Recently I’ve been sifting through the comments at the Chateau and some other blogs regarding the Kristen Stewart dust up about her “infidelity” with Rob Pattinson in favor of a married, 41 y.o. movie director. The PMs barraged my inbox for a week. Alright, alright, you got me, I’ll give you my take,..
I was loathe to even broach the topic considering the yeasty pop-culture discharge that Twilight-Moms are rutting in after this “devastating bombshell shocker!” 12 dead in an Aurora theater? That’s terrible, but a 22 year old HB 6 cheating on Edward for an older established movie director? That’s fucking news. Once women make an emotional connection with a narrative, it’s a very tall order to get women to make the separation of fantasy from reality.
Needless to say, I’m hearing the manufactured indignation in real life. It’s spreading amongst social circles, on talk radio topics – even my daughter’s 14 y.o. friends are dropping their 2¢ about how worldly and knowledgable they are as to why ‘Bella’ would cheat on ‘Edward’. As I wrote in Indignation, from a very early age girls / women have a psychological need for something beyond the mundane life that their security need drives them to. Kristen Stewart is an excellent example of this conflict because she represents a strata of woman who, minus her celebrity, is very mundane herself. Put her in an evening dress and maybe she cleans up to an HB7 on the Tomassi scale. She’s not a stunner, but then, that’s why she’s the perfect Lego brick to play Bella; socccer moms and tweens can see past her as a place holder into which they can cast themselves in her role.
But hypergamy doesn’t care about the social conventions and ‘IRL’ romantic expectations of Twilightees. Hypergamy demands optimization in terms of excitement, long-term security and Alpha dominance relative to a woman’s capacity and opportunity to maximize them all.
Lost in the midst of all this we have 26 year old
Edward Rob Pattinson experiencing his WTF? moment. While he’s ostensibly a good looking guy and a Contextual Alpha, the lesson to be learned here is one which may confuse red-pill noobs. Why the fuck would Stewart ‘cheat’ on a guy who’s adored and desired by millions of women? Because hypergamy doesn’t care.
When a woman’s self-perceived SMV exceeds the degree to which she perceives is the SMV of the man she’s with, this is the point at which she will seek out (or be open to the advances of) an Alpha she believes exceeds her own SMV.
If that sounds counterproductive, just remember this dynamic relies primarily upon a woman’s self-perceptions and is predicated upon her acknowledging the phase of life in which she finds herself in according to the SMP. In the age of social media, women now have an ubiquitous source of ego inflation available to them like never before. This contributes to women’s overblown sense of worth and entitlement in a way society has never experienced.
The Kristen Stewart affair is really an illustration of a much broader dynamic however. Recently on the SoSuave forum member Backbreaker related a story about a friend who’d gone through much of the same thing (albeit to a more mundane degree) poor Rob Pattinson has just experienced. The thread is extremely long and well debated, but the plot summary is really one of an unfortunate guy on the receiving end of his girlfriend’s hypergamic optimization. His friend was traded for another, better option. From a life perspective, he’d failed to keep pace with this girl’s hypergamic imperative and was thus selected-out by it.
As I wrote in Navigating the SMP there is a particular window of opportunity for women whilst in their prime SMV years (22-24) that less and less women want to consciously recognize – or at least they aren’t encouraged to recognize thanks to feminized social conventions, and the ego-fuel of social media. Precious few women are self-aware of the hypergamic impulses their subconscious is driven by, and thus their behaviors are manifestations of.
When women get to be 25-29 there is a limbic, subliminal understanding that her window of hypergamic opportunity is closing. A woman’s hindbrain knows on an animalistic level that her period of maximally optimizing her hypergamy is closing, thus the motivation to pair off monogamously with the best provisioning male begins to take priority over fucking the best genetic (most sexually arousing) males she was happy to pair off with in her prime (22-24).
In Backbreaker’s, our subject woman is merely a common illustration of this process. So, in this respect, and strictly for purpose of example, I can understand Backbreaker’s line of reasoning. Young men need to be aware of the ruthlessness and callousness of this feral, evolutionary process. As a Man, you do in fact need to keep pace with the hypergamic imperative that WILL rear its ugly head when the moment and opportunity of a better hypergamic prospect present itself. Sometimes, even a woman’s perceptual prospect of a better optimized hypergamy is enough to set the process in motion. A woman’s hypergamic urgency declines as she comes to accept her diminished capacity to optimize hypergamy, but as a Man, the need to prove yourself will always be an aspect of your relationship with a woman.
If there’s fault to be found it’s not in women’s seeming duplicity about her ‘feelings’ versus her hypergamy-motivated actions; the real fault is in young Men believing in pollyanna fantasies about true love, soul-mates and feminized romance porn in favor of the harsh realities of hypergamy.
Ethical wonks will want to have their say, “She’s a slut! She’s a hypocrite! Perfidious woman! Have you no honor? Men are made of different stuff, we’re the moral cement that holds society together, unlike you amoral weaklings.” No one gets mad when wolves on the tundra tear the throat from a caribou. No one calls them evil for messily devouring the carcass; they’re just doing what nature has embedded into their instincts to do.
“But human’s aren’t wolves Rollo, we have freewill, you wouldn’t understand because you’re not as morally attuned as I am.”
Yes, human’s aren’t wolves, and we do in fact exercise a great measure of freewill, but for all of that, presumptively righteous, self-guided refusal of determinism we are still subject to the same feral instincts. Our natural state is not one of self-control, so why are we shocked at the environment that sets the frame for us to even have any concept of what control even means? Evo-psych, hypergamy, natural instinct isn’t deterministic, it is probablistic.
We ignore at our peril the evolutionary results that directed us to the conditions we find ourselves in. When it doesn’t serve our purpose we call it weakness or moral turpitude; but when it does, that feral energy, that righteous anger, that sweaty bloodlust we evolved in the wilderness so long ago that helped us run down a caribou ourselves, that instinct we call courage or determination and we put angels wings on it in appreciation.
Backbreaker took a lot of heat for his assessment of his friend’s ‘progress’ in life. The title of the thread, “If you aren’t going forward, you are going backwards” set the tone for the discussion. In a sense he faults his friend for the demise of his relationship due to his lack of progress or ambition, but this doesn’t come from malice or ill intent. Rather he uses the scenario (not unlike the Stewart affair) to make the point that a Man must continually grow and become more than he is in order to survive and thrive. The distinction that men need to make is the difference between success motivated by the need for pussy, and an abundance of pussy that is the by-product of a man’s success.
Hypergamy doesn’t care about your moral interpretations. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your personal motivations to achieve and become more than you started with, it only cares about what you are. If that makes you feel slighted or morally indignant, go read War Brides. Yeah, that’s some really fucked up hypergamy right there, but the question isn’t whether it’s moral or not, the question is ‘what do you plan to do about it?’