Why is Hypergamy a Four-Letter Word?

by Elusive Wapiti on November 19, 2012

A reader sent me this email wondering why hypergamy gets such bad press, while the male preference for “younger, hotter, tighter” goes unremarked upon in the manosphere:

We all claim to believe that a woman is required to submit to and respect her husband. And if, as we all believe, a man’s job is to be the leader of, protector of, and primary provider for, his wife and family, then why would a woman be wrong for choosing a man she can look up to? Marrying a man who cannot do for her what she can at minimum do for herself is illogical. It would seem to me to be counter intuitive to choose a man she isn’t inclined to look up to for some reason or another.

Last question, which I’ll preface with my own life as an example. Never, in my 18 years of marriage, have I looked around for another man of higher status to replace my husband with. Ever. Never have I, upon encountering a man of higher status, imagined that he might make me happier than my own husband. Do you guys really believe that most married, Christian women are in the market for an upgrade from their husbands?

While I believe that hypergamy is a real part of women’s mating strategy, I don’t believe it’s sinful any more than a man’s desire for a young, healthy, fit and fertile wife. These are rational and logical things to consider when choosing a life mate. So why is female hypergamy presented as something inherently sinful?

Before I proceed, I think we need language to describe the male counterpart to hypergamy–the preference for younger / hotter / tighter women.  The Social Pathologist recently proffered “femogamy”, a word whose muddled etymology (latin + greek) suggests a predilection for feminine mates.  Not a bad attempt, but I don’t think the word quite captures the essence of male sexuality the way that “hypergamy” characterizes female preferences.  I offer instead “koreogamy“, from the Greek words “kore“, for a young unmarried woman, a maiden, suggesting an attractive and nubile young woman, and of course -gamy, meaning marriage, fertilization, or reproduction, from the Greek gamos, meaning marriage. Thus “koreogamy” describes the strong male preference for youthful, attractive women, and, like my anonymous reader highlighted above, is a fact of male sexuality that goes as largely unremarked upon in the manosphere as it is decried in the mainstream by women whose men had “traded up” on them to a “younger model”.

Now: onto hypergamy. Hypergamy, like koreogamy, is likewise a fact of female sexuality.  Complaining about it strikes me as about as productive as complaining about gravity. I like the way the Social Pathologist put it when he said

Hypergamy is the natural object of female sexuality. It’s not a choice, and therefore devoid of a moral dimension, but a hard wired instinct. It’s what women involuntarily feel in the presence of a suitable male. Women have about as much choice about their hypergamous natures as men do about their [preferences for younger / hotter / tighter women]. It’s a fact of life and getting angry about it is about as idiotic as getting angry about the orbital motion of the planets or the unfairness of Plank’s constant.

I’ve observed some game theorists to be quite reductionist in their assessment of the hypergamous nature of women. That hypergamy is so strong a tendency so as to often, or even always, override a woman’s self control.  That hypergamy both explains female sexual behavior and predicts it, going as far as to imply that even married women are constantly on the prowl to one-up their husband.  This is a slander akin to the “all men are rapists” charge that rape culture hysteria activists level at men–where both camps deny the opposite sex the agency, or even the capability, of self-control. Indeed, characterizing male and female sexuality in this way suggests a tendency to view “the other” as an animal ruled by base nature…in other words, reductionist. The no-so-soft bigotry of low / no expectations is the name of the game here.

So it seems that hypergamy and koreogamy are concepts in need of rehabilitation. If we assume that both tendencies are truly hard-wired components of female and male sexuality, an assumption I think is valid, then it would be wise to act in accordance to this true fact.  Both men and women would benefit from selecting their mates according to these behavioral inclinations, from positioning themselves in the SMP and, later, in marriage, according to these principles, and defending their bonds according to these principles.  There are many who already do this: PUAs and so-called “Gamers” exploit SMP positioning to their notorious advantage, while “married gamers” like Athol Kay and Keoni Galt apply all three to their benefit as married men.  For that matter, women also would benefit from exploiting koreogamy in their dating and married lives. They can leverage koreogamy, what they know men are hard-wired to seek, by deliberately marrying young, marrying a fellow older than she is, by staying fit, by offering fidelity and plenty of sex.  All while capitalizing on their own innate hypergamic tendencies by selecting a man they look up to and then making the conscious choice to sidestep Eve’s Sin by following the “captain / first officer” model.

Getting back to the question emailed above, my interrogator wonders if men really believe that their wives/girlfriends, particularly Christian ones, are always on the prowl to one-up their husbands. Personally, I don’t think so, but it may appear that this opinion prevails in the manosphere because so many men have been on the wrong end of a woman’s hypergamous nature, and they may find in the manosphere a place that offers an explanation that fits their observations.  These fellows may have been “bigger-better-dealed” by women, or have been traded in for a man more alpha than they were (whether that man was truly alpha, an alpha poseur, or the ultimate alpha, big sister government).  They may have also simply become tired of observing feral females rejecting perfectly good men in their quest to follow feminism’s twin siren songs of “womanhood as sexual availability” and “empowerment”…and in the process engage in serial polyandry.  It is this friction point where I think hypergamy gets such a bad name…sometimes the trait gets confused with the behavior.  In between hypergamy and cheating on your reasonably high-ranking man with an even higher-ranking man lays choice.  Women can choose to control their baser urges, to not upgrade from their present man, either by consciously, deliberately choosing to stay and not stray, by embedding herself in a social matrix that makes such thoughts unthinkable, or by internalizing a Faith that makes love for the Creator and accountability to Him their foremost priority in life. Or all of the above. And while we’re at it, the same applies to men as well. We fellows are not beasts, no matter what the materialists say, no matter how self-serving feminist agitprop paints us.  The flesh, our hardwiring, while perhaps useful for the continuation of the species before we knew God,is weak.  Criticizing hypergamy doesn’t get us very far, better for men (and women) to co-opt it to our mutual advantage.


About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }

Andie November 19, 2012 at 11:24

Captain/First Officer is EXACTLY how I describe my relationship with my husband, and I’ve also felt very uncomfortable with the idea that there was/is something wrong with the fact that I choose a man with higher status than my own.

I’ve always thought of my relationship as more or a Mr.Darcy/Elizabeth Bennett kind of situation (the two main characters in Pride and Prejudice -he is rich, confident and assertive, she is beautiful, loyal and lively). Of COURSE I married my husband for love, I just took care not to fall in love with a man of lower status than my own.

Of course, I have often been sneered at by feminist minded women that I “married for money” and the answer is,well, yeah. Duh. Someone has to pay for the ship. I’m here to make paying for it as painless and lovely as possible.

Not only have I never considered trading my husband for another man, I have a hard time imagining that it would even be possible. First of all, he’s socially of very high status (not just higher than my own), and secondly, the odds that I would find a man of higher status AND LOVE THAT MAN are vanishingly slim. What man could ever justify hurting my children so deeply? It’s unimaginable.

I think when women marry men and then henpeck them into compliant, subserviant, snivelling balls of goo, women can’t love them. And I don’t blame men for reacting to overbearing controlling bitches like that, especially when they have children. The same instinct I have to protect my children I assume in all men. I assume that men will do ANYTHING to protect their children, even destroy themselves when faced with an irrational, demanding wife who will never be satisfied.

The fundamental problem is that women think controlling men is a goal, and don’t realize that they will destroy their love for any particular man when they achieve that dubious goal. Hypergamy is just another way of saying “fall in love with a man who demands your loyalty and fidelity and respect”, because those are things that define love between men and women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Zimmy November 19, 2012 at 11:36

Women innately want to receive more than they want to give. It starts with the fact that women marry men who (in general) are larger then they are. Men have historically been providers….and builders….and inventors, etc. In short, men create and women want a piece of the action. After they get it then they believe themselves to be superior. Ironic isn’t it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Anonymous November 19, 2012 at 11:40

I would like to offer another way of looking at hypergamy in the negative…

Koreogamy, there’s not much getting around it. If men are looking for women with feminine traits that denote fertility and nurture, nature really isn’t going to make a big stink about it because men need women to procreate. I may have a problem with it in the sphere that it seems to me fewer men really are all that interested in procreation even if their sexual inclinations say otherwise.

I think the biggest issue with hypergamy is that it is women who embrace feminism, whether partly or fully, who practice it. Take any one of the following:
- The ability to make own choices, own property, get a job, earn money – why would a woman who does that need a man who “can take care of her”?
- The ability to control her own sexuality and reproduction – why would a woman who controls that need a man who “can take care of a family”?

These are both things feminism has championed the woman to do for herself and to not rely on men for them. So I think the idea of women still being hypergamous is so repugnant because of the abject hypocrisy in women choosing mates like this. Why do you need someone to take care of you when you refuse to be taken care of?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
keyster November 19, 2012 at 12:23

OK, here’s the big diff, (besides the female’s power of selection).

It’s common knowledge that men prefer younger, physically attractive females. After all we’re oafish dolts driven by our cave man instincts to mate. Men (beta men) have been portrayed as fools for beautiful women since the invention of celluloid, because mostly it’s true. The characterization of a man fawning over a beautiful woman, reduced to a whimpering little boy, empowers women…because her sexuality IS her empowerment.

It’s NOT as common knowledge that women are drawn to the much more nebulious world of Power and Status…because this would trivialize their nature, making them seem morally corruptable, devious and self-serving (gold digger). That is criticism of Team Woman and therefore “hate speech”. “It doesn’t matter WHAT you are, as long as you’re a gentleman, a really nice guy.”, mothers tell their sons.

The woman’s value declines, while the man’s power and status ascends. They seem to be crossing in the mid to late 30′s now. But women view their new-found power and status, equal to that of men – to also figure into the equation…making the available pool of acceptable men to be smaller and smaller.

A business man will date a young attractive cashier at WalMart.
A business woman will NOT date an attractive cashier at WalMart.
She wouldn’t be caught dead being seen with him.
What would her friends say?
He needs to AT LEAST be his equal in business power and status…slightly better is much prefferred, but she’ll settle. She’s not getting any younger. Equality? Supporting a “house husband”? That doesn’t even figure into it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
oddsock November 19, 2012 at 12:53

Interesting but a way too simplistic conclusion

For example

“while the male preference for “younger, hotter, tighter” goes unremarked upon in the manosphere:”

Its not so much that is unremarked upon, more a case of it happening is highly unlikely and therefore joked about. Unlesss of course you are an older guy with plenty of money a porch and assets. Most men do not.

“In between hypergamy and cheating on your reasonably high-ranking man with an even higher-ranking man lays “choice”

The above excerpt highlights most of the difference between what you have named Koreogamy and Hypergamy. “Choice” ( pussy power) and for whatever reason/excuse she can come up with. Its not and never has been just about a woman looking for a higher status male provider etc. Sometimes they just like to test or show off that they still have the power to wreck another womans marriage. ( or a mans) and as we all know, women hate seeing other women happy. Its still very much a status boost for the offending woman.

Perhaps also simplistic but the proof of the pudding is the obvious lack of older men walking about with hot twenty year old bints on their arm.
Koreogramy and female hypergamy is like comparing apples and oranges.

Female hypergamy IMHO is actually getting “good press” coverage we are all learning especially the younger guys.

Course NAWALT. My arse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
brigadon November 19, 2012 at 12:58

I prefer the term ‘Nubigamy’ as nubile+gamy, and I also like the fact that it contains the word ‘bigamy’, a victimless crime if ever one existed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JFinn November 19, 2012 at 13:08

We all claim to believe that a woman is required to submit to and respect her husband. And if, as we all believe, a man’s job is to be the leader of, protector of, and primary provider for, his wife and family, then

I’m not included in his “we.” It’s not my job to be the primary provider for a lazy bum wife or a protector of a treasonous/coward wife who would watch me get bludgeoned without jumping in to fight. Man up = slave up. Feminism is a branch of Chivalry, painting everything as victimizing of women in a paranoid way. Which distresses the damsels, you see. Feminists merely give lip-service to wanting to take on male roles. They want to be portrayed as doing so. Then they want to rig it so that the punishing burdens of said roles are forked over to men. We now say, “our brave men and women serving overseas,” while virtually all deaths and maiming are incurred by the men.

Be free by telling women to go fuck themselves when they compliment you on how well you take abuse, and by telling men to go fuck themselves when they mock you for not taking enough abuse. Men and women have always hated men. Historical accounts that convey no sorrow for all the tortured sub-slaves(soldiers) and even glorify them – how is feminism any worse than this? If my choice is between a tin foiled hat conspiracy theory of zeh patriarchy or “yours is not to question why, yours is but to do and die,” I choose to go my own gosh darned (motherfucking) way. “Primal provider” is the reason why the conservative marijuana prohibition has caged mostly (non-violent) men, rather than women. Consider the amount of these good men who have gotten repeatedly raped, I don’t see how the evil false accusation industries are any worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
beta_plus November 19, 2012 at 13:12

Much of the manosphere disgust comes from men being held accountable for their polygamy while women get away scott free for their hypergamy. While Petraeus will most certainly face consequences, it is very unlikely anything will happen to Jill Kelley or Paula Broadwell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader November 19, 2012 at 13:29

The unknown cheerleader for Team Woman asked EW this:

Do you guys really believe that most married, Christian women are in the market for an upgrade from their husbands?

Fact: The national divorce rate is between 40% and 50%, depending on the source.

Fact: The divorce rate for Evangelical Christians is 38%.

Fact: The divorce rate for Catholic Christians is about 30%

Fact: In the aggregate, between 60% and 65% of divorces in the US are filed by women.

From the above facts, it is obvious that a substantial plurality of married, Christian, women are indeed in the market for an upgrade from their current “till death do you part, unless you are not haaaapy” husbands. Probably not a majority, but a substantial plurality.

3.8 out of ever 10 Evangelicals, in fact. 3 out of every 10 Catholics, in fact. An American man faces a 40% chance of divorce, and 60% of divorces filed by women.

P(divorce) * P(woman filed) = 24% probability of having his marriage destroyed by his wife.

For evangelicals the odds are very slightly better: 22.8%
For Catholics the odds are a bit better still: 18%

But Team Woman Cheerleader should ask herself this question: suppose there are 5 cars on a dealer lot, and she’s going to buy one of them. One of those cars will fail horribly some time in the next 7 years; the steering wheel will come off in her hands while driving down the freeway, or the wheels will simply come off at 80 MPH, or the engine will catch on fire while the doors are jammed shut. Something bad enough to put her in the ICU. And just by looking at the cars, there is no way of knowing which one is the danger-wagon. Would she buy one of those cars? Or just walk away? Because those are the odds that young Christian men face: 18% and 22.8% are close enough to 20% or 1-in-5 odds. And should they refuse to buy, they face serious social condemnation. Unlike the women who divorce, who face praise from all around them, including the churches.

Pass that on to Team Woman Cheerleader, please. Thanks.

Now, turning to hypergamy: many men confuse hypergamy itself, with the uncontrolled hypergamy that rules the modern world. And once a man learns the truth about women, he can see hypergamy all around him. He can see it in the barrista who flaunts her tatooed tits at him as he orders a coffee, he can see it in the medical office staff woman who starts playing with her hair as she makes an appointment, he can see it in college women.

And, yes, Team Woman Cheerleader, he can see it in married women in a church. More than once, both before learning Game and since learning Game, I’ve had the experience of receiving very clear IOI”s from married women, some with children, in the lobby of a church. It is clear to me that for some percentage of church going women (maybe, oh, 4 out of 10? Just to pick a number at random?) the possibility of “trading up”, or of getting 5 minutes of alpha-enough, is very attractive to them.

So to answer the question once again: yes, I am a man, and I really believe that many married, Christian women are in the market for an upgrade from their husbands. I have seen it personally. I see it in the statistics. I have seen it happen, but not too up close.

Women are not taught to control their hypergamy. Many women don’t feel the need to control anything about themselves – not their cutting tongue, not their eating habits (weight), not their gossipy gabfests – perhaps they expend so much energy seeking to control their men, that they have none left over to control themselves?

In closing, I note that hypergamy is a fact. Uncontrolled hypergamy is a disaster. And those men (not EW) who seek to somehow dismiss the effects of uncontrolled hypergamy by foisting the costs of it onto men are just another form of feminist. A gyno-supremacist, in fact. And yes, Slumlord, I am thinking of you as I type. Among others…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Mikediver November 19, 2012 at 13:44

The issue is not hypergamy but the choice adiction. If you hypergamously choose to marry a man of higher quality; good for you. But you should stop with that and stick to your decision. In today’s west the woman has no retraint on deciding to forgo her early commitments if the whim crosses her mind. She always expects she will be able to get any man she wants anytime she wants; like it is her natural right. That hunky millionaire handy man that is dying to support her in luxury for the rest of her life is just around the corner, if she can just dump this man that she once looked up to but now is an abatross around her neck.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Skeptic November 19, 2012 at 15:05

Yet following your ideas there seems to be an awful lot of women making hypergamous ‘choices’.
I’m in my 50s. I’ve met many many thousands of women, and I’ve never met a woman who married down, ever. Period.
Even those women who at first appeared to have married down were, on closer inspection married to a guy with the potential to become higher economic status than her before long – an example would be the nurse who marries a trainee doctor.
If female choice were such a strong factor in matters how come as Keyster points out a business woman will NEVER date an attractive male cashier at WalMart?
Sorry, but your thesis about women exercising choice doesn’t pass the empirical numbers test. Not even close.
And if it did you can bet your bottom dollar there would be women online and in the media extolling the virtues of doing so.
Again there’s no evidence for that either.
I conclude it’s fair to assume that AWALT.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Coastal November 19, 2012 at 15:30

Yep, what some folks have already said: it’s about full disclosure.

Everyone knows men like young babes but the average woman would rather date an engineer than talk about hypergamy.

That really impacts on men’s lives. Take the ‘Nice Guy’ thing. No one’s out there telling wimminz that being a bloater won’t affect their SMV – let alone subsequently hinting that if they are having trouble, why, there must be something wrong with them.

Hey, like most guys here I imagine, I was very definitely one of the 80% as teenager. If someone had talked me through the dynamics of the market place, and told me how most guys struggled, that would have been a weight off my mind.

And that’s before you get onto other areas, like how we talk about a guy trading in his wife for a younger model (sleazebag!) but never talk about a woman upgrading (she’s outgrown the relationship, doncha’know)?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti November 19, 2012 at 15:51

“JFinn November 19, 2012 at 13:08

(Quote): We all claim to believe that a woman is required to submit to and respect her husband. And if, as we all believe, a man’s job is to be the leader of, protector of, and primary provider for, his wife and family, then… (unquote)

I’m not included in his “we.”

Fair enough. I know there are a great many fellows here who do not share this model of marriage or male-female dynamics. However, the reader I cite professes a rigorous Christianity. This is the context in which her passage should be interpreted.

“beta_plus November 19, 2012 at 13:12

Petraeus will most certainly face consequences, it is very unlikely anything will happen to Jill Kelley or Paula Broadwell.”

As far as I know, Ms. Kelley isn’t guilty of anything other than being a shallow social-climber. Now Lt Col Broadwell, OTOH…yes she is certainly benefitting from a culture that reflexively assigns blame for an affair to the man (i.e., l’affaire Petraeus) and barely lifts an eyebrow at the likely role an aggressive, liberated woman played in destroying not only his marriage but hers as well. He is responsible for the affair, she, despite the fact that she is 40 and well-educated and accomplished and a military officer herself, a victim.

As for nothing happening to her, I suspect she’ll feel the sting of what she’s done, if for no other reason than her mishandling of classified data. Besides, adultery is a UCMJ offense for her too. Let’s see if she is charged with Article 134.

Anonymous Reader November 19, 2012 at 15:59

Andi
I assume that men will do ANYTHING to protect their children, even destroy themselves when faced with an irrational, demanding wife who will never be satisfied.

Correct. And furthermore, it is no accident that a man with children who is being divorced has a much, much higher probability of suicide.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
realist November 19, 2012 at 16:35

“Perhaps also simplistic but the proof of the pudding is the obvious lack of older men walking about with hot twenty year old bints on their arm.”

It’s all about demographics, statistics and the sex ratio. In non-Western countries, you’d see way more couples like that, because affluent or high status men can afford to do that (there are fewer high status men than in the West and the general female population is much poorer than here) – they do it because they can. Men in the Western countries don’t do it not because they wouldn’t want to, but because they can’t (e.g., more Western men would do it if they could). By the same token, the Western women aim high in the dating market, divorce and cuckold because they can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jacob Ian Stalk November 19, 2012 at 16:47

From Anonymous Reader:

“Women are not taught to control their hypergamy.”

This is the crux of the matter. Hypergamy itself is not a matter for much conjecture. I think most will agree that it just is. That women are not taught or encouraged to control hypergamy, either by society or in the churches, however, is another thing entirely. This is the Marriage 2.0 problem at its core. Women ‘empowered’ by the social licence acquired for them by feminism do the opposite of controlling hypergamy, which is to indulge it. It can only ever be that way with such license.

The glorification of hypergamy is the problem, not hypergamy itself. Hypergamy is the Law of the Jungle – the same jungle from which mankind needs God to keep perpetually at bay. The ‘God is dead’ society around us that says “because it is, therefore it must be” is not equipped ideologically to do anything but glorify hypergamy. When society glorifies hypergamy, it builds a highway straight back into the jungle.

We’ve already arrived in jungle in Canada (see the Youtube vids on the feminist riots at Univ of Toronto when Warren Farrell turned up for a speaking engagement on Men’s Rights) and we’re not going to get out before it gets worse, much worse. Think on what will happen when the Twilight generation takes the reigns.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ode November 19, 2012 at 16:50

Hypergamy is the natural object of female sexuality. It’s not a choice, and therefore devoid of a moral dimension, but a hard wired instinct. It’s what women involuntarily feel in the presence of a suitable male. Women have about as much choice about their hypergamous natures as men do about their [preferences for younger / hotter / tighter women]. It’s a fact of life and getting angry about it is about as idiotic as getting angry about the orbital motion of the planets or the unfairness of Plank’s constant.

If humans were motivated purely by “hard wired instincts” like animals than I’d agree 100% But obviously that is not true. Humans live a conflicted life where biological impulses pulls you one way but social conditioning pulls the other. It’s like a constant tug of war.

1. For example humans naturally desire high calorie foods more than low calorie foods. But being overweight is socially frowned upon.
2. If a person does you wrong you have a natural biological desire to punch them in the face or get back at them in some way but obviously the long arm of the law discourages this.
3. A woman may feel the gina tingles for an alpha-male but if she has common sense she’s not going to be dumb enough to end up as a single mom. She’ll go for the beta-male instead.

It’s my observation the lower classes are more ruled by their hard wired instinct. Basically they live like animals. It is the middle class and especially the upper middle class that are forced to live a life where social conditioning is so omnipresent it actually over powers biological impulses…..most of the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MK November 19, 2012 at 17:16

“Hypergamy is the natural object of female sexuality. It’s not a choice, and therefore devoid of a moral dimension, but a hard wired instinct.”

Resisting animalistic instincts is the only thing that potentially separates humans from other animals, the ability to use reason and willpower over pure reactive impulses. It should be expected especially for those that proclaim to be Christian.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
piercedhead November 19, 2012 at 17:47

If you’re out fishing, you don’t bait a hook with something the fish aren’t interested in. If you do, you will catch nothing.

Think now, about what you would bait your hook with if you were fishing for a man – and your life depended on catching one.

What do men like? What are they weak for?

It doesn’t take too much inspection of web-sites where men speak plainly to get the answer.

Men think they are ‘logical’. They think they have a handle on ‘reality’. They want ‘younger, tighter, submissive’ women.

If fish could only speak – I wish they were this straight-forward! I would only bother going out once a year with hook, line and bait! So reliable would my catch be!

Women – the fishers of men – must kill themselves laughing at the kind of logic that pretends to understand them. Until we see women working at soul-destroying jobs 24×7, and killing themselves at 4x the rate we do, and filling prisons, and having to work to pay a man to bring up their children, all this theorizing counts for nothing. It is we men who get caught, gutted and filleted every day. Theories that ‘explain female behaviour’ – because these theories are ‘logical and fit the facts’ – are about as meaningful as Shakespeare to a cod.

Consider that lying, disinformation, cheating and killing the innocent are all just as much features of ‘reality’ as anything else. Everything we don’t like is just as real as everything that we do like. The only real difference is that we don’t spend as much time trying to factor in how the disagreeable owns its place as much as the agreeable. Women don’t make that mistake. It’s all real to them. Catching a man is all that matters -the rest is waffle.

So how do you think those women would bait the hook?

Only unmarried men enjoying their lives need attempt an answer…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
oddsock November 19, 2012 at 18:04

@piercedhead

Outstanding, Hear hear. The blunt truth.

Can’t remember what book I read this in or the exact passage ? I think it was something along the lines of ” Man the inventor the genius the dreamer of great things the hunter gatherer the provider.

And yet , only fit for slavery.

And we laugh at how stupid women are ! Really ?

Now guys just watch your own rationalization hamster go into hyper hyper overdrive. Ah but ah but Pftttttt!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Observer November 19, 2012 at 19:52

Yup, call it what you will. Those primitive sexual urges have their own gender politic which we see played out over and over regardless of any social patina placed upon them to make us feel more enlightened than we are.

Here’s something that breaks down all “alpha” aspects among the sexes: familiarity. All we are doing here is describing what is initially attractive, and none of that really matters past a few years when relationships become a series of routines and duties. All dominant “alpha status” men and attractive “alpha looks” women will want move on after a period of time if they don’t subscribe to traditional/religious duty or self sacrifice or self introspection. The list goes on, but long term relationships have a tendency to reduce gods and goddesses into mortal human beings.

This would help explain, among other things, why we see so many women teachers abandoning their husbands and children to go after the young student who still lives with his mommy and can’t drive a car. Then you have men who get married to the beauty queens, only to find themselves tapping some random ugly slut from the bar. If its not looks, it’s desire, if it’s not desire its looks. If a woman decides she likes a man’s status more than she likes him, she’ll find a way to keep his name or his money or both before she dumps him.

Perhaps the biggest thing that drives alot of these so called alphas is the drive never to be looked upon as ordinary. Humility is in shorty supply these days with all kinds of support networks catering to every sort of escapism out there. We all live in it, but not all of us learn from it. Self actualization can be a curse if based upon the shallow fantasies of a deluded soul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sciencedada November 19, 2012 at 20:57

The issue of hypergamy, just as koreogamy, is not the tendency to mate in such a way. The tendency is what it is.

The problem that I hear mainly in the manosphere is that *men have to finance both* hypergamy and koreogamy. That is the asymmetry that places all the work on the men, and it is enforced in the court system, which is economic slavery. This is *especially true if children are involved*.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
freebird November 19, 2012 at 22:01

Hypergamy makes money and nubile chasing costs money.
It is always the man who exerts the constant effort despite heaps of negative reinforcement and financial cost.
What do women do?
Sit on the pussy and demand more and more.

As far as effort over reward,and given that women never put in the effort on the ground floor,and have the unassailable option of trading up whilst also using the nuclear option to clear the field for the next strip mining project,it’s clear the man is on the losing end of the deal no matter what he does.

The easiest and safest way is to avoid commitment,men are the gatekeepers thereof and we are excersizing that option as it’s the only one left to us.

There is nothing they can say about it.

Pleading,cajoling,weeping,begging are all now known as tools of manipulation and more of us are growing wise to that.

Since they’ve created a situation where the only winning move is not to play,they’re either going to have to live with males new awareness of self agency or change the rules so the playing field is level once again.

In light of the predatious behavior the wisest course is non-serviam.

Yep,the man are finally showing up to the fight and we are taking the tools of the oppressor and using them ourselves and the women are stymied and flustered as to why have the slaves slipped the shackles?

Feminisms end result was to commodify women and there is no turning back.

Man have always known they could only get the woman they could afford,now the ‘purchase’ is transient and way overpriced.

Here’s another thing women need to deny:
A lot of guys (most guys) want an emotional connection with sex,they ARE geared to partner up with one woman,the current zeitgeist makes a mockery of this weakness.(feelings of an almost human nature)

Here’s another that women need to deny:
We do not need them for sex.
Men DO have the mental capacity to see the bigger picture,the possible end result,the risk over reward,and until the risk is diminished and the reward for work is either more and/or fixed into a long term contract wise men will refuse to be the SUCKER.
They’ve been playing us for chumps and have no idea what a hit to the pride that is.
We’re not stupid and we’re not playing games anymore,the fems can talk,talk,talk,talk,but we know it’s just talk,they think from the crotch and that is predictable,the turnabout of using their inherent human weakness is fair play and long overdue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
finndistan November 20, 2012 at 02:46

“why hypergamy gets such bad press, while the male preference for “younger, hotter, tighter” goes unremarked upon in the manosphere:”

Because it is the manosphere?

Because “younger, tighter, hotter” is criticized in 99% of the media out there; in the movies, in the magazines, in the documentaries, in the news…

Because “hypergamy” is used to get the men to “man up” by 99% of the media…

Because Zack and Miri Make Porno is the default information out there.

Maybe the Manosphere can be a manosphere, not a pandertowomenalsosphere… ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Remo November 20, 2012 at 02:53

Of course the central issue here is that while mens ‘koreogamy’ is actively punished both through shame and the real consequences of child support, false rape accusations, etc. A females hypergamy is actively encouraged, rewarded, and socially reinforced. Therefore you do not enter female hypergamy in a vacuum where she can simply choose not to engage in such, relying on friends and acquaintances to aid her. No. You have the equivalent of an alcoholic who is constantly offered regular shots of booze with friends and society on the whole doing what they can to soothe any resignations she might have against drinking.

Nothing in the culture as it is now discourages female hypergamy and in many cases it is rewarded with cash, prizes, and socially recognized victim-hood. The crap “reality” show “Temptation Island” comes to mind here, with the entire United States one big stage for girls to bring out the worst in themselves. It is not correct to assume that just because these feelings are natural that mens “bigotry of low expectations” is incorrect especially given the current environment. How could any other expectation be justified in today’s society?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 20, 2012 at 03:36

Other factors are involved with hypergamy. Hypergamy is real and is the one constant in female psychology. I have come to believe with confidence that female hystria and irrationallity is present to allow the free flow of hypergamy. Social status amungst the herd is huge thing for females. While in a traditional (christian type) setting hypergamy may involve a getting a better male provider hypergamy could be anything. The concept and the drive is there and that is all you need to add to it. The rest is driven by environment or the latest social status fad or how she sees herself ( that is where the settling comes in there are no faithful christian “10′s”) Femminism just tapped into this and set the direction hypergamy was to go. The end results even personal “happiness” of the subject woman takes a back seat to hypergamy for purposes of god knows what. All of the statistics of the social state of children, marriage, the economy and the total destruction of the US as displayed in this last election cycle. (You ain’t seen nothing yet The government is arming itself to at gun point to push this Obama care thing down our throats for our own good) Or any thing else will change the direction and focus of femminist determined hypergamy.
The PUA and the practicers of game short curcuit feminist direction or just go with it and use hypergamy for their own needs (pussy). Traditional hypergamy the best status /provider (I’ll call it blue pill game) is becoming as rare as hens teeth due to feminism as discribed in the article.
The overall point is hypergamy is motivated by what the fuck ever and the goal of the alpha beta type provider is just one motivation at the moment, any kind of gina tingle or breaking news trend will redirect that on the spot with out any thought to where hypergamy was going the previous second and I do mean one click on the clock.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Remo November 20, 2012 at 03:37

Correction to above… It is not correct to assume that just because these feelings are natural that they cannot be influenced. At present
mens “bigotry of low expectations” is incorrect especially given the current environment.

It appears that during my typing I accidently highlighted and deleted a portion of the sentence I was creating.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nutz November 20, 2012 at 08:11

Keyster nailed it. As women climb the corporate ladder and gain more status themselves they paradoxically shrink their own dating pool. As a result there will be fewer and fewer men of higher status above them to date.

Personally I think this is the result of projection by feminists. Women are generally attracted to men of high status, so they sought status for themselves not realizing attraction doesn’t work the same for men as it does for women. Lori Gottlieb tells it like it is, women were sold a lie about “having it all”. It’s not uncommon for women today to piss away their youthful looks and fertility chasing a career (while racking up a high partner count thanks to hookup culture) only to find out by the time they’re ready to settle down and have kids that the only men who will have them are a good 20 years older by that point, or way below them on the socioeconomic ladder. Oops!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
keyster November 20, 2012 at 08:40

Women are generally attracted to men of high status, so they sought status for themselves not realizing attraction doesn’t work the same for men as it does for women.

They didn’t seek higher status to be more attractive to men. They seeked higher status to gain more power, besides just sexual power…over men. Sexual power alone wasn’t enough anymore – – they wanted to “have it all”. They want world domination…even if that means using their sexual power, as needed, to get it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd November 20, 2012 at 11:32

Looks like its the regular mangina article of the year on the spearhead time … lol

So the most damaging & destructive trait of a woman, hypergamy shouldnt get blamed on women, because its hard wired into them? …

What kind of logic is that exactly …

If a woman is hard wired to destroy your marriage, commit infanticide, abort & kill your unborn children, steal your goddamn house, everything you’ve worked for …

We should goddamn be blaming women, how else are women going to CHANGE & overcome their inbred backward nature?

By holding hands & singing kumbya? By blaming men for wanting hotter & tighter women, even though its WOMEN who initiate all the goddman divorce?

Heres a FUN FACT

The VAST MAJORITY OF MEN ARE NOT PLAYERS, or skirt chasers

BUT

The vast majority of WOMEN ARE PLAYERS, which is WHY THEY ARE HYPERGAMOUS IN THE FIRST PLACE

If any woman can go into a club & hoist her skirt, it makes the VAST MAJORITY of women players

WHICH IS WHY they dont value marriage, which is WHY they initiate the majority of divorce, & the WORST aspect, why they abort their unborn & deprive men of their 2 year old boy for years on end

IF a woman can pick up a guy anytime she wants, IF she has hordes of men sexting the crap out of her phone, She is going to act & behave like a player …

A WOMAN PLAYER does not value marriage, her children, or her man

All this crap about hypergamy being an instinct

Women KNOW THEYRE HYPERGAMOUS, because they VERY WELL KNOW THEY PLAY MEN

I’ve stated this plenty of times before …

The Roles Have Changed :

Women are now the players & men are now the innocent virgins …

EW needs to get his head out of his ass, & quit acting like a glorified captain save a ho …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
confused November 20, 2012 at 11:43

“while the male preference for ‘younger, hotter, tighter’ goes unremarked upon in the manosphere”

I don’t think anyone has ever argued that its not true, therefore there is no need to remark on it. Meanwhile , I’ve yet to run across a woman willing to admit their preference for power and status.

Even as a young adult i realized that i had to mitigate my desire for younger hotter tighter and look for some character along with it.

I”m still waiting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost November 20, 2012 at 14:53

Younger hotter and tighter is a character all on it’s own. It’s yours to fuck up young lady.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dhurka November 21, 2012 at 05:02

In an evolutionary sense, rape is a legitimate reproductive strategy. After all it will produce children. Anyone who has been around teasing women who put the brakes on at the last minute knows it can take a lot of control to stop that instinctive desire to have sex and damn the consequences. That doesn’t mean rape isn’t an absolutely vile instinct to act upon. Just because something is instinctive does not mean that it can’t be a very bad thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
nugganu November 21, 2012 at 05:07

My ex congratulated me a fee years back upon the birth of my daughter (not from my ex) and I asked her when she planned to have children. She said by 35. Well, she’s 37 now, and not only is she childless, she can’t even find a man. It would seem both hypergamy and a man’s ability to date younger are working against her now, as she doesn’t have the goods anymore, and her own hypergamy won’t allow her to settle for an older geezer. That’s quite the bind she is in.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mike November 21, 2012 at 08:23

“We all claim to believe that a woman is required to submit to and respect her husband”

LOL, let me clue you in, darling: almost NO American women think this way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Candide III November 24, 2012 at 05:10

EW, please, since you introduce the term — all existing terms of the ~gamy sort, polygamy, bigamy, polyandry and even hypergamy refer to behaviors and not to traits. Please don’t confuse the situation further. For consistency’s sake koreogamy and hypergamy ought to refer to the respective behaviors too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
steven deluca November 30, 2012 at 15:20

Too many men give women power over them. Take good care of yourself, dress well, exercise, read a lot, for your own sake, seek and adventurous and fun life… and women will come to you. When they do you choose whether they are equal or not. If you let big boobs decide how you should behave then you are a big boob. Men that have too much lacking make up for it with money or whimpering fawning behavior that turns women off. Alpha males need to learn to sort through the women to find an alpha women and not a wannabe that acts the part on the outside but fails in very little time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 20, 2012 at 22:43

“While I believe that hypergamy is a real part of women’s mating strategy, I don’t believe it’s sinful any more than a man’s desire for a young, healthy, fit and fertile wife. These are rational and logical things to consider when choosing a life mate. So why is female hypergamy presented as something inherently sinful?”

Cute.

Your average man can desire for a “younger model” as much as he wants – he will never get her. Too old/ordinary/poor.
Your average, woman on the other hand, IS PERFECTLY CAPABLE of getting an alfa to fuck her.

Hypergamy is VASTLY more likely than koreogamy. That is why hypergamy is viewed as “evil” while koreogamy is largely ignored.

Hope that is logical enough for you. Cheers :D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Casu Marzu January 21, 2013 at 21:25

If women were so hypergamous, unwed motherhood and poverty would be nonexistent. No woman would ever have sex or bear children outside of wedlock (that contract that entitles her to half of everything), and no woman would marry/get pregnant by a loser. We are becoming a nation of Honey Boo Boo and The People of Walmart precisely because large numbers of women marry/get pregnant by low-status males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Mark February 13, 2013 at 14:18

Casu Marzu said: “If women were so hypergamous, unwed motherhood and poverty would be nonexistent. No woman would ever have sex or bear children outside of wedlock (that contract that entitles her to half of everything), and no woman would marry/get pregnant by a loser. We are becoming a nation of Honey Boo Boo and The People of Walmart precisely because large numbers of women marry/get pregnant by low-status males.”

The state takes care of those wedlock babies, and their mother’s by robbing men who pay income taxes. Hypergamy won’t stop women from having a one night stand with an attractive bad boy. In the end, women generally want men of equal or higher financial means. It’s time for women to marry up, or get out of the workforce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Casu Marzu February 13, 2013 at 22:41

I’m not attractive enough to marry up and I’d better stay in the workforce, or I’ll be adding to the welfare rolls.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Miss Z June 7, 2013 at 09:59

The problem no one addresses is that when women choose to regulate their “base” impulse for hypergamy and marry a beta, he can’t get sex because she has no sex drive for him. If you are an average woman, you are screwed. We are only sexually turned on by Alphas, but Betas will give us emotional intimacy. Which is why the answer is for a woman who engage in polyamory to get all her needs met.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welsh_Dragon June 20, 2013 at 13:33

>> The problem no one addresses is that when women choose to regulate their “base” impulse for hypergamy and marry a beta, he can’t get sex because she has no sex drive for him. If you are an average woman, you are screwed. We are only sexually turned on by Alphas, but Betas will give us emotional intimacy. Which is why the answer is for a woman who engage in polyamory to get all her needs met. <<

Brilliantly put. I do feel some sympathy for women on this level. Desirable, attractive, intelligent, charming men are hard to find. Many don't keep up their skillset after marriage either (don't let that be you guys).

I can see why a women could consider to settle, against her better instincts (Cautionary note however I didn't say roid head douche bag = Alpha. No sympathy for that societal bandwagon some women jump to).

Hard as it may be I would strongly advise against any woman marrying a man who doesn't turn them on. Polyamory is extremely dishonest. You will hurt your kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: