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself during the pandemic (excludes deaths from denial of treatment).
(click to view the larger image)
Chart 6 – Excess Cancer Mortality (USA) – stands at 9.5% or 1,056 persons per week over the last three weeks on average. More alarmingly however, is the novel compound annualized growth rate (CAGR) of 3.8%, a significant departure from the old growth rate of 0.23%, normalized from the years 2014-2019 (dark orange line). This chart is expertly adjusted for reporting lag (procedure here), Pull-Forward Effect (345 week PFE method is depicted in Charts 3b and 6), and excess MCoD attributions (critical data mining method depicted in Chart 5 above). In other words it is showing the true cancer UCoD rate (shorted by pressure on physicians to not report cancers unless ‘proven’ by multiple tests). Despite all these shorts in the data collection, the raw (and misleading) UCoD data nonetheless shows a rise – which can be seen by clicking here.
(click to view the larger image)
Chart 7 – Excess PPI-Neoplasms Treatment Expenditures (USA) – US Citizens have non-linearly increased their real-dollar expenditures for all forms of cancer treatment since 14 months post the Week 14 2021 vaccine uptake inflection week. This lag was corroborated by the same lag effect which showed for cancer in the VAERS reports regarding reported adverse event tumor appearances (6 months to a year).
(click to view the larger image)
Chart 7b – American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures by Year (with Cancer estimates) – clearly shows a 12.7% excess cancer diagnosis rate, along with a novel 2.7% compounded annualized growth rate. The 2.5-sigma jump in cases immediately following the vaccine rollout is significant. The word ‘estimate’ here is analytical in context, in that these are not projections, forecasts, nor guesses. They are done objectively and based upon observations in actual inflection and trend.
Note that Charts 7 and 7b agree in both magnitude and arrival form. The rise in cancer due to the vaccine is unequivocal.
That was some sobering information on the mRNA shot, Derek.
Moderna’s stock price is now about where it started before the covid mandated madness (from a high of around 430, now back to 25 or so).
People are now avoiding the jabs and the CDC has responded by changing their recommendations. They now not only recommend jabs for everyone 6 months and over, but people 65 and over need 3 jabs a year.
I’m not kidding, last time I filled a prescription over the phone I had to listen to this recommendation before I could order my medicine: “If you are 65 or over and haven’t had your covid vaccine in 4 months or more, please schedule your appointment for another”.
Madness.
As far as our friends who are dropping like flies with cancer though, I suspect it has more to do with burn pits and radiation. Out of Mike’s Weapons’ school class of 16 (IIRC), four have been diagnosed with cancer and one has died of it.
(as a side note, yesterday I had lunch with a friend whose son committed suicide almost a year ago today. That’s the other epidemic, young men in deep despair…several of our friends at the retirement are going through this with their sons at the moment. This is a bigger problem than cancer, IMO)
As earth’s magnetic field weakens, more solar radiation is reaching the surface each year. Even without the cancer shot, I’d still expect cancer rates to slowly trend upwards on year-to-year basis, especially at higher latitudes and elevations. This is a bad time to become a pilot.
I didn’t quote it, but the mRNA shot is also causing an increase in deaths related to cardiac issues.
On a more personal note, we are now aware of four local fathers with school-aged children who have died suddenly, leaving a widow and kids behind. It is alarming.
Of course I can’t find out if the deceased had the mRNA shot (asking such a thing would be horrifying), but we do live in an area that masked aggressively during 2020 and 2021.
I’ve never really ever had to set my foot down on anything in my home. The mRNA was the one thing I said “No!” to and would not yield no matter what anyone said. To my shame, I didn’t say the same thing about the elderly, as I was mislead by the statistics. But I make that mistake no longer.
My mom was in a memory care unit during the lockdowns. It was essentially mandated for her to receive care there and we truly had no better options with the mental state she was in. Under almost any other circumstances I would have refused it for her. My military son did receive it, or he would have been discharged, forced to pay back his scholarship, and would have subsequently been unemployable (and possibly receive the equivalent punishment to having a felony conviction…dishonorable discharge).
Paying back the scholarship would have been okay but the rest would have been a heavy burden (especially since he has a wife).
I am hoping there won’t be longterm effects, for him or his wife (she did get an autoimmune condition after the jab, but Benadryl seems to control it).
Mike didn’t get the jab, though his job at first required it there was enough hubaloo over it they allowed accommodations for almost half of their employees.
In most things in life, the body can slowly recover from almost anything. It is just a speculative guess, but I suspect that the younger you are when you get the jab, the more likely you are to be able to come out of it without too much net harm. They key is not to compound the mistake by continuing to boost your cancer risk.
It’s more important than ever to not put yourself at the mercy of others. Even if I were not an Anabaptist, I would not recommend that anyone join the military or pin their livelihoods on any other major (non-military) institution.
I was always highly pro-vaccine. Then the government so clearly lied to us and tried to force us into something that was clearly harmful. Any possible goodwill I had for government public health bureaucracies has completely evaporated. It’s led me to go back and question each and every vaccine. Now none of them, even the non-mRNA shots, are automatic.
Per the military and institutions, I agree.
“I was always highly pro-vaccine”
I think a lot of us were. I kind of changed my mind when they mandated the anthrax jabs…it at least made me question (especially when the GAO demanded an oversight committee to study the problem of side effects grounding the airmen at high rates, and instead of creating that oversight committee they discontinued the jabs…that told me everything I needed to know about the safety of those jabs. The military loves its bureaucracy (aka “regulations”) but didn’t want to follow up on that one. Things the make you go hm.
The next fly in the ointment came with the flu vaccines, which were obviously ineffective (and also mandated for military…then medical staff in the civilian world). The level of vitriol I encountered even asking basic questions and citing data that countered the claims taught me a lot about indoctrination, confirmation bias, and all that.
(fwiw, side note: Cameron has mentioned his wife didn’t get his children vaccinated and she was ahead of her time and my personal heroine, though I’ve never met her)
I think rabies shots are important (if one is bitten by a bat) and tetanus shots.(I’ve seen this argued against on the internet so let me state here it is wise to get an antitoxin after a puncture wound…I’ve known cases were even something as simple as a prick on the thumb from a rose bush results in tetanus.
Tetanus endospores are ubiquitous and activated when conditions are right…a puncture wound would be that type of condition, since the bacteria is anaerobic and the bacteria starts to thrive and release a toxin. The tetanus antitoxin combats the toxin released)
Whatever loss of confidence in “experts” the public now has, those health “experts” have certainly had it coming.
I’m a very chatty Cathy today, it would seem.
hope you all have a good day.
Liz, that’s right, my wife didn’t get our kids vaccinated.
None of the 10 of us got the mRNA vax and none of us have every had COVID (or if we did we had no symptoms).
Never got the jab. But was going to get it. Then suddenly, the UK lifted the vaccnation record for the jab in early 2022. So I didnt get it.
My employer was indifferent to if people got it or not. They didnt seem to take a stance. They sent a questionnaire at the end of 2021 asking if I got it. I said “no” and asked “do you plan to get it?”
And I was going to at the time because of my upcoming UK trip.
In the fall of 2022, I had my annual physical. Doctor said asked after my bloodwork “when did you have Covid?” I said “I didn’t”
He said, you have all the antibodies.
All I could remember was in the fall of 2020. I had a splitting headache behind my eyes for a few days. It was worse than a hangover (and I had many of those). and I just felt sluggish. I attributed it to stress…and it went away after a few days. No fever. No chills. No shortness of breath. No sickness.
I think that was the “covid” I had. A very mild case
A lady friend of mine, who’s Catholic, talks about “formation” (more of a Catholic term) being critical to these manosphere discussions. I think this is the equivalent of what you’re saying.
While I agree (Christian) formation is essential, the men are trying to understand how women function. Since many self-described Christian women behave like their secular counterparts, it seems reasonable to try to understand how women naturally think, feel, act, react, their attraction, etc. even when we assume that we should be giving our daughters proper Christian formation, our sons should be “vetting” based on a girl’s devotion to Christ, etc.
It doesn’t seem to me to have anything to do with whether the men believe in forgiveness, redemption, people changing, etc.
Perhaps it is about deeds verses words. How do you know if a man or woman believes in forgiveness, redemption, and a changed life? “Vetting” would seem to be an attempt at looking to see if a person has the fruit of those things.
I know this is an ideas blog but are you going to have a summary post where you weave together your different hypotheses into a unified theory on what the manosphere is seeing but presumably misidentifying ? So far in your writings, you’ve proposed the following as alternatives to Dalrockian hypergamy:
– Adultery
– WGTOW
– larger male standard deviation
– others I may have missed?
I guess I’ll go ahead and restate my concerns about the Jefferson City High “dot-data.”
-The experiment was designed to study venereal disease not “hypergamy.”
-I’m not convinced that teenage girls would accurately and completely describe by name their sex partners particularly since they were told this data was being recorded and saved forever. Not sure teenage boys would be honest either. Also, it’s entirely possible that since it’s very young people, the “hypergamous” patterns develop later, college, in their 20s, etc.
– The data collection seemed unclear. For example, they instructed the participants to name “up to three” (incomplete data?) relationships which were “special relationships” but then they mentioned collecting data on non-romantic (e.g. no kissing) sexual encounters. The data collection seemed opaque and questionable to me.
– It’s one, Midwest high school circa 1995 so this fits the very definition of a “bubble” that you have suggested makes our own personal (manosphere) experiences suspect.
I was hoping that someone would point this out. If this is correct, then it strengthens the argument I made in the OP by implying that the ratio of female:male is greater than implied by the study and closer to what the other measured statistics show.
Presumably.
Also, I think you mentioned you might do a post on the manosphere’s claim that women are attracted to “bad boys.”
I’ve been told by women who are critical of the manosphere that women ARE attracted to bad boys with the caveat that “bad boy” doesn’t have to be a serial killer – it could include men who wear leather and drive motorcycles.
I’ve been told women used to warn there daughters about men like this. I assume if it weren’t a real thing no such warnings would be necessary.
I may do that. I believe, though, that bad boys really are bad boys and that the Manosphere is overvaluing them because it would otherwise refute hypergamy. Why would women choosing objectively worse men constitute “hypergamy.” It, IMO, removes all objective meaning from the word, making it completely subjective.
But these are just ideas that I am mulling around. I don’t have a post yet.
Until then, what does hyper masculinity have to do with hypergamy?
When the manosphere uses the term “hypergamy” they seem to be referring to men that women find high status in terms of romantic attraction – so if a BAMF (as deti calls it) is high status/attractive then it doesn’t matter if bad boys are “objectively worse” say in terms of statistical marital stability. Likewise, intelligence isn’t a “hypergamous” trait as the manosphere is using the term.
I’m perfectly ok with ditching the term that refers to 19th century subcontinental marriage patterns and replacing it with whatever terminology is useful.
I think it’s inevitable that some of this is going to be subjective. This isn’t a hard science.
Cameron,
Yes, I know. This restricted sense results in a concept that is not only poorly and vaguely defined, but has very limited explanatory value (if any).
And why not? Intelligence is an objective measure that is highly predictive of marital outcomes. It correlates strongly with assortative mating, which is itself a well established and measured phenomenon.
Why is it so important that “hypergamy” applies to all women, including the majority of women in assortatively-paired, non-hypergamous, first-time marriages who will never divorce their husbands?
If obviously non-hypergamous women count as “hypergamy,” then the concept—not merely the term—has no valid meaning. It is just as meaningless a term as climate change where hotter temperatures, colder temperatures, and unchanging temperatures all count as climate change, or where more snow, less snow, and the same amount of snow all count as climate change. Woman marries up, marries down, or marries laterally: it is all hypergamy!
Remember when someone said that I was lucky and my good luck just hasn’t run out yet? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. No matter what the outputs are, it’s all circularly defined as hypergamy.
Peace,
DR
Ok but the manosphere isn’t one commenter. It isn’t one blogger. I don’t imagine your wife is a ticking-hypergamous-timebomb. I would guess she’s a virtuous woman, raised right (Anabaptists and adjacent did about as good as you can do in late 20th century America) who made a good husband selection and is happy.
There is no manosphere canon-of-scripture. It’s a bunch of bloggers and their commenters (and now video content creators I guess). They took the initial ideas like the 80/20 dating data, speculation about evolutionary psychology, etc. and went with it. Some posited what’s effectively polygyny. We clearly don’t see polygyny in American legal marriage. Some posited polygyny in pre-legal-marriage dating. I do think this is real but I don’t think it’s at the 80/20 level. That level of polygynous skew would be so obvious as to be impossible to deny. Some (Jim of Jim’s blog) claim it’s 80/20 in terms of who deflowers the virgins. Some claim it’s specifically the alpha-experience that mis calibrates women’s attraction so that
1 alpha experience wrecks it.
I mostly stuck with the original idea. That the average man is much more romantically attracted to the average woman than she is to him and that in the 21st century romantic attraction matters for outcome whether it should or not. You don’t have to call that idea hypergamy – call it what you want.
I try not to map my ideas into EVERY marriage I see.
Cameron,
That’s why commenting with you is enjoyable and productive…
…you are able to do things like avoid black-and-white thinking.
I don’t allow such idle speculation to factor into my viewpoints, especially when the higher quality evidence tells a different tale.
How is this anything but circular reasoning? Is he alpha because he deflowered her or did he deflower her because his is alpha? If he has multiple partners, is he an alpha only for the firsts and a beta for the seconds? What about women who don’t have an identifiable alpha, but are supposed to be hypergamous anyway?
My argument is that if a woman has sex with any man—whether alpha, beta, or any other—and then sets him aside for another, she has miscalibrated her attraction. It’s called adultery and the miscalibration is the consequence of willful sin. Any N count of 1 is sufficent to wreck it. The statistics bear this out. There is no magical protection confered by having a high N-count of only lower-tier men.
I used to take this stuff seriously until I started asking questions. When I raised points like these, I don’t get detailed explainations about why it is rational and not a flat contradiction. I’ve mostly gotten insults and deflections saying that I’m a liar who just don’t get it. I’ve been told I was just lucky or living in a bubble.
What I don’t get are substantive responses, at least not addressed to me. Other than your legitimate, but rather mild, critiques of the data quality of various studies, there hasn’t been much of anything directly addressing what I’ve written. From my perspective, there hasn’t been any meaningful refutation of any of my major theses.
I get your point, but what do you want me to do about it? I get complaints whether I tailor my argument to a specific commenter or write about things in general.
Peace,
DR
I dont see “average” men swimming with options concerning women Derek.
… descriptions of their CURRENT marriages sounded rather like they jelled with some of the ‘sphere’s ideas.
I’ve been told by women who are critical of the manosphere that women ARE attracted to bad boys …
I don’t think Derek’s ideas stem from real observations of what is going on. I think Derek is a Manosphere troll and he is playing contrarian to the things many in the Manosphere say.
Derek doesn’t need to have one fixed alternative view, he is OK coming against the Manosphere from any angle that lets him take a shot at the Manosphere. He isn’t always really proposing a fully though out alternative, he is really just trying to steer people away from the Manosphere and what is being shared there. In a lot of ways Derek is acting as the devil’s advocate against the Manosphere and against God’s holy order of patriarchy.
As Jack pointed out, Derek likes to create a dopey Manosphere strawman and then beat the stuffing out of it. Derek is a master debater, but his goal is not to find truth, but seemingly to keep others from finding it. Like the devil, Derek doesn’t have to steer you to any particular belief, his goal is merely to deflect you away from the truth, off in any other direction.
Derek doesn’t like God’s holy order of patriarchy. That is plain to see, from his words, and from his own personal marital model. In that arena he acts as if he thinks he is wiser than God. And he especially seems to target those in the Manosphere who are advocating for societal repentance from Feminism and a return to God’s holy order of patriarchy (father-rule)
Derek also likes to libel patriarchy, time and again misrepresenting what patriarchy is (father rule) and making patriarchy out to seemingly be some horrible thing that nobody would want. In that regard Derek truly is working as the devil’s advocate. The first temptation recorded on this earth involved the Serpent tempting the first woman to disobey her husband and transgress God’s holy order. (1 Corinthians 11:3) Father –> Son –> husband –>wife.
I see the main thrust of Derek’s work here lately as just trying to discredit us men of the rising Manosphere who are calling for the return to all-wise God’s divinely ordained order of patriarchy. Feminism is yielding rotten fruit, and people are beginning to notice. Derek’s goal seems to be to turn people to any alternative other than returning to God’s Father-ruled order.
Pay close attention to what you’ve done here.
This begs the question (i.e. is circular reasoning) that patriarchy is God’s holy order.
This is an ad homimen, a personal attack that falsely presumes my motives.
First, your statement is factually incorrect. I do tell people to repent of feminism. You read my blog, so I must conclude that you are being intentionally dishonest.
Second, once again, you beg-the-question regarding “God’s holy order,” presuming to elevate your personal opinion and wisdom to the level of God.
I have, on various occasions, pointed out the logical inconsistency of your version of weak patriarchy that effectively spits on the patriarchy. I will do so again if you need me to. But I suspect you will be too stubborn to listen.
So let’s take score. You begged the question twice, you engaged in an ad hominem and made a factually incorrect inference about my motives, you dishonestly stated something that was factually incorrect, and you misrepresented my clearly expressed viewpoint. Now, you engage in another ad hominem rooted in this fallacious reasoning.
After all that, you want me to accept your private opinion about what the Bible means? Nice try. You’ve invalidated your own authority.
Do you know what this sums up to? Trolling. Why don’t you, for a change, try engaging with my points instead.
In the Garden, God created Adam a “helper” and the serpent tempted / lied to Eve “did God really say that?” and it wasn’t about disobeying Adam. It was about disobeying God.
God clearly stated that they were not to eat of that tree “you will surely die”
In the Garden there was no “wedding ceremony” and “honeymoon” nor vows exchanged. Nor wedding gifts. No rings. No spinning plates. No “test drives” . No treatise on Masculinity and Red Pill Lore.
Eve ate of the fruit that she and Adam were told not to eat, and of course….Adam “blamed” God for”that woman you gave me”
Sin was sin, and still is. The modern, present sphere is just like Adam, “blaming women” for every scraped knee, every splinter in the finger, and why “he sinned” as well. You see this in their replies to justifying premartial sex, to lying, to discipline, to every action on their fellow men.
But Lastmod, you are only saying what the bible actually says. You must go further by engaging in inductive inferences or else you are not a real Christian!
I know. I dont know Greek or Hebrew. I, like most Christians throughout history didnt take in depth classes on “church history” and I am not Bill Clinton where I can spend hours trying to redefine what a word means (remember his statements on the verb “is” during his hearings?).
Mind you, sin entered the word in the the third chapter of the first book of the Bible…….not in 983 AD when the faith got “cucked” or when Reagan (a “conservative” hero) made no-fault-divorce the norm in 1970.
What did the early believers believe? To taste, see, believe! Jesus never had a litmus test for a believers personal manhood. He wasnt a “warrior” like the Roman Legions. He wasn’t an armed Temple Guard. He didnt play tackle football, and didnt have a STEM degree.
Im just tired of sin is okay…sometimes….and never okay for some people.
Satan knows scripture better than the most devout and holy believer……and foked tongues have told us what manhood is, and must be while their own lives hardly modeled a christian walk.
In this faith they want, there is no hope for anyone. You were born perfect or deserved everything you got by genetics, intellect…and everything else. Very angry, hateful people. And they call me stuck in “blackpill loserdom”
As if
i think these Reddit commenters on this r/MensRights post have it 100% right, why women’s greed, known as hypergamy, happened so huge in modern times, e.g. the last 40 years or so.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1b2sst7/hard_evidence_of_hypergamy_women_find_80_of_men/
Btw women were not as opressed as feminism and gynocentrism tricked the world.
We had countless female rulers, female oricles, women in government, female workers, female criminals, and much more throughout history. And we still had women acting on hypergamy on their own will at the expenses of men. So no. Cry me a river.
How many(male or female) want to believe that, long ago, now, or anytime?
Also, Derek has said he believes Patriarchy = Headship can and does work in marriages; he just doesn’t think it’s clearly demanded in the NT, but Derek can speak for himself.
Pingback: Hypergamy Interlude - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: What About Intelligence? - Derek L. Ramsey
I’ll respond to deti and Sharkly, since I know they’re following, and then take my leave back into the shadows.
Firstly, my defense of my husband’s reputation has nothing to do with saving face nor covering anything up. My man has given his testimony of God’s mercy to him into a mic before hundreds of people, many if not most of them fully unaware of his history. He has shared it with couples in marriage sessions, and with men one on one. There is zero attempt at cover up. He would definitely characterize himself as chief of sinners.
However, there is a vast difference between sharing only the sordid, one dimensional, “let me use the little bit i know of this guy’s story to bolster my godless argument” and “let me share the depth of God’s loving kindness to me when I was a hellion deserving of nothing more than His wrath”.
There are thousands of illustrative examples on youtube, tiktok, and IG to draw from of women publicly sharing their L’s, and demonstrate whatever point you want to make about women’s foolish choices. Why not use those? There are a lot Christian women among them as well.
I would never, and have never, taken the stories of people I had cordial relationships with and dragged them out at regular intervals to say, “See? Look at him!” Because it’s wrong to do so. I am still naive enough, it seems, to expect folks who claim Christ to do unto others.
But you keep telling yourselves that the Bible justifies the denigration of fellow believers to make your point. And yes, I say denigration. Why? Just because something is true doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to spout off about it whenever and however you like.
I know you’ve been holy all your life, but for those who haven’t, yet received God’s mercy, I can only imagine what it would be like to have someone shout in a crowded room or church full of redeemed believers every 6 months, “Hey! See that guy over there. He used to be a drug addict 30 years ago.” Or, “That chick right there was a shoplifter who did time. She’s a cautionary tale!”
Say what you will, but I am certain that’s not how our stories are meant to be used. And that is exactly how they are being used. Just like you will not apologize for calling it as you see it, neither will I.
Yes, I’m flouncing now.
Elspeth,
Your comment is well-said. I have no qualms with your comment at all, except for one thing:
Your charity reflects well upon your intentions, but it is misplaced.
One of those commenters was excommunicated from this forum and the other one excommunicated me. Both commenters are welcome to comment here, but their views have the same weight as that of an atheist. They will be shown the same love that Christ shows to all his lost sheep. But, they will not receive the fellowship of believers. They are not to be spoken of as “fellow believers.”
With respect to the former commenter, the Matthew 18 protocol was followed and their removal from fellowship—to treat them as non-believers—is a matter of obedience to God as a result of the ongoing failure to repent of sin established by a testimony of witnesses.
With respect to the latter commenter, we honor their denial of fellowship. Christian fellowship cannot take place in disunity. Submission is mutual.
Until they repent, this will remain the case. We must not bear false witness against them by calling them “fellow believers,” not even to be nice. It is not kind to lie. The purpose of excommunication is to allow the denial of fellowship to coax someone back into fellowship through repentance (i.e. to heap coals on their head). Providing such fellowship defeats the purpose.
If you choose to ignore this request, I will not censor your right to do so, but I also will not support you in this.
And neither will I apologize. It matters not that we are—and will be—mocked for our obedience. We answer to God, not man.
Peace,
DR
My charitable description offers benefit of the doubt to the person’s profession of faith. It’s my default setting (“if you say you’re a Christian than I’ll take your word for it”). However, your assessment is fair. There is certainly enough overtly anti-Christian rhetoric , at least on one party’s part, that I can not disagree with you.
Thank you ever so much for your tolerance and kindness in the face of all of this nonsense. Because when I think about it, nonsense it all is. I’m almost embarrassed to have allowed myself to be sucked back into it.
Cleaning out my refrigerator; now that’s real stuff. LOL.
See my response to Cameron about that issue in particular.
I promise Derek, that this is my last word on this. The logic here is so twisted that my brain wouldn’t let me let it lie.
I’ll bite deti, because you are full. of. it. My story is the least relevant story you could ever tell; that’s if your interest is truly in explaining anything meaningful. I’ll tell you why:
As you have said literally hundreds, if not thousands of times over the years, my experience is so vanishingly rare as to be statistically insignificant. Almost no woman ends up like me, married to the hawt guy she encountered at 20 or 21. Almost NONE. You’ve said this countless times: “Elspeth has no idea how fortunate she is”. Trust me, I do. “Elspeth is an extreme outlier”. I acknowledge that, for a bunch of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
If this is all true, and the purpose of your continued, redundant commentary is to make men aware of what generally happens, then my marital origin story is the least instructive story you could tell. Extreme outliers offer no meaningful insight to the average woman or man.
You keep saying that what you are doing is making me feel bad. I don’t feel badly about my past. We’ve done our time in sackcloth and ashes, and unlike a lot of folks, we actually believe that we have been given new life in Him. It’s not about “making me feel bad”.
Tell me. What sane person would enjoy having their life story trotted out (just the sordid bits, mind you), rehashed, and held up as some sort of illustration of the evils of a particular group? And again, since there are countless other stories out there which are actually more relevant, such as the millions of women who get dumped by the hawt guy, what relevancy is the story of an outlier woman who married him, and his kept him happily married and faithful for decades? It makes no sense.
I’ll not return to the subject after this because I already know what follows: the twisting and turning of words and logic to show why an extreme outlier is actually very relevant even though your interest is to show men what’s generally true. That nonsense about the exception proving the rule. I can’t believe I used to actually think that trope held some validity!
In my Wikipedia days, I was an inclusivist. Digital formats are without practical limits. You can have your last word if and whenever you feel like it. I won’t hold you to any particular restrictions (in case you change your mind).
I have a few other thoughts unrelated to the substance of your comment. It is not a critique, just a sidebar.
Yeah, that’s a badly misunderstood and misused statement.
The phrase is generally—and mistakenly—interpreted to mean…
(1) …that all (or most) valid rules have exceptions, and that the existence of these exceptions somehow lends evidence to the rule itself.
(2) …that a rule is valid even though there are exceptions.
These do not logically follow. Since exceptions generally constitute evidence against the rule, these are fallacious attempts to treat evidence against the rule as evidence for the rule.
Thus, the phrase is most typically used to invert truth.
The real reason the exception “proves” the rule is simply because it is an exception and not the rule. Of course, by definition (i.e. tautologically), the exception cannot be the rule if it is an exception. On its own, this doesn’t tell us anything. But the existence of a confirmed exception presupposes that there is a law to which an exception applies. It wouldn’t be an exception otherwise.
An exception can “prove” the rule if and only if you can logically show that an exception is actually an exception. For example, if you say “I gave up X for lent” then this implies that you don’t give it up at other times of the year. It is, by definition, an exception.
But this “proof” is really just defining the limitations of the rule. Each exception that “proves” the rule further limits the applicability of the rule. Citing a bunch of outliers has the effect of reducing the applicability of the rule: boxing it in.
In any case, one must be very, very careful to avoid circular reasoning. But, as we all know, it is pretty exceptional for people who say that phrase to be very careful.
I guess I will lose your (online) friendship but I have to play deti’s advocate. The entire point of using your story isn’t because of the outcome being probable or improbable, but because it shows what women are attracted to and what they do when presented with a highly attractive male. In that sense, it’s seen as typical even if the outcome of millions of women being dumped is also typical vs. your outlier outcome.
The point is that a highly intelligent (gifted) young woman who’s very logical, had a very devout Christian father, etc. was highly attracted and chose as she did. That man, who had “the most beautiful countenance….etc.” and even now “cranks my engine 99% of the time” is what women want over neomaxidweebiegeek church guy and you have the neomaxidweebiegeek guys having to beg for the intimacy they were promised or worse being married incels for 3 years despite busting their asses in offices, in physical work that literally beats their bodies up (another hernia repair 3 weeks ago). etc.
And this woman with her story was one of only a couple of women who showed up on the sites and talked to the men saying this stuff so of course they’re going to see this story as illustrative of what women want and don’t want.
So again it’s not about the probable vs. the improbable in outcome. It’s about how women work. You have to understand how men work. We are “systemizing” (vs. female “empathizing”) and “things” oriented (vs. women’s “people” oriented). How things work matters a lot.
Now I can respect not hurting someone by rehashing details regrettably and it’s clear to me you are hurt on behalf of your man.
I guess the amiable in me wants to see everyone get along and also I can see deti’s frustration because it seems he is never understood.
Speaking as an observer, I find that unlikely.
For a second there I thought you said something else. Carry on.
I am very sensitive to personal rejection. Probably more so now under my current circumstances. It’s a weakness I’m working on – the solution being needing and wanting only Christ’s infinite, perfect love. Sometimes, it’s easier typed than done.
Cameron, I am certain Els won’t reject your friendship.
I am so sorry to hear you are going through something personal (whatever your current circumstances are). I think she is taking a break (and I will too), so I don’t know if she will read this.
At any rate, I think you are great and I hope things get better for you.
Cameron,
This place is the church. I may be very hard on commenters here from time to time, but you will not be rejected in any way unless you sin and we go through the Matthew 18 protocol together, privately and with witnesses, and fail to reconcile. To the limited extent that I am able, I will hold others here to that standard.
If I were a betting man, I would place the probability that Elspeth rejects you at 0.0001%.
Peace,
DR
thanks Liz, been sleeping in a corner of the basement since I came back in Sep 2023, after surgery three weeks ago I moved up to the small bedroom upstairs.
thanks Liz, been sleeping in a corner of the basement since I came back in Sep 2023, after surgery three weeks ago I moved up to the small bedroom upstairs.
i didn’t know it was that bad for you, brother.
i also see myself as an advocate for Deti , who admitted he was inarticulate discussing Elspeth & SAM.
i think he misses Elspeth and Liz and as well as other female commenters like Ame and Stephanie/the girl with the dragonfly tattoo, and doesn’t want to express it as such,which is understandable with others being so hypermasculine as if they were a PUA ”peecocking” or really AMOGing.
I don’t believe that anyone here can authoritatively declare deti to be a non-Christian.
Cameron,
Please pay close attention to the words I actually used. I did not declare Deti to be a non-Christian. Go back and read what I wrote. I did not edit it after you wrote the above.
It is not by our own authority, it is by the authority of Christ. It is a matter of obedience:
To do otherwise is to disobey Christ. If you do so on this forum, you will likely be suitably reprimanded for bearing false witness and disobedience to Christ. This place is a gathering of believers (i.e. the church) and so we will follow Christ’s instructions.
Jesus stated that you must treat your family member as if he is a foreigner, as if he is no longer your family. In Covenantal terms, this necessarily means he is not a member of the family of Body of Christ, as if he is an non-believer. He can’t be outside the body and also inside it simultaneously.
An excommunicated man isn’t a fellow believer, because he is explicitly being denied fellowship. The whole point of excommunication is that it is a denial of fellowship. Even Roman Catholic Canon Law establishes this, although you call it “denying full communion” even while still considering them to be a baptized Christian.
So call him a Christian if you want, to reflect his public confession of faith and his baptism, but do not call him a fellow believer. Such a man is not and cannot be in fellowship with us until he answers the call to repentance with repentance. But if, by “Christian” you mean in your heart “in fellowship with” then do not even call him that.
We are not judging. If a man has been excommunicated unfairly or has had a change of heart, God is the one who will ultimately judge. So whether he is or isn’t a Christian isn’t the point.
Peace,
DR