Tales of Hypergamy — Recursive Game

scacchiste - Fotografo: internet

Noheroes from the SoSuave forum relates this for us:

Gentlemen, do as I do and grab yourself a tuck of bourbon and throw some Keith Jarrett on the hi-fi. There’s cold, cold snow on the ground and I’m here to regale you with a story sure to convince you that there are no women immune to game, no exceptions to hypergamy. The final pixel in the matrix has blinked out of existence for me, and I see the truth. Not finally, not complete, but I’m a believer. I’m in the midst of the hypergamy chapters of The Rational Male and the light has dawned.

In late November I met a girl at my business whom I was immediately attracted to. We had a drink, made out, groped a bit, and she went home (3.5 hours away). A month later she came into town, and on Christmas Eve we cooked dinner at a place she was housesitting, spent two hours naked in a hot tub, and made love three times over the next ten hours, including, well, entrances and exits on Christmas morning. We saw each other again a couple days later, made love again, then she left town. In early January I was passing through her town, spent the night, and we again slept together three times in a ten hour span.

This girl (let’s call her Helen) is feminine, nurturing, sexy, and highly intelligent. She’s been through tougher times than any member of this board who wasn’t a combat military member. She’d make a killer mother, she’s kinky as hell, she’s emotionally vulnerable yet demure, and she’s submissive and kind. She’s an HB8 (at least by my reckoning) and has a slamming yoga body. I have tremendous respect for her and we have a great connection. The only downside is she’s 33 and is realizing that the wall is coming up.

Helen and I are constantly flirty by text, but I don’t really do long distance relationships, so my plan of action was to just hook up and hang out whenever we were in each other’s towns. However, this afternoon (this very afternoon!) we had a phone conversation in which she related that she couldn’t be flirty with me anymore and also couldn’t sleep with me should we see each other again. Not exactly LJBF, due to the fact that she sent me an underwear selfie not ten minutes after this conversation ended, but close enough. A last sexy gasp, but a rejection nonetheless. Why, gentle readers, did this kind soul state that our trysts had ended? Hypergamy.

You see, there was a gentleman (we’ll call him Chip) who met Helen last March. He was just out of a five year relationship, but he didn’t tell Helen that. He was a little damaged, but in that kind of way where Helen felt that sometimes they had a connection, and then at other times couldn’t figure out what Chip felt about her. In December, Helen told a dear family member to make sure that Helen never hung out with Chip again. It was unhealthy! She was hooked and couldn’t figure out why, and had to stay away from Chip. As of a couple weeks ago, however, Helen resumed hanging out with Chip. This, dear friends, is why Helen couldn’t be flirty or sexual with me anymore.

I talked to Helen about this man in depth. There certainly was a part of me that wanted to negotiate desire, to convince her to stay away from Chip, to continue our prior arrangement. But I knew this was a fool’s errand. So I took a deep breath and asked myself – “Self, do you really want to see the end of the Matrix? Do you want to dispel your belief in a ‘quality’ woman? If there ever was a quality woman, it is Helen. Let’s see if truly hypergamy is inescapable.”

I asked Helen various questions about her feelings towards Chip, revealing my knowledge of hypergamy and explaining each step of her own behavior to Helen as I did so. “See there, Helen? That’s push-pull. Tension. He doesn’t realize he’s doing it, but he’s driving you crazy and making you feel attracted towards him. One minute he’s accessible, the next he isn’t. He doesn’t return your texts on time, if at all. This creates the hook!” She agreed, but I could tell there was no changing her mind. For the sake of science, I pressed onward. “See how you’re basing all of this conversation on the potential of the relationship, Helen? You think you can save him from his damage! There’s nothing actual there, you’re just backwards rationalizing it to suit the hook he’s set in you.” Again, she agreed intellectually. “He’s demonstrating to you his evolutionary suitability by being unavailable, utilizing tension, and being completely non-needy. His life is the same whether you’re in or out of it, and it drives you crazy and creates attraction simultaneously!” Mental assent but hindbrain denial continued.

At the end of the conversation, she stopped me in her feminine adorable voice and said “We need to not talk about this anymore, it just seems so hopeless. I don’t want the world to be that way!” I told her that it was that way, but I do believe it’s possible for good men to harness those powers and create deeply satisfying, honest relationships. However, hypergamy is always the driving force, and to leave it unacknowledged is to invite disrespectful beta disaster or alpha cad heartbreak.

Helen, despite the truth being presented to her in the most obvious way possible, and mirrored in her every behavior towards Chip, couldn’t accept the reality of hypergamy. If she can’t resist or change her behavior based on reason and knowledge of the truth, no woman can. The lesson, kind readers, is not that you must be evil to get the girl. It’s that hypergamy is the deciding factor in attraction for EVERY SINGLE WOMAN. There are no exceptions, no “quality” girls. They all succumb. It’s our job to make them succumb to us.

After all this, she still sent me the dirty pic.

While it is of course vital for a man to internalize the various fundamental truths about the nature of women (hypergamy, solipsism, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, love based on opportunism, etc.), these fundaments need to become an ambient condition for you in your dealings. This understanding needs to become an internal – under the surface – part of your interactions with women.

Too many guys think that all of this requires some endless capacity to psychologically micromanage every aspect of their interactions, not just with the women they become (or potentially become) intimate with, but also women they work with (or for), their mothers, sisters or daughters. A common reason men initially reject the practice (not necessarily the concept) of Game is due to some imagined expectation that they’ll need to cognitively account for every variable a woman may or may not be subjecting him or herself to.

When you think of Game as some act you put on or some cognitive fencing match between you and a woman it’s easy to believe it’s just too exhausting. That’s when one of two things usually happen; Game-awareness either sinks in and becomes part of his personality, or he relaxes and/or abandons what he’s learned of Game.

As you think so shall you become.

Neo: “What’re you trying to say, that I can dodge bullets?”

Morpheus: “No Neo, what I’m saying is that when you’re ready you wont have to.”

There comes a point of internalization when your Game-awareness becomes part of who you are. There is no longer a need to mentally sort out what may or may not be going on with the women you’re interacting with. One of the first resistances I usually read from men when they first pick up on Plate Theory is that they could never manage more than a single woman’s interest at one time. Usually this is due to a fear of being caught by one or more women or thought of as a Player, but the premise is one of not having some imagined resources, time and energy to keep more than a single plate spinning at once.

Do you see where this is going?

It’s all about his effort, and his time management, and his capacity or talent for juggling all the responsibilities necessary to convince and qualify for a woman’s effort towards him. He and his concerns are not his mental point of origin and so don’t factor into his concept of what Game could be for him. It’s always energy and resources flowing out, rather than even having the temerity of thought to think that a woman’s effort should come to him.

When Game is internalized for a Man, he is his mental point of origin. Game critics like to frame this self-concern as sociopathy or Dark Triad, but these distractions from putting himself as his mental point of origin have the latent purpose of keeping him extending himself outward. For as much as it’s rewarded, no one wants to be thought of as an asshole, but Game-awareness doesn’t necessitate being a selfish prick, just putting oneself as their mental point of origin.

Noheroes’ story is a lesson in the various  ways of coming to this internalized Game-awareness. I believe that Noheroes is making this transition through a lot of self-critical education. He had the foresight to keep Helen at a figurative arm’s distance. My guess is he knew her situation, being 33 and well on her SMV decline, and that single women during this phase are looking to lock down long-term commitment.

If I fault him for anything it was in his appeal to Helen’s reason when he pulled the cover off of the psychological and sociological underpinnings of what Chip actually meant to her and was (deliberate or not) doing with her. In doing so he laid all of his Game-aware cards on the table, and as has been discussed many times on RM, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure.

But perhaps (in the interests of science) this is what Noheroes intended. He essentially exposed Helen’s hypergamous (2nd chance Alpha Widow) behaviors and reasonings with the predictable results – women only want to play the game, they don’t want to know how it’s played.

For all of this, it’s actually Chip’s part that completes the Game circle. While Noheroes understands Game (and probably plays it well), and can explain it well enough, it’s Chip who’s effectively AMOG’d him without ever meeting him. I can’t say for certain that Chip isn’t self-aware of what he does, but my guess is he’s internalized Game to the point that it’s part of who he is. My guess is he’s a natural who’s had himself as his mental point of origin for so long that it’s just part of who he is – and being rewarded for it by the likes of Helen for so long that it’s naturally reinforced. Maybe he’s a natural sociopath as well, but this is immaterial to the internalizing of Game.

What were seeing here is a story of recursive Game – Noheroes even explains the process to Helen only to have her confirm her awareness of it, but still having a desire to participate in it.


91 responses to “Tales of Hypergamy — Recursive Game

  • YOHAMI

    “I talked to Helen about this man in depth.”

    Lol.

  • Flip

    “I don’t really do long distance relationships, so my plan of action was to just hook up and hang out whenever we were in each other’s towns.”

    So maybe it is just that she’s 33 and looking for a husband and the author isn’t offering that (as per above) so she moves on to a more likely candidate.

  • YOHAMI

    Noheroes talks about hypergamy like it was a dirty thing – he probably thinks Helen was with him because she liked him “as a person”.

    But hypergamy is also the sole reason Helen was with him to begin with. She just found somebody better.

    Chip probably doesnt spend his time trying to explain Helen how Noheroes is attempting to manipulate her rational brain in order to control her vagina, because he’s a needy little guy who is afraid to control her vagina directly.

  • YOHAMI

    *because [Noheroes] a needy little guy who is afraid to control her vagina directly.

  • threeLegDog

    Yep, OP’s “I talked to Helen about this man in depth” was a waste of time. Better to say, “Super, babe. Glad you found someone special.” Then continue as before: getting sexy txts, in-town meetups, etc.

  • donalgraeme

    What is also amusing is to tell a woman all about her true nature, and then have her pull a “I’m not like that.” If you ever want to see the female Hamster go into overdrive, point out exactly how she is, in fact, just like that. I have never seen any animal go as fast as the female Hamster in response to that kind of critique. Honestly, every man should do this at least once so that he can see this in action. Its a learning experience like nothing else.

  • Some Tard with Numbers

    “Why, gentle readers, did this kind soul state that our trysts had ended? Hypergamy.”

    I think the mistake Noheroes made was thinking that this was a rejection. She clearly still wanted his attention & advances, hence the underwear selfie. I agree with him, hypergamy at it’s finest. Maybe he doesn’t like his ladies dancing around with other men. But you will always be surrounded by missed opportunities if you listen to a woman’s words and ignore their behaviour.

  • Rick Bronswick

    How do u run game in marriage?

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  • Glenn

    It’s quite weird to become game aware at 51. Being on the downside of my SMV, it’s a bit bittersweet because while I had high SMV for a long time, and while I had many natural alpha traits, I never could really embrace it, and often would not maintain my own frame, despite instinctively knowing this was a mistake at a basic level. I love the fact that Rollo is so focused on the inner aspect of all this. I really get that alpha is a place to stand in life, period. My downfall came from internalizing female imperatives and femcentric ideas so deeply that I ultimately shamed my own alphaness to death. The inner conflict and self-loathing from fighting my nature and feeling like this all was a riddle I couldn’t solve tore me up.

    But even that is BS. Regret is useless. I’m clearer and clearer about that now. Noheroes did such service here, at once elucidating hypergamy but also stepping by into her frame. I think he misses that he has a hook into her too, and while the explaining is anti-game, in a way he may have been demonstrating a real aloofness while doing so, hence the underwear selfie after the telecon.

    Instead of doing this, he should have texted back “Be at my place at 10 pm tonight with that on and a blindfold. I’ll leave a key under the mat, let yourself in and be waiting for me.” And then forget about her, and get home at midnight. What I can say that in my life, every time I was alpha naturally and maintained my frame with women, dominant and not bought into their frame, I had women at my beck and call. I did some really masterful shit with no technique or PUA training, but rather just did what came naturally from a dominant, me-shaped frame and really just ignored what the fuck the woman was saying or doing.

    I guess what Rollo is saying is that it’s a way of being, a POV, not “technique” and hence isn’t really hard. What’s hard is seeing through our own bullshit. Great article, thanks!

  • Frank Squisher

    Glad I stumbled upon some of this material while I’m still young.

    In an LTR with an older woman (20 vs 40) and our lives are completely separate so I’m having trouble imagining how I can make some of things I’ve read applicable…

  • Jeremy

    When Game is internalized for a Man, he is his mental point of origin. Game critics like to frame this self-concern as sociopathy or Dark Triad, but these distractions from putting himself as his mental point of origin have the latent purpose of keeping him extending himself outward. For as much as it’s rewarded, no one wants to be thought of as an asshole, but Game-awareness doesn’t necessitate being a selfish prick, just putting oneself as their mental point of origin.

    Not having oneself as the “mental point of origin” is something men are coerced into being, sometimes from a very young age. Young boys are oftentimes encouraged to share more, sacrifice more, defer more to the ladies than they should be. They’re even ‘rewarded’ by mom for displaying these traits long before the child has achieved a sense of self. Self sacrifice is only healthy and valuable when the self exists to begin with. Being trained to defer long before learning to think of the self is restraining in a way that takes therapy to get rid of. For some of us, this turns into a self-made prison from which we do not escape.

  • Carlos

    Chip may not be red-pill aware or be naturally alpha. He may just have another woman he likes better which naturally makes him act aloof and unneedy with the woman in the story. That’s how it usually was with me before I discovered the manosphere. I sometimes employed some excellent game, but it was usually an accident of circumstances rather than being aware of how it all works.

  • john

    Its a fine line between dark traits and a man with priorities and direction in life. An easy way is to go a-hole but a ‘true’ alpha is the later.

    Both displaying alpha traits.

  • Eris

    “One of the first resistances I usually read from men … is that they could never manage more than a single woman’s interest at one time”

    In a similar to managing any group of people, when you’ve never done it, it can often seem daunting and complicated, like having 10 games of chess on the go at the same time, however, as you say “this understanding needs to become an internal – under the surface”
    and in this sense often becomes more about your overall persona and the things you don’t do, rather than obsessively second-guessing yourself on what you do do.
    Far worse than actually making a mistake once in a while is the fear (and consequent weakness) that you will, which people, especially women, can smell a mile off.

  • david

    Sorry, but a 33 year old carousel rider is not a quality women as much as he wants to believe it.

  • MAN

    Great blog Rollo. Cool Post!

    Here is something really fascinating I stumbled upon in my Public Health Class, would be really interested in your analysis.

    “Men in the partner (wife or gf) support condition showed significant attenuation of cortisol (stress hormone) responses compared with unsupported and stranger-supported men … In contrast to men, women showed a tendency toward increased cortisol responses when supported by their boyfriends.”

    Is it that deep down women are stressed (increased cortisol) by Beta traits (compassion, support, …)?

    Full study: http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/57/1/23.long

    This was also pretty cool: “These results suggest that the greater financial resources available in marriage are not responsible for the positive effect of marriage on longevity for men but seem to account for a good deal of it for women.”

    Thsi would suggest as in one of your articles that men are capable of Love and that for women it’s all about security and resources.

    Full study: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2782273.pdf?acceptTC=true

  • Mofo

    This may be stating the obvious, but here goes: Chip is almost certainly not an alpha, but rather a hardcore beta in the throes of oneitis due to his recently ended 5 year relationship. Helen’s attraction to Chip is due to the fact that he mainly considers her a sounding board for his gushing about his 5 year relationship with the added bonus of having a nice warm hole for him to occasionally put it in in between his suicidal jags of depression. Yeah, I was often this kind of “alpha” back in my Blue Pill days. It’s pathetic as hell, but it’s still chick crack.

  • jf12

    @Yohami ““I talked to Helen about this man in depth.” just like a girl.

  • YOHAMI

    yeah, nice guy NAMALT game ™

  • jf12

    I’m going to do a long-distance dissection. I guess I need a longer scapel, but I’m not going to worry about shaky hands.

    Helen had been on-again off-again with Chip (on the Chip horse, off the Chip horse) for nine months already. Chip didn’t talk about relationships, didn’t mention his five-year thing at first, didn’t acknowledge his moods, etc. But Helen was attracted, and obviously determined to land him, while he was busy (spinning plates most probably) and often inaccessible. He didn’t even have to deal with her over the holidays, thereby not buying presents etc. Helen, during the holidays, makes a silly effort to make Chip jealous by having a little fling with Noheroes, and she doesn’t care that she stokes Noho’s (for short) incipient oneitis. But Chip still doesn’t care, and obviously doesn’t mind dropping her for weeks at a time and overlapping with some other guy.

  • jf12

    @Rollo, of course it struck me how Noheroes’ narrative was so Helen-centric, which I guess was your point in highlighting it for this article. At the very last he gasps, still fem-centric “They all succumb. It’s our job to make them succumb to us.” Now I’ma-gonna go all Morpheus here “Noheroes, when you’re ready you wont have to.”

    In my limited experience (N=2, in marriage, in case you forgot, with some decimal points I’m not going to quibble about) when sexually interested in me women have tended to be quite phallocentric. Quite. As in very. I considered it a compliment of sorts, except for those times it became aggravating that there never was interest in me. What about ME! not just IT! (just like a girl, I know). It’s the same sort of reasoning about a man taking Viagra for his wife, not for himself.

    So, then, what about me? Is there any possible solution FOR me, except spinning plates?

  • deti

    “My guess is he’s a natural who’s had himself as his mental point of origin for so long that it’s just part of who he is – and being rewarded for it by the likes of Helen for so long that it’s naturally reinforced.”

    Yes. Contrary to what some people believe, there is such a thing as a “natural alpha”, and it is not simply mental shorthand nor a way to avoid thinking critically about relationships. These are men who “just get it” or who just “are that way”.

    “The lesson, kind readers, is not that you must be evil to get the girl. It’s that hypergamy is the deciding factor in attraction”

    You don’t have to be evil. You just have to be better than the other guy. It has always been this way and always will be.

  • eris

    Guys will always compete with one another and in this way Noheroes’ attempt is perfectly understandable; it can just take time and getting it wrong to really internalize the idea that a woman cannot be reasoned into behaving a particular way.

    Different internal states can all give rise to this kind of “alpha” behaviour – chip and Noheroes can both game women well enough but their actions no doubt come from different places – and given Noheroes understands (even more so now) what is going on, I would say that was even more valuable.

    At the end of the day, an element of one’s game is always circumstantial – Chip was in there first and that also had a powerful effect on Helen in this case. As in many games of incomplete information, the important but difficult thing is to stick to good strategy when the chips are down.

  • jf12

    @Man, great cortisol article. The takeaway is that men actually pair bond, and women do not. This fits with other observations about women being incapable of romantic love. Basically in all aspects of adult male-female relationships, the female’s version is vestigial compared to the male’s full-flowered version.

  • jf12

    @deti “You don’t have to be evil. You just have to be better than the other guy.” No, it’s not objectively better, I think it may be closer to objectively badder.

  • YOHAMI

    @deti “You don’t have to be evil. You just have to be better than the other guy.” No, it’s not objectively better, I think it may be closer to objectively badder.

    Higher on the ladder: give less of a fuck about her, more self interested, more abundance, less neediness, a more interesting life in general.

    Chip’s own concerns are more interesting to Helen than Noheroes deep analysis of her.

    Noheroes would have to value his own problems and life more than he cares about Helen, to have Helen valuate him more than she valuates her own Chip dilemma.

    In other words women are always following the lead.

    Chip sees himself above Helen, Noheroes sees himself under her. Helen is following the two leads perfectly.

  • jf12

    @Yohami
    I will more carefully define “badder” here as “more uncaring.”

  • jf12

    @Rick Bronwick, the monogamy game part of the manosphere is alive and well. Dalrock is probably your best bet for starting to investigate “why to run game in marriage”. Although there are some “how to” sites like MMSL, Rollo’s emphasis on mindset is paramount. Game flows naturally from the abundance mentality. I think for results it doesn’t matter “how” you get the mentality, and in truth *every* PUA site is brimming with similar “how to’s” of exactly the sort of thing that leads to that mindset if practiced. Morally, of course, the specific process of “how” is very important.

  • unsigma

    personally, I don’t think he had lost yet. If all he is looking for it limited bang time, I think he has that in the bag.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Rick

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/09/relationship-game-a-primer/

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/23/relationship-game-wife-sex/

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/30/16-years-on/

    Noheroes would have to value his own problems and life more than he cares about Helen, to have Helen valuate him more than she valuates her own Chip dilemma.

    Thus his mental point of origin is Helen, not himself:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/19/the-cardinal-rule-of-relationships/

    @MAN, awesome find, I’ll be dropping a post on that. It should rattle more than a few cages in the ‘sphere.

  • Mike

    I need a simple definition of these concepts. Do any of you think these are accurate? Comments appreciated.

    Game = Understanding the nature of women, especially what attracts them to men

    Alpha = A life anchored to self-interest

    Alpha + Game = Using knowledge of what attracts women to better achieve own self-interest

    Internalized Game = Understanding of women, successful behaviors in attracting them, and a self-anchored attitude becomes habitual or automatic

  • Tin Man

    In my mind, it boils down to this …

    If you are not living your own life, neither you nor “a woman” will be truly happy. It is a recursive theme – if you live FOR someone else, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If you live FOR yourself, you may experience disappointment, but it is merely an obstacle to be traversed and overcome.

  • myalphaplan

    Chip who’s effectively AMOG’d him…..What does AMOG’d mean and where can I find a directory for these and other synonyms

  • redpillsetmefree

    Enlightened self-interest.

    Asshole behavior optional.

  • myalphaplan

    @rollo tomassi

    Thanks, great points sir. Even more interesting is that the most of the comments here can’t seem to decide who is the real Alpha here. Do we know enough about to Chip here to see that he be AMOG’ing on accident, without knowledge of the red pill wisdom?

  • noheroes

    I’ll fill in a few details and respond to a couple things.

    @Rollo
    I knew this was a plate that was stopping its spinning action, and “pulling the cover” off of Helen’s hamster was mostly for my own benefit. I wanted to make deadly sure that even a woman I perceived as “quality” (note the quotation marks) was acting hypergamously. I wanted to peer inside the machine. I wanted to make sure the red pill was the red pill. It was.

    Also, excellent points about the mental point of origin. I needed to hear that, and I agree that I am probably lacking that to an extent. I will say that Helen was one of five plates spinning at the time of this conversation, four of whom I’d slept with. But Game and Women are my point of origin, and you are completely correct – I should be my own point of origin.

    @Flip
    I think her looking for a partner was part of it, but Chip’s indifference, push-pull, and aloofness (whether due to his personal damage, his Alpha nature, or his possible knowledge of Game) hooker her harder than I could. She also knew I wasn’t being monogamous and had no intention of doing so, which I’m sure was a factor.

    @YOHAMI
    Where to begin with you, brother… I don’t think hypergamy is dirty. I just wanted to see how deep the rabbit hole went. I freely admit there is neediness in me, but this conversation with Helen was about my own enlightenment. It was not an effort to keep the plate spinning.

    You are totally correct in your later comment about me needing to value my own problems and life more. I’ve thought about that a lot in the last couple days. I don’t think I see myself under Helen (perhaps if she lived closer it’d be an issue?) but, again, I should be my own mental point of origin.

    @Some Tard with Numbers
    I didn’t perceive it as rejection. Helen texted me yesterday describing a dream about me fingerfucking her while we were driving somewhere (My response? “Psh I always keep my hands at 10 and 2″). If I see her again in person, and I don’t get a serious NO, we’ll fuck.

    @david
    The point of the story is that no woman is “quality.” Rollo talks about this in the book. I was just sharing my own story of the a-ha! moment when I discovered for certain that a girl who I perceived as quality was intensely hypergamous to the point of denial. This is not to say Helen’s not a great person – she is – but instead that she’s driven by something nigh uncontrollable.

    @Mofo
    Personally, my sense was that Chip was aloof and great at playing cat and mouse. I think this was a result of his damaging five year relationship. Whether alpha or not, it worked enough to hook Helen.

    @jf12
    You caught me, I’m totes a girl. I’m a lesbian in a man’s body.

    The narrative is Helen-centric, because it was about my realization of the hypergamous motives within her brain. If oneitis involves me fucking a thick cute redhead two hours after I’d fucked Helen, with bits still clinging to my phallus, then yes, I suppose I’ve got oneitis. There’s a little braggadocious validation for my ego, bitch.

    @myalphaplan
    I don’t think Chip is red pill. Possible, but not likely, at least from how Helen described it.

  • Nifty

    Helen didn’t choose Chip. Noheroes gave her to him.

    That call wasn’t her saying LJBF. That call her her saying, “Make me a better offer.”

    Noheroes blew her off (rightly) and she followed it up with an underwear selfie.

    Five bucks says that the next time he’s in Helen’s area he could be tapping that ass.

  • YOHAMI

    Noheroes, good stuff.

  • alcockell

    *sobs*. So an Asperger Syndrome Christian man, who hasn’t got a malicious bone in his body doesn’t stand a chance. All I can offer is a completely honest heart, I couldn’t dream of not being faithful if I was in a relationship or married… are there ANY high-value women out there who understand honour, loyalty etc and would ACTUALLY stay faithful?

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about beta hubby when her alphadick is on the way over.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about beta hubby when her alphadick is fondling her body.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about beta hubby when her alphadick is fucking her on the couch.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about beta hubby when her alphadick is humping her in the shower.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about beta hubby when her alphadick is holding her close after she’s had a two-hour screaming fit at hubby, who is now sleeping on the floor in the same room.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about beta hubby when her alphadick is fucking her in the marital bed while hubby sleeps on the couch to the tune of humping bedsprings.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about beta hubby when her alphadick is snoring and she walks out of the bedroom, disheveled and naked and dripping love-juice, passing her hubby to go have a piss and clean up.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about beta hubby when her alphadick is asleep and she arranges with her hubby for the three of them to go eat out for breakfast.

    I’ve been the alphadick in all these situations. And in the case of this post:

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about lesser alphadick when greater alphadick shows up to pound her.

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about Hypergamy when her alphadick is involved. It just wants it’s Hypergamy to run at full-throttle.

    In the end, Hypergamy isn’t evil. It’s simply selfish and uncaring of others. To survive its selfishness and uncaring, you must become equally selfish and uncaring of others.

    Only thus can you become free of their lures and then go on to enjoy your life instead of the life of Hypergamy.

  • jf12

    @noho’s yeah, it’s great Helen didn’t mean anything else to you than just another plate. Good going on dodging talking to her about her boyfriends, for example. One thing you can be sure of is that we’ll never overlap, disease-vector-wise.

  • noheroes

    @jf12 I’d say there’s a pretty good chance I’ve not fucked either of your wives, you chaste little minx you.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Noheroes, thanks for commenting, I was hoping you would.

  • Frank Squisher

    Ok….So if a womans love and/or ”loyalty” to you is driven by hypergamy, how do we as men choose the right one and know that we chose the right one. Or is it actually woman that are doing this chosing? And us making sure we are the right/best choice for them. This is depressing brah…sigh **holds blue pill in hand**

  • jack

    This is not directly a hypergamy issue. Jesus, you guys are broken records and one note wonders. Any PUA or player could tell you in a second what this is. She’s 33 and at that age women are far more uncomfortable with casual sex. Yes there are exceptions to this. But 33 is about the age where women are in almost continual provider-hunter mode.

    Fuck buddy status is not the ideal situation for a woman of any age. But when women who are under 25 do it, it is because they feel like they have an infinite amount of time. Long term considerations are not the norm under 25. They are more prone to “lovers” and thus to game. Post 30 though and women are more interested in the merger of emotional companionship and sex rather than just sexual adventure. Helen was interested in “Noheroes” (what a fucking nihilistic name – typical Manospherean – what kind if inner game will you ever have with that attitude) for his short term sex value (and from what I have read, she got robbed as “Noheroes” seems to be a need, whiny bitch). “Chip” provides her with the possibility of long term relationship value, which is what women tend towards as they get older.

    Is that hypergamy? Yes, but the Manosphere’s understanding of that term is reductionist and superficial, and Rollo and Roissy are the ringmasters of the “Hypergamy” marching brigade. The value that women covet as they age changes. Chip offers more long term value than “Noheroes”, my guess is because Chip is a better long term relationship candidate. Noheroes sounds like a “synthetic alpha” or a needy psychology papering it over with gamey bullshit; ie “my hands will be at 10 and 2″.

    But in the end “Noheroes” can’t complain. He got is lay. And then he experienced what every guy who is good with woman knows. Fuck buddies have an expiration date. You’re lucky if you get 3 months out of them. If you’re exceptional, you can keep them for a year but the girls will need to be younger in general. But women will always ditch fuck buddies for a chance at a long term relationship. The human race wouldn’t be what it is if it were any different. But the “hypergamy is everything crowd” can keep singing the only song they know.

    God help you Manospherians.

  • Frank Squisher

    Broski I read how men love, how woman love, war brides and some others…

    Yet, I’m still having trouble grasping how woman love (i know you say opportunistically)

    ie, what is the greater driving force, the ‘gina tingle, the security/resources offered, the ability to realistic assess their own situation and market value, which will be influenced by their past experiances I’m sure….Or will they simply take the best they can get, which again may not be equally discernible from woman to woman.

    I dummied this fairly attractive MILF about 2 years ago (19 at the time). She was in her early 40s, married to a rich guy, had kids etc etc….I straight up asked her why she does what she does (basically hops from one young dick to the next). She claimed she loved her husband, he treats her amazing, provides anything she wants, but she just loves the thrill of a new sexual partner. Now, assuming the current husband is a beta, would it be fair to assume that if a man of equal age and ability to offer resources came along, yet was an alpha, she would leave this guy instantly? Forgoe hopping from cock to cock and having a provider to get a bit of both? Of course, this would never happen….That kind of man would never come in to her life as she is well beyond her expiration date. But what I’m getting at is, does she have some kind of deep self-awwarness and acceptance of the fact this would never happen, so she choses to live the life she does and receives her precious ‘gina tingle? Contrast that with a separate woman, under the same circumstances, who does NOT decide to fuck around on the beta husband. How could this be? Does she lack that awareness and maybe even hold on to a false hope that a man that gives her that ‘gina tingle could come along? Why not fuck around on the beta if you know you aint getting a better provider and someone who offers thee tingles in one?

    Cheers brothers.

    I plan to systematically administer the redpill to all of my young brethren who are surely headed down a path of destruction…

  • Water Cannon Boy

    In short, ever hear women say “I love a man who can do _____ for me”
    Think of that in a literal sense, all they need is somebody to fill in the blank with whatever needs to be done. At that can depend on what phase of their life they happen to be in at the moment. So it doesn’t have to be you, just somebody who can fill in the blank. You happen to meet at the right time, a great opportunity for her to “be in love”.
    Your milf says she loves her husband, and you ask why she doesn’t find a rich alpha. She doesn’t see it as a good opportunity to find somebody else. Bird in the hand, regardless of her hooking up with you or anybody else.
    About the original topic, I think there was a post about women wanting to be with certain types for a little while, like the creative artist that has a tortured soul.Usually when they’re younger. I thought it was the one that had the picture of wonder woman and superman, but that wasn’t it. Anyway, since this “helen” said that chip wasn’t good for her, it made me think of that. And if she really has a nice body, she may want to dabble in that type for a little while longer because women who keep a nice body tend to keep some of their youthful personality traits longer.
    And she’s trying keep heroguy as an orbiter with the selfie.

  • Mr.C

    All things being equal, the long distance aspect would have worked against Noheroes and Chip would have had the advantage (I assume) of living closer to Helen. Therefore you (Chip) have greater access and availability.
    Combined with Helen’s hypergamous insticts; sorry Noheroes but Chip gets picked.
    The whole talking to Helen about Chip was lame, childish, pointless and assumes that the Chip thing will continue long term, therefore burning any chance of a future hookup should the Chip thing fizzle and go nowhere.

  • Mr.C

    “That call wasn’t her saying LJBF. That call her her saying, “Make me a better offer.”

    YES

    Make me a better offer, do my bidding and end up getting less sex regardless because this will slow down the spinning of my hamster.

  • AlphaBeta

    Off topic, but I recall someone getting flak for the sexual market graph because it was “unscientific”.

    That looks like it’s not actually the case according to U of Michigan. While the peaks and troughs are a bit different, they still show two separate peaks for men and women.

  • noheroes

    @jack
    You’re right. I am needy. Nihilistic too (although the handle is the title of a Converge album). My freshman year of college I used to lay in bed and pray that God would send me my wife, the woman that would make everything ok. I just knew if that happened, if the one appeared, life would be wonderful and nothing would hurt. I’d have my companion, my partner, my soulmate. I’d be complete. I’d have found my other half, like Aristophanes’ dialogue in Plato’s Symposium.

    Enter heartbreak, rejection, and death itself. I did what I was told and it got me nowhere. I had no examples, no heroes (!), no kings. No one I ever knew was the kind of man I wanted to be. If they seemed like it, their horrendous faults were just veiled initially. So I had to look inside, to come to terms with what I actually wanted. I had to exercise my will and create meaning and joy in my life. I think I’m on my way.

    I’ve felt more joy and deep satisfaction in the last year than in the previous twenty-five combined. In spite of some awful things occurring in my life, I feel more at peace than ever. Every day is a challenge to defeat ego, to overcome neediness, to simply be present and fulfilled. I strive to be in the moment, take opportunities when they occur, and grow and learn and change. This story was an anecdote about that change, about the realization that the illusions of my youth were dead and gone.

    “I had become too accustomed to the pseudo-Left new style, whereby if your opponent thought he had identified your lowest possible motive, he was quite certain that he had isolated the only real one. This vulgar method, which is now the norm and the standard in much non-Left journalism as well, is designed to have the effect of making any noisy moron into a master analyst.” – Christopher Hitchens

  • SirNemesis

    Alexandra Kosteniuk is hot as hell. Just wanted to put that out there.

  • Glenn

    @noheroes – I don’t have any heroes either and, also, very well done on the Hitch quote. If I did ever have a hero, Hitch would certainly be in the running – even posthumously. Fyi, knowing you had 4 other plates spinning puts this in a different light.

  • Armchair Quarterback

    @jack, I was reading this thread thinking the same thing. She knew noheroes wasn’t what she was looking for. noheroes himself said he wasn’t what she was looking for. What’s not to understand here? He wasn’t going to be the guy by his own admission, she figured it out, so she’s still looking.

  • raywolf

    While Rollo makes a good point that game needs to become natural and internal…. this article pays only lips service to that very Zen wisdom and is living proof that the manosphere has now become fascinated with it’s new toy of looking at the matrix, rather than focused on individual internal development needed….

    Like a cultish religion, terms like Hypergamy are trotted out and waved about with no actual conclusion as to how a man betters himself on the inside, instead of just lighting candles and kneeling at the alter of the matrix.

    Knowing something is not the same as actively and practically putting it to use. Terminology is only useful if it enables concrete action, otherwise it’s just a religious hymn to be sung on any given sunday.

    Terms like alpha and beta completely cloud the truth, by trying to characterize men according to their circumstances. If nohereos didn’t want an LTR but was more fun and exciting and better in bed (a better prospect)…… whereas Chip offered more LTR and was also out of reach..and perhaps potentially boring and even damaged, Chip was the more beta of the two. The woman was simply weighing options, and actually being quite rational. Her best option was probably to dump both of them and start again, but people take a scarcity mentality.

    A man who has fully internalised ‘game’ is neither alpha nor beta, he just is. He is his own centre of gravity and his own man and what ever comes in his path either serves him or is disguarded. This attitude is not sociopathic unless it’s carried out consciously with a deliberate attempt to wound or mock those around him that don’t fall in line. A sociopath maintains his own status and inner strength by pushing those around him backwards, instead of moving himself forwards.

    Now we see that true game is more like true Zen. You may have the killer instinct and complete inner harmony and your own center of gravity, but you have no need to try to manipulate the world around you.

    “Do not try to bend the spoon, that is impossible”

    “Simply understand that the spoon does not exist, then you will see it is not the spoon that bends but yourself.”

    It takes many months of profound meditation to truly master the intelligence in this statement, but it’s so much easier to just carry on blabbing about alpha and beta and hypergamy and not actually start on the hard, inner journey.

  • walawala

    I’ve been both Chip and NoHeroes in different situations.

    It’s true….when you really don’t care or at least in some sense give off a vibe of “I like you but whatever….” you’ll always do better than the guy who cares.

  • jf12

    Due to projection, since women are more attracted to guys who already have girlfriends, many women mistakenly think that part of girl game can be having another boyfriend. Such could be Helen’s case. Either she really was trying to break herself of the Chip habit by dallying with Noheroes, which is what we’ve assumed, I think, or she subconsciously thought that it would get back to Chip and that Chip would be jealous. And then when Chip called her, probably totally out of the blue after another plate broke, her confirmation bias kicked in even though he didn’t know didn’t care.
    How’s my long distance dissection doin?

  • ignis

    @raywolf

    It is interesting in a way, that many of that categorisation about fully internalised game state falls under the sigma-male description, that the manosphere is touting.

    On that regard I agree with you, that when first becoming aware of the red pill and the nature of female .. nature, it is really easy to get lost in the ocean of new knowledge. And take everything that the priests of the Game are preaching as “commandments of poon” and follow it to the letter to get some.

  • Water Cannon Boy

    Maybe he hasn’t realized the manosphere does not exist, and when he does, then he will see it.
    It’s been talked about before how women can be very rational when deciding on the bigger and better deal. So that’s no surprise.
    You can use terminology to explain like you use metaphors. Either way can be the first steps to action. Which understanding usually precedes.

  • Water Cannon Boy

    This was kinda funny. Opinion piece about a contestant on the Bachelor who allegedly gave up the booty, tried to allude to it the next morning by making a toast at breakfast, thereby maybe decreasing the competition, then to her surprise got advise to not do that.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/02/04/the_bachelor_clare_sleeps_with_juan_pablo_exposes_the_show_s_weird_sexual.html

  • Bachelorcles

    @jf12

    “The takeaway is that men actually pair bond, and women do not.”

    I’ve been kicking around the idea that men evolved to love women while women evolved to love children. When a man loses his woman it’s often as devastating as when a woman loses her child. When a woman loses her man, on the other hand, she typically moves on startlingly quickly (war brides) while a man can takes years to overcome heartbreak.

    We say women don’t really bond with men or that women don’t really love us for who we really are because if a man loses alpha attributes (dominance, wealth, or social status, etc), she will fall out of love with him (studies confirm this), her hypergamy will kick in and he is in for a world of hurt. It’s why a man in a relationship must game his woman. Or, contrawise, if a man lacks alpha attributes, he won’t attract her in the first place. I remember reading a Playboy interview of Ben Affleck right after he became famous. He couldn’t understand why he suddenly could score with nearly any woman while two years before he was an AFC. He was still the same Ben he was two years before, right? Right? . . . Right?

    But your comment made me think. Do we men really love women for who they really are? Would we love them were it not for sex? Can a man love a woman with a body that doesn’t attract him? Of course not. And as a woman will fall out of love with a man because he’s experienced a loss in alphaness or SMV, a man will likewise fall out of love with his woman who’s lost her body — eg, 42 year old husband becomes a millionaire while hitting his peak SMV, leaves his 40 year old wife of 20 years (mother of 4) for a 27 year old bombshell (with great tits and, it goes without saying, she gives mind altering blowjobs that cause a longer lasting perma-grin than medical grade California kush) — a common story. So can we really say that men love women for who they really are or that men really bond with women?

    Maybe the ancient philosophers were right in valuing friendship over romantic love. We value a buddy for who he really is.

  • zip

    The conclusion is not to take womenz seriously at all when they declare their convictions, talk their beliefs or explain the world. They have an inbuilt hardwired cognitive bias and after all we know better.

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    @Bachelorcles – the website of no-ma’am also states this idea. It states that love flows down the chain to the right:

    Men->Women->Children->puppies (pets)

    Whereas respect flows (reciprocally) back up the chain to the left:

    Men<-Women<-Children

    These days the reciprocal flow of respect is broken, no surprise when there is no self-respect in most men (putting women on pedestals, worshiping her, knuckling under, giving whatever she wants, etc). It's hard to respect the weak, or those you can destroy on a whim (via frivorce).

    No-ma'am states that this was a result of manipulations to make women unhaaaapy with her lot (done via feminism/communism) and broke the reciprocal chain. Next to go might be the reciprocal chain from children back to women (possibly already happening given thug breeding).

    It's an apparently-functional diagram of what seems to be the dynamic. Might be of use to your thinking.

  • Water Cannon Boy

    I don’t see the 42 yr old millionaire that gets a new bombshell as the most likely routine occurrence that it’s touted as. Yes, if he splits, good chance his next mate will be younger.
    But the routine as is repeated on tv shows, in movies, and by women complaining/shaming about “shallow men can’t see that beauty starts within”, chasing the trophy wife is exception not the rule. Ignoring the celebrity influence, I think the rich guy hooking up with somebody younger isn’t happening like the new car trade in as people say.
    Wasn’t it said that most times men are blindsided by divorce filings?
    Loving a woman and finding her sexy aren’t the same, nor dependent on each other. There’s plenty of couples still together long after the woman has lost her body. I’d say they’re so common you don’t notice them.

  • MAN

    @jf12 “The takeaway is that men actually pair bond, and women do not.”

    While to some extent this explains why men react positively to the partner support condition it does not account for the rise in cortisol seen in female participants. If it were only this, women should react neutrally to the partner support condition (as was the case in the stranger support condition, no significant rise in cortisol was seen). Women reacted negatively to their partner.

    I do hope that researchers controlled for the quality of the support (as no mention of inadequate support is made mention of in the discussion section of the study) which leaves us with one hypothesis: “there is something wrong (whatever women tell us which is that they were eased by the presence of a support) on a physilogical level with support (beta) from a male partner.

    I wish they would have also tested same sex support (bro supports bro and hoe supports hoe) and included homosexual couples, might even throw in child support (see what I just did ;)) as suggested by Bacherlorcles and BlackPoisonSoul.

    Here is what our Professor had to say: “Several of you asked why men and women respond differently to social support, such as in the experiment by Kirschbaum & colleagues concerning gender differences in response to social support provided during a laboratory-based stress task. That’s a good question, and we don’t know the full answer.

    On the other hand, there is a great deal of evidence from psychology that married men and women tend to communicate with each other in different ways.6,7 Men and women also tend to react to stress differently. According to the UCLA psychologist Shelley Taylor, men respond to
    stress by “fight-or-flight”, whereas women are more likely to display a pattern of behavior that she characterizes as “tend and befriend”, i.e. trying to patch up relations and demonstrating more affiliative responses.
    8 Once again, we must be careful not to over-generalize, but it’s quite
    possible that the gendered repertory of responses to stress may help to explain the differences noted throughout our lecture.”

    6 Noller P. Gender and Emotional Communication in Marriage: Different Cultures or Differential Social
    Power? Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 1993; 12(1-2):132-152.
    7 Christensen, Andrew; Shenk, James L. Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in
    nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology; 1991: 59(3),
    458-463.
    8 Taylor SE. The Tending Instinc

    I just got this Email so I haven’t looked into these studies yet.

    And to further address what Bacherlorcles and BlackPoisonSoul said about the love gradient, and I say this from empirical knowledge, as I am sure all of you have witnessed this also, peri-Wall women are simply fascinated by kids: “Kids blabla kids blabla kids.” and newly mothers are obsessed (forget the husband, esp. beta) with them.

  • MAN

    Full reference of sudy 8: Taylor SE. The Tending Instinct: How Nurturing is Essential to Who We Are and How We Live. New York: Henry Holt, 2002

  • Nathan

    I see no other option to going your own way. A foreign woman in her country or mgtow. Anything else is plain stupid.

  • jf12

    @Bachelorcles “I’ve been kicking around the idea that men evolved to love women while women evolved to love children.” I think so too. I’ve come to shorthand/cartoon this idea like in The Farmer In The Dell “the man takes a wife, the wife takes a child, etc”.

  • jf12

    @MAN maybe women’s instinctual response is to try to appease a strange man who is coming on i.e. “being supportive” to her (who might rape her etc) i.e. “befriend”, while a literally familiar man (or woman; familiar men are treated like girls …) induces disgust because she might have to “tend” a friend who is being supportive.

  • jf12

    I’m almost surprised no woman has shown up yet to tell her story of how she’s so completely different, because the first guy she chose turned out to be a bum, thus proving she wasn’t hypergamous in choosing him, and her second, third, fourth, etc men were only marginally better and besides she was only killing time with them anyway, as her manifest destiny with each has proved. She was deceived by them about their greatness, since they turned out so ungreat. So, according to her, there was nothing “hyper” nor “gamy” about her behavior, and the guy she’s living with now? Well, she once thought he might be the One, but after he lost his job and all, again it is too clear to her that hyper and gamy are nowhere to be found in her current vicinity. So, she’s still looking. And therefore, according to her, so completely different.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @jf12, I find it interesting that for all I’ve ever written about hypergamy, I’ve never had a single female critic deny its influence on themselves. Even Aunt Giggles (reluctantly) acknowledged hypergamy after some token resistance.

  • Bachelorocles

    @BlackPoisonSoul

    You had me until —

    “No-ma’am states that this was a result of manipulations to make women unhaaaapy with her lot (done via feminism/communism)”

    That’s a bit tinfoil-hat for my taste and smacks of a male hamster’s rationalization. Men are to blame for kissing the ass of women, doing anything to get a little pussy, pedistalizing, treating their daughters like daddy’s little princess (where it really starts), etc.

    We can’t blame women for accepting as the norm a world in which she is a privileged godess. It’s not the fault of some “ism.”

    Do an experiment — next time your’re waiting for an elevator with a group, when the elevator arrives and the doors open observe which gender immediately steps forth as if entitled to enter first. And observe the other gender move aside for the privileged gender.

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    @Bachelorocles –

    It is eerie how chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto advocated the destruction of the family unit by destroying the bonds between men and women, vs what’s been happening over the last couple of generations.

    At any rate, this is off-topic for this comment-string. I encourage you to do your own reading and research, draw your own conclusions. Things that you discover and decide for yourself are more valuable to your own growth vs being spoon-fed answers that may or may not be true for you.

  • jf12

    @Rollo, ok I’ll bite. Are the women in these exchanges saying “Of course I’m hypergamous! My hubby is the most awesomest man alive or dead imaginable! I’m so incredibly blessed etc” like my wife’s facebook pages and all the other women she knows pages (which for some reason have all made retrospective slide shows this week, starting from artfully illuminated Nikon four megapixel “My hubby is the awesomest! Look at these flowers he brought me!” from 2006 to the Amaro-filtered phone shot “My hubby is the awesomest! Look at this sandwich he made me!” from 2013). Or “Of course I’m hypergamous! That’s why I can fully recognize that I settled for my husband, but hey he’s good enough.” Or what?

  • Bachelorocles

    @BlackPoisonSoul

    I agree this is off topic so I’ll be brief.

    Actually, Marx argues that capitalism has destroyed the old traditional ways that tightly bound men and women together. That’s in chapter 1 and he speaks of this in other writings. In chapter 2 he explains that the modern family will under capitalism vanish as the capitalist epoch transforms into the communist epoch.

    But I put little stock in Marx and his grandiose 19th Century magic thinking.

    The relations between men and women today are not the result of some grand historical godhead or some magical “ism.” It’s the fault of men — American men are weak. But it’s also the fault of biology and supply and demand. Most women will achieve a very high SMV prime. But few men will hit a truly high alpha SMV. As Mystery preached, women have evolved to fuck the tribal leader. But men evolved to fuck nearly all women.

    So in nearly any modern mating setting, the male demand for most women will far exceed the female demand for most men — but the female demand for the very few alpha males will be quite high. This gives women tremendous power in the modern dating scene to negotiate lopsided relationship terms with the many betas. And the many betas readily accept those terms. Hell, the many betas will get down on one knee, offer a woman a gem representing a significant portion of his income, beg a her to enter into a lopsided contract (marriage) the terms of which will overwhelmingly favor her, and enter into this modern monogamous relationship which caters to her greatest biological desires (nesting and breeding) while requiring him to sacrifice his deepest biological desires.

    So it’s not entirely the fault of men as biology always drives things.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @jf12
    It’s never an extreme binary like you’re describing it, rather it’s an acknowledgement that “yes, women are like that, yes our sexual strategy is based on looking for bigger and better, etc.”

    If you read SSM or Elspeth or even Kate here, they’ll probably describe their husbands as you do, but they’re invested in their commitment so it’s a ‘wife goggles’ thing. A woman’s husband is a reflection of her capacity to optimize her hypergamy, so there’s always going to be a confirmation bias in her appraisal of him. Women need the internal and external confirmation (imagined or real) not just that they secured the commitment of a high value male equal to their own SMV, but that they secured a man who exceeds her own SMV (better than she deserved).

    In doing so it proves how ‘special’ she is for him ‘loving’ her exclusively – abandoning his male sexual strategy to accommodate her hypergamy. He can’t be a Man among men if he isn’t of a higher SMV than herself. Again, the reality of his SMV may or may not be how she represents it to herself and friends, but it’s the only way to feel that her hypergamy is contented.

    There was a time when the popular definition of hypergamy was simply “a woman’s tendency to want to marry into a higher socioeconomic status”, which of course women gnashed their teeth at because it basically paints them as all gold diggers, but when you expand that definition into broader sense of women wanting the best or better SMV in a man that their SMV will merit, none of them can disagree with it.

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/13/the-hypergamy-conspiracy/

  • jf12

    @Rollo, ok you made me think, again, something you seem to be good at. I was about to fire off something like “the effectiveness of the feminine imperative requires women to remain ignorant that their own hypergamy exists”, but then I realized that was wrong because of the existence of the rationalization hamster. So now I’ll fire off:
    The effectiveness of the feminine imperative requires women to remain ignorant that their own hypergamy is unreasonable, objectively.

    Mathematically, even, 80% of the women cannot reasonably think they personally should be a great match for pairing off with only the upper 20% of men. The two big hamsterings, I think, are
    1. The apex fallacy. The other 80% of men don’t even register; they don’t pass the threshold. “Even though I admit I possibly may not deserve the absolute best, ok, but I’m not going to settle for …”
    2. The alpha widow. “I married a great guy, really, I don’t feel I’m settling, at all, really, aske me again and I’ll tell you the same. But there was this one guy back when, and if he had chosen me, well …”
    Maybe there are more. What do admittedly-hypergamous women say when asked to report on their hamsterings? It can’t be as simple as “I deserve as good as I can get” can it?

  • Grim

    The OP story is invalid because of all of the worship directed at this feminist woman in the beginning. She’s 33!!! That means she can’t be a great person as this pussy whipped man states. If she were a good woman, she’d have been married by 27 and she would not have a yoga body and she’d be on her 3rd kid by now.

  • YOHAMI

    jf12, you’re trying to apply “reason” to the realm of feelings.

    A woman is wired so she selects for the top / best / upper man in the tribe. Either she gets it to some degree or she rationalizes that what she got is what she wanted, or both.

    Whatever she tells you, even if it comes from a rational mind, its going to reflect what “feels” right at the moment, and not what its reasonably logical, and if the two overlap that’s a mere coincidence.

    “80% of the women cannot reasonably think they personally should be a great match for pairing off with only the upper 20% of men.”

    The trick is they dont want monogamy. They want good seed and security. The security they get from society. The seed they get it from the top 20% alpha men, or they hit the wall trying. Then they take seed and security from a lesser man but it’s never worth much.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @jf12:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

    “Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.”

  • jf12

    @Yohami, I’d like to say “He must be worth it, because I must be worth it.” but I fear that might be a stretch.

  • Tam the Bam

    Yohami” They want good seed and security. The security they get from society. The seed they get it from the top 20% alpha men, or they hit the wall trying.”
    OK matey, where should I save or bookmark this?
    On my final vid to my boys (oopsy, dicky ticker, but they’re both grown men now (and how!), not a problem), or on the Cloud?

  • Keith Swanson

    Nothing to see here. It’s business 33 year old woman trying out men so she can get hitched. noheroes got a taste, liked it but didn’t want to invest so she finds a more seemingly more suitable prospect in Chip. Only he turns out to be a rebound guy using her the same way noheroes is. I wouldn’t doubt that she is telling Chip the same thing she’s dumping on my man.

    When a woman I’m banging is telling me about a relationship with another guy she’s usually trying to start a bidding war for her services. If my bids up the relationship she’ll go to Chip saying she has received a better offer…

  • strauMan (@strauMan)

    @noheroes
    Thanks for sharing your story.

    @donalgraeme
    “I’m not like that!”

    Yes, this was one paramount piece my learning of female solipsism. Ask any woman something objective about women as a whole, grab a chocolate bar, and prepare to be dazzled.

    Getting most women to think objectively is like getting the Easter Bunny to pay income tax.

  • Mike

    “In doing so it proves how ‘special’ she is for him ‘loving’ her exclusively – abandoning his male sexual strategy to accommodate her hypergamy.”

    For the average man, self-sacrifice seems to be necessary for demonstrating value. The market teaches him through repeated failure (rejections), and his observation of winners, that since he is not the “tribal leader”, he needs to offer his bride a “sacrifice” to earn her devotion. It could be faithfulness, exclusivity, thoughtfulness, forgiveness. This statement shows that hypergamy requires the man to sacrifice his full market potential too. And do it so a woman can exceed her market potential. But it’s not possible for most women to achieve this because there aren’t enough higher value men to make the sacrifice. And not all of the higher value men are going to be willing to make the sacrifice. So, this statement of hypergamy cannot be satisfied for most women, even though many may brag among themselves that they have achieved it.

  • jf12

    She’s very weak on the King side. NxP, freeing the Q and B to snag her KR in 6 or 7 moves.

  • privacy_is_really_cool@hmamail.com

    “recursive” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion

  • Supramax

    “Noheroes even explains the process to Helen only to have her confirm her awareness of it, but still having a desire to participate in it.”

    Of course! – If a woman you were involved with (let’s say a 7) sat you down and calmly explained to you the folly of your pursuit of beauty, how the beauty of the HB9 you’ve been screwing will disappear in short order, etc. etc.blah blah blah would it change your desire to keep screwing the HB9 ? Nyet. Maybe after 20 sessions of electro-shock therapy and a lobotomy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,331 other followers

%d bloggers like this: