Trophies

trophy

Hypergamy is seen 90+% in men while “upgrading” their wives; and only <10% in women for “upgrading” their men. Yet it gets called out disproportionately as a thing women do… Geese and ganders. Geese and ganders.

I got this comment on Hypergamy Doesn’t Care a little while ago. It’s about what I’ve come to expect from women who find revealing the secret of hypergamy offensive. These of course are the women who’s sexual strategy relies on men’s unawareness about hypergamy in order to consolidate on long-term security, but I find it entertaining that when a Man exposes that truth there is a ready social convention to shame him with, rather than the prideful embrace of an ‘empowered’ woman revealing exactly the same truth.

What commenter CV’s proffering here is the Trophy Wives convention. A lot has been made of this recently and it’s brought to my attention that this is a feminine operative social convention that I haven’t covered as of yet.

There was a time when this social convention was a very functional shaming device for women. Right around the mid 1980’s to the late 1990’s the notion of men becoming bored with their wives and “upgrading” them for a newer (younger, hotter) model was a very popular trope. There were romantic comedies based on the convention as well as an underlying presumption that men would just be biologically predisposed to this upgrading.

In the popular media, movies and sit-coms of the period, we could tell the measure of a man’s character by the way he would or would not fall to the temptation to ditch his ubiquitously loving and devoted, but SMV declined, wife in favor of a hot young (usually mid 20s) woman who was stereotypically vapid, immature and shallow. It was fun to ridicule (and pathologize) men’s sexual response while fostering an endearing sympathy for the poor, unjustly served wives who, through no fault of their own, fell victim to so many men’s base urges to wantonly discard her for a hotter, tighter blonde with fake tits.

Naturally the caricature wouldn’t be complete without accounting for a Trophy Wife’s character – always vapid, usually gold digging, and uniquely incapable of relating to him on the same level of intellectual and emotional maturity his discarded wife had so selflessly devoted herself to.

To further the mythology this want for a young ‘Chippy’ was almost always paired with the ‘infantile and ego-bruised’ man’s mid-life crisis, selfishly attempting to recapture his youth in a sports car and a new ‘bimbo’ wife.

This was an effective convention then because it played on women’s fear of the Wall and built upon their, feminine-as-correct, moral / intellectual superiority of men, who could only be counted on to reason with their penises rather than consider the relational equity women would necessarily invest into a marriage with only the best of intentions. In a sense it was the female flip side of the Relational Equity fallacy found predominantly in men today.

As with most of its social conventions, the Feminine Imperative got a lot of milage out of the Trophy Wife fear – not the least of which was due to the perception of men’s more prominent role as financial providers. But with time and a new global degree of connectivity this trope is no longer as tenable as it was.

Dead Conventions

From about the turn of the millennia, the concept of “Trophy Wives” has been a dead feminine social convention.

Whereas most long held feminine social conventions can be socially rejiggered to accommodate new circumstances or even directly proven contradiction as time and society progresses, the Trophy Wife canard simply doesn’t hold water the way it used to. In fact, for men aware enough of it, it’s really a cruel reminder of its original intent now.

You see, when it’s statistically 70+% women initiating divorce, detonating marriages because of an Eat Pray Love script and a “I coulda done better than this Beta” commercialization effort of women’s innate hypergamy, it’s kind of hard to float the male-shame of “men divorce their wives because they want a newer model” trope. At present, there’s enough connectivity and enough shared male experience, even from the female side, to make the Trophy Wives convention an embarrassing holdover from when it was useful.

Oh I still get it occasionally in my comment sections, but now it’s just the “ooh ooh men do it too” script that falls flat, and I think even the hard-sell women are realizing this with such readily available divorce stats online now.

The Trophy Wife convention worked in stupid 80′s movies plots as a vehicle to infantilize men’s commitment to women’s long-term security, but when Stella heads off to Jamaica to ‘get her groove on’ it’s called female empowerment.

Trophy Wife may not be a functional convention anymore, but it’s certainly a good illustration of the Feminine Imperative at work.

Smoking Guns

About a month ago Dalrock did some yeoman’s work in comparing divorce statistics with women’s rate of remarriage. From the Smoking Gun:

I’ve focused on the stats for women because it is women who are driving the divorce rates.  As you can see, divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry.  Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away;  if this were true the divorce curve would slope upward, not downward.

Rather than lift Dal’s charts I’ll refer readers to have a look at his original post. For the purposes of comparing these stats to the old model of the Trophy Wives convention, it’s fairly obvious that the actual trend was never a mythology of discontented men jettisoning their wives for younger ones, but rather common, average women discontent in their hypergamous “Assortive Mating” detonating their marriages for the promises of a guaranteed security and a second chance at optimizing hypergamy “before their looks run out.”

From a legal and social perspective, a feminine-primary society has undeniably made the cash & prizes incentive for women to Cash Out of their marriage a realizable and socially acceptable option.

I may ruffle some feathers with this proposition, but I can’t ignore the prospect that, for some women, this ‘detonation’ may have been part of, or became, their long-term security strategy once she’d ‘settled’ on her post-Wall Beta male provider. Even for women with whom this wasn’t a conscious plan the failsafe of post-divorce social and financial support represents is always present.

Whereas the Trophy Wife convention primarily revolved around elite men with the capacity, status and affluence (if not the intent) to discard their wives depended on suppressing the Apex Fallacy (only men of extraordinary means could entertain it), for women the Eat Pray Love schema can be realized by virtually any western woman – and statistically we see this played out in reality.

High profile men, who took up with a stereotypical Trophy Wife are statistically insignificant compared to women’s divorcing their Beta providers, assured of his support in the long term, and either return to their ‘party years’ model of short term fulfillment, or take up with another provider. The old male-shame Trophy Wife social convention has been replaced by a feminine-primary, feminine acceptable, form of hypergamous optimization.

Assortive Mates

This reality is a fairly ugly one to confront for women and a feminine based society at large. For the most part Beta men are more prone to get along than make waves in a marriage or LTR. So conditioned and prepared for this self-sacrificial monogamy and support, few will consider women’s sexual strategies, much less question their sincerity of their reasoning for wanting out of their marriages later.

Still, that ugly truth is becoming increasingly more unavoidable as men share their experiences with each other. What to do?

As I mentioned there’s a lot of talk about debunking the old Trophy Wives convention. I imagine my readership is already aware of a recent “study” ‘proving’ that men and women tend to pair off according to like interests and attraction – rather than the notion that women would in any way be opportunists and motivated by hypergamy:

Here’s some bad news for men with highly successful careers and fat wallets: You probably will not end up with a “trophy wife,” a new study suggests.

When researchers compared qualities such as level of attractiveness and socioeconomic status within couples, they found almost no evidence of the trophy wife stereotype, which suggests attractive, young women tend to marry rich and successful men.

Instead, couples are far more likely to end up together because they share similar traits. For example, attractive, wealthy or highly educated people are more likely to choose a partner with the same qualities. The same is true for less attractive, low-earning or less educated people. Trophy wife marriages still happen, but not nearly as often as expected, the study revealed.

Obsidian over at JustFourGuys has done an admirable job of picking this study apart. Needless to say the study begins from a point of error, relying on a sample group of early 20s couples to determine the overall social “trend” of assortive mating. Commenter John Albertsen makes the old model Trophy Wife observation:

Trophy wives are, according to the generally accepted definition, not only attractive, but considerably younger than their husbands. Limiting the study to “couples in their twenties”,eliminated the older guys with younger wives, as the difference in the ages of the pair would be a maximum of 9 years. Further, very few highly successful men reach those heights by 29 and of those that do, how many would be married at all?

The sample used in this study seems to eliminate the very people who would need to be included to accomplish it’s stated goal. Studying married couples in their 50s would be just as invalid as it would still not include a fitting age difference.

It would be better to study couples where the MEN were in their 50s to see how their attractiveness and financial success compared to the age and attractiveness of their wives. I suspect that you will find very few such ‘elderly’ gents paired up with young cuties unless they were loaded. In other words, what the young women find attractive about the guy is what’s in his wallet.

After considering this, an astute Red Pill Man needs to question the true underlying motive, not just for the study itself, but the reason for it being popularly reposted and relinked in a feminine-primary cultural bubble.

In western society it’s a statistical rarity for early 20s men and women to be married (or seriously monogamous enough to consider it) at all. Feminine-primary culture can’t seem to make up its mind; why would men need to Man-Up, stop being ‘kidults’ and accept mature marriage responsibilities at 29 if so many early 20s men (like those in the study) are pairing with their equalist approved fiancés?

Any number of studies and polls empirically show that women not only want their husbands to be older (5-7 years), but also wish to marry at or around 28-30 years of age. Furthermore, there’s no shortage of articles and blog posts relating how women are postponing marriage to pursue professional goals or are frustrated in being forced to ‘settle’ for monogamy with men they consider beneath their status, financial and educational levels later and later in life.

What the McClintock study was trying to prove had nothing to do with Trophy Wives, but rather the intent was to disprove and distract from the realities of feminine hypergamy – while conveniently shaming older men that feminine-primary culture largely still believe harbor plans to marry younger women once they consolidate their fortunes.

The intent isn’t to disprove the Trophy Wives social convention (created by the same influence attempting to disprove it), but rather to prove that women aren’t actually the opportunists an innate hypergamy would have them, by necessity, be. The intent is to distract men’s increasing awareness of women’s opportunistic, strategic sexual pluralism.

As I illustrated last week:

…hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

Assortive mating (Alpha Fucks) is not the same as Assortive pairing (Beta Bucks). The conflicting sides of feminine hypergamy ensures that the prerequisites of satisfying both are met with different qualifiers. McClintock’s efforts here (besides her own professional aggrandizement) are yet one more attempt to sweep the unpalatable truth of hypergamy under a rug she’d rather men not have the curiosity to look under. This is simply an obvious effort in keeping hypergamy a secret, and to inspire men to shame for even being curious about it.


76 responses to “Trophies

  • donalgraeme

    Something that keeps coming up when hypergamy is discussed is the female drive to keep it a secret. I’m curious Rollo, do you think that the female penchant for deception, especially regarding matters of female sexuality, is a trait that was “evolutionarily selected for?” That is, women who were more deceptive about their sexuality were more likely to pass on their genes? [Presumably because they were more likely to pull off satisfying their hypergasmic impulses?]

  • LiveFearless

    to inspire men to shame

    And then there are the examples of how a man should be in shame. The host is paid $20 million per year for one radio show. Why? There are too many legitimate reasons to name here, but I assure you, he IS super talented.

    Part of his work is to have empathy with women because men have made mistakes. His musician guest has made a whole album dedicated to one woman because of his mistakes. At least, that’s how the story has played in the media. Never underestimate the power of popular music and the famous talents known for that music. The popular content, like it or not, still has global influence on the concept of a relationship: http://bit.ly/1iUuzUm

  • Beauty Is Truth

    I know this is a bit off topic but I’ve long recognized that beauty is a universal truth. This applies to not only females, but to males as well. It’s male hamster talk to think otherwise.

    I remember looking at some girl’s profile after sharing the Jeremy Meeks photo and her friends were going absolutely crazy for this guy. Some exclaimed how wet and horny they got for him and I even saw a comment that read: “damn, i wouldn’t complain if he raped me!” That chick had 13 likes at the time.

    There was also a girl in my facebook social circle who did a heavy background check on the guy. It didn’t matter that she had a boyfriend already; she really wanted to know the story behind the thug who made her tingle, unlike her boyfriend. Some guy tried called her out by saying, “Hmm, you’re really looking for a lot in this case huh?” She replied: “No. It’s just that this type of injustice makes me mad! The guy should have a hearing!”

    Pfft, yeah right. Take that red pill and you’ll see just how women will hide their hypergamous drives away. Many men were also shocked by the explicit sexual comments this guy was getting. I suppose men think that either looks don’t matter or that you must first give something in order to have her put out but these are cruel reminders to betas that the top percentage of men can have more pussy than they can handle and that’s without giving women a damn thing. They simply have to wake up, wipe the crust off their eyes, and make some small talk with a young girl. She’ll do most of the work if you’re top dog.

    As for that comment by Obsidian, he forgot to mention that Carter (the girl who was banging all these guys) noted that Jay-Z had the biggest dick of them all. That along with his height is probably the reason Beyonce still stuck by him. Forget the business and status aspect of it. That matters but a woman cares more about “good genes” than provisions, at least primally. But even top men can get cheated on and eventually left if they make too many mistakes.

  • Zelcorpion

    Ah – the supposed huge segment of the population with trophy wives that are discarded like the next best car.

    While it is true that you see more beautiful women among the truly wealthy, it is anything but clear-cut as I met a lot of rich men married with not overly attractive women – married for decades at that! I estimate that the real number of “up-trading” successful men is not really very high. Usually I saw it with men, who got rich during marriage. Those relationships have been bombed more by women, as the women find that they can gain a lot via divorce and find “freedom”. Actually I have known a few cases where the rich men have greatly suffered because of indemic Beta oneitis after his wife has left them.

    The only painful cases for women have been those, where she was left for a way younger woman who has then born her ex-husband a child again. But in those cases I doubt if the women have been perfect wonderful angels. The Male psyche usually tries to keep a good supportive woman (who tries to be attractive and slim even at ages of 40+) around. A man would rather take short term flings or a mistress than to leave such a wife.

  • Bourdonne (@Bourdonne)

    I have a question about the mechanism behind the changes in women’s attitude. It seems logical that with the decreasing need for women to find a man’s provision and protection, they forego the tendency to pair up with a beta male (or leave him as soon as he’s served his purpose) and instead follow the impuls to go after alpha males for the best genes.

    In millions of years, women have evolutionairy developed strategies (hidden ovulation, hormonal changes throughout the menstrual cycle, sperm flow back) to find a balance between AF/BB and thereby to optimize the chances of their offspring surviving and procreating. The hereditary traits driving the behaviour that best served the ‘selfish genes’ of women survived into the next generation. This would include an increased tendency to cheat during ovulation (cuckolding of good genes) but also a tendency to stay with one’s partner to ensure one’s offspring reaches adulthood. Also, the beta male has a fairly good chance of seeing HIS genes back in the next generation (or the beta traits would have died out a long time ago).

    What I don’t understand is this: the balance between AF/BB that every women had to seek for millions of years has only very recently been so lopsided that any given woman can completely ignore her impuls to stay with a beta provider. It seems a rather short period to overrule the evolutionary hardwiring of women’s brains. Evolution usually takes place on a much longer time scale. Also, women in this age do not usually *reproduce* with their AF partners due to birth control and free access to abortion, which would hold back the AF traits in women from spreading.

    I am aware of the fact that evolution can change species “overnight” by means of extreme changes in environment, but natural selection has not in this case been so strong that beta males or women seeking them hardly have any children.

    I am not contradicting you, your writing makes far too much sense to be discarded, just curious what you think of this matter.

  • Mark Minter

    I saw this comment on the RooshNMe women’s blog on his post about the soft wall from Ella the Squirrel:

    “Is it me or are these guys unhealthily obsessed with having a butchered evopsych+darwinian view of human connection and humanity? Seems so… miserable :(

    Honestly, if I actually bought into the manospherian view of things (which I don’t) I’d just opt out and go celibate and single forever.”
    ….

    And I have been contemplating this for a couple of days. How the impact of Red Pill can preclude you from having a “happy” relationship. I went back and checked to see when I actually began reading Rational Male using comments that I left as “footprints” to when I actually began here. What I did notice that Rational Male today is even less optimistic about women then it was two years ago.

    But to answer Ella, I would say that “science” doesn’t have an asterisk by it that says “You can accept this as the truth-except when it is uncomfortable or it doesn’t correspond with your world view.”

    So let’s get to some science.

    “In species where the females get nothing useful from their mates they seem to choose on aesthetic criteria alone.” The Red Queen page 134.

    In the species of bird, the Great Snipe, the male brings little fishes to the female to show that he is both a bringer of fishes and that he can find fishes to bring her. The peahen, at the exact opposite of the spectrum, receives no assistance from the male at all and the responsibility of having and rearing the offspring falls entirely on her “shoulders”.

    Yet in species where the choice of male is necessary for the survival of both the female and offspring, compared to those where the male only supplies genes and nothing else, an amazing lack of selectivity comes to bear.

    But in species where the choice of male has little or no impact on the survival and well being of the female and the offspring, the opposite is the case. An extremely high level of selectivity is the norm.

    In the Great Snipe, the courtship occurs with almost no fanfare whatsoever. The dude shows up with the fishes and he is in. Yet in the case of Peafowl, the highly choosy female selects from many males, and usually chooses the same male that the other females chose, and the basis of the choice is entirely based on aesthetics, (the length, fullness, and symmetry of his tale) AND the copycat tendencies that females display in mating choice. The females picked the”sexy” male entirely because the other females picked him as “sexy” .

    And what eluded most biologists for years, a thing that was so obvious to Darwin some 150 years ago, was that “sexy” need not have any “fitness” function whatsoever. Genes are motherfuckers. And to further propagate themselves via reproductive success is entirely more important then some “fitness” function that might lead to survival and success in any given individual.

    So the reason the “trophy” meme has ebbed is for most women, especially those that would be “Trophies”, the utility of men has ebbed, and now they are entirely free to pursue the more base instinct of pursuing aesthetics (alpha cock and big fun, cash and prizes)

    I think that meme, the trophy wife, actually pre-dates 1985 and somewhat still exists as the general fear. An older woman mentioned to me, “Those men trading in their wives for younger models” as recent as two years ago and I jumped down her throat with a mass of data. I read just recently that only 3% of divorced men marry mistresses. I think the article was about the dangers of women dating (poaching) married men.

    But back in the day, (Let’s use 1985 for the purposes of some math) the numbers certainly favored the opportunity of men to do so and the numbers heightened the nervousness of women to worry that it could happen to them.

    So in 1985, our “trophy hunter” might have been 40-50 years old given the stereotype. So then he was born somewhere between 1935 and 1945, a time of low birth rate with postponed marriage and family formation until after War War II. At the end of War War II, the population of the United States was 150,000,000. And at the end of the baby boom, it was 225,000,000. So by 1985, 1 in 3 adults was under 30 years of age. So our “trophy hunter” back in the day was in a situation where there were very few of him, affluent males in his age group, and very many “trophies” in ratio to the number of him. Also, the nature of the economy at the time was that those males were supreme relative to the economic position of those females.

    So then all this began to flip around with the advent of the birth control pill. By 1962, the birth rate begins to fall off, meaning births per 100,000 people. And it begins its constant descent from 25 during the baby boom to 11 where it sits today. And throughout the 1970s, it hovered at around 15. So by the year 2000, there were many many more “trophy hunters” than there were “trophies” to be bagged, especially given that the trend that mostly stupid and ugly fat people had children had already started to get underway and the level of obesity had started its upward climb in 1992.

    Starting in the late 90s and surging upward (downward?) until today, the “utility of men” has diminished greatly, at least for “trophies”. And the dearth of “trophies” has exceeding raised the negotiating power they possess where they can extract all they need from affluent men without the ultimate sacrifice of not pursuing aesthetics (alpha cock).

    There was a ROK story a bit back about the End of the Provisioning Beta Male where some Wall Street guy had given his “trophy” tons of cash and she had chucked him aside to go with some MMA kickboxer with fucking 8 pack abs. So the rich beta was suing her to get the cash back. And also a story about a guy who took his “trophy” to Vegas, got her a room at an exclusive resort and over the course of the weekend she charged about 20 large ($20,000) in spa treatments, room service, limo, and chips, then flaked on him. And was suing to try to recover the cash. The rise in Sugar Baby shit is tremendous and the ultimate success for a sugar baby is getting all the provisioning from her affluent sugar daddy and not giving up any trim in the course of the trade.

    So the 1985 trophy husband, today, in 2014 is just another creepy fucking beta male offering provisioning in hope of mating and he gets played for a sucker.

    So if there is any sort of tendency in “Assortive Mating” (and the Assortive Mating quote seems to imply that our former trophy hunters were going to be stuck with picking women because of her “good personality”) it is that (a) there is a lack (dearth actually) of high quality women that will marry solely on the basis of money (b) those male “assortative mates” still offer some utility to those “good personality” women that cause those women to override their instinct to choose on aesthetics and choose the guy that can “bring her fishes”.

    I guess what Ella is saying is that Red Pill is hard to swallow and to do so in its entirety removes any chance of “happiness” that men might have if they didn’t “go there”.

    Oh well. Too late.

    But I sort of think that happiness is the lack of unhappiness. And only the top economic 10% of those male assortive mates are statistically immune to the “unhappiness” that probably awaits them (him) when the female assortive mate decides that “aesthetics uber utility”.

  • BC

    @Mark Minter: A+ comment

    While I think the 1985 trophy husband demographic is overstated, I also subscribe to the idea that one should be cautions in attributing to culture that which can be adequately explained by economics.

    “Follow the money” is generally the safe bet.

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    @MM – very interesting, that. I would say that your assessment is bang on the money. Yes women are now free to pursue the sexy motherfucker man, given their needs are covered. Once they no longer get attention from the sexy motherfucker they will settle because they’re forced to – and they seethe with resentment for their “man” who doesn’t measure up.

    I’m going to step aside from the concept of Hypergamy, because it can be reduced to even simpler terms: Game Theory. What we have here is the Tragedy of the Commons writ society-wide.

    In a nutshell for those who haven’t looked into Game Theory: imagine several people each grazing a small herd on common land. One person greedily decides that he’s going to put one extra cow in his herd. The effect of one cow won’t have a huge effect on the common land, but it will have a large effect on his income.

    Another person notices and decides to do the same. Over and over. Suddenly the common land is overgrazed, destroyed, and everybody ends up worse-off. Further, all trust has been destroyed between the original owners of the herds – who have all lost their herds and are destitute.

    Men and the government are the common land, being destroyed by divorce or by single motherdom. It is becoming very noticeable: 50+% chance of divorce and 45+% of all children being born to single mommies (that’s the official stats). Men are dropping out because there’s nothing for them anyway – they thus earn less which has an extra destroying effect on the government.

    We don’t need the concept of Hypergamy, we just need to see the incentive to be greedy bastards. This is so much simpler to describe. It’s when short-term personally-focused thinking takes priority over long-term society-focused thinking. Originally there were laws enforcing the long-term society-focused thinking, now long gone.

    In the old days there was zero incentive for divorce – in fact women got zero, zip, zilch if it happened. Men were ostracised if they did it without very good cause. For both sexes it was the kiss of death. Both had powerful controls on potential bad behaviour. Potential society-destroying behaviour.

    Now it’s not only swung the opposite way in the form of incentives, it is socially acceptable for a woman to divorce for the most tenuous of reasons. It’s even encouraged by a woman’s social circle: if there are problems with the marriage – think about ending it.

    An example, a woman I asked about why she got divorced: “We weren’t growing together, and if you’re not growing together…” She ended with a little shrug, as if to say “no biggie”. All the other women who heard this priceless turd of thought agreed with her that it was a worthwhile reason to destroy a family.

    I was glad to have such an insight into her character and that of the other women I was associating with at the time (no more). She is a life-coach.

    Individually it might seem like a decision that only affects the self. It becomes a disaster when everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Monkey-see monkey-do, in the long run all will end up poorer in many ways.

  • vinay3543

    To clarify: the reality is for a woman to seek an older man and a man to locate a younger woman. Obvious, but some women, and men, choose to ignore it. This of course only further compounds with inclinations, habits, trends and numbers as both genders grow older.

    There are only occasional exceptions where the female inverse applies to reality in the sexual market. Needless to say, a woman’s physical attractiveness level dictates this, to an extent, luxury. But time takes over, and before she knows it she is going through the process that nearly all women were going through before she was forced down the normal course of events.

    This will explain the types of women who perhaps break the trend:

    http://www.vinaywcmd.com/2014/05/girls-girls-wanting-to-stay-young.html

  • titanic

    Speaking of social conventions women use to support the FI, when each of my 3 children were babies I would constantly get told how much they looked like me … by women, always by women. I can’t remember a single time a man made that comment.

    You might naively explain that disparity away by saying, “Oh, women just love looking at, and talking about babies more than men.” But even then, (pre red pill) I had a sense that women collectively, unconsciously, feel a responsibility to make sure cuckolded fathers never doubt their paternity.

    By the way, they do look like me, and each other. But without a test I guess I can never be 100% sure.

  • deti

    Donal:

    “That is, women who were more deceptive about their sexuality were more likely to pass on their genes?”

    Women more deceptive about their sexuality were more likely to succeed in securing a higher status mate and thereby more likely to pass on their genes.

    [Presumably because they were more likely to pull off satisfying their hypergasmic impulses?]

    “Hypergasmic”. I lulzed at that one. Good one.

  • deti

    titanic:

    Get them tested. If nothing else, the results will get you to the truth and to peace of mind.

  • jf12

    “the Trophy Wife convention primarily revolved around elite men”

    This is all there ever was to it. CV’s comment reeks of the apex fallacy. “90+% of [the elite] men” etc.

  • Mazrim

    4 random red-pill thoughts/observations I’ve had in the last wk that I’ve wanted to toss out there:

    1-I personally think Donald Sterling is the very definition of a “white knight”

    2-I’ve never seen nor even liked the concept of the Twilight movies, because it’s the feminization of vampires & werewolves. They spent 4 movies debating whether bitch wanted vampire or werewolf dick

    3-The new Daniel Craig bond movies are the feminization of James Bond. He now falls is love and respects women. Bullshit

    4-My brother was mentioning how Obama is beholden to the lgbt movement. I pose this ?-isn’t a man taking estrogen and identifying themselves w/women the very definition of a feminized man? I doubt it’s a coincidence that there’s ever increasing numbers of gays & lesbians in our ever feminizing culture

  • jf12

    Donal’s question is answered in the affirmative through biology and behavior. Hidden ovulation, and the fact that women do not know what they want.

  • Tilikum

    “Assortive mating (Alpha Fucks) is not the same as Assortive pairing (Beta Bucks).”

    so much truth in that statement. choice is truly the civilization killer

  • paulo

    I swapped my wife, and two adult children who had left home, for a “trophy wife” many years younger than me. I deflowered her and taught her how to give me great sex, which she regularly does. I have no big pile of money but I do have high status, and it was that which she found attractive.

    A high status male, not money per se, is the primal sexual attractor for women. The reason women sub-conciously go for confident men is because the confidence is a proxy for social status, and primally they want the leader of the pack.

    The vast majority of posters here erroneously base their grievances on the world of here and now, ignoring the fact that, psychologically, we are still on the savannah.

  • Beauty Is Truth

    “Hidden ovulation, and the fact that women do not know what they want.” @ jf12

    I remember reading the book, “Woman’s Infidelity” and the author said something along the lines of, “Women do know what they want. It’s just that up until recently, they haven’t had a chance to experience it.”
    Even though the author is a woman, she’s surprisingly red pill even if she doesn’t know it. She mentions the importance of physicality, even that of the penis, but the man she’s talking to (the book uses a Socratic Dialogue) is having none of it and refuses to believe. Sort of reminds of me the guys who won’t “unplug. “

    As for what she wants, it’s pretty simple actually. All she wants is the best genetic package she can find out in the real world. That’s it. Some men would like to think that women want to feel love but that would only come about if certain banal pre-requisites were already met by the man. Rollo’s maxim of, “Women are the realists and men are the idealists” comes to mind here.

    Now, I get that some specifics or variances in what she may find attractive in a man will tend to vary but all women know alpha genes when they see one. This is why there’s a general consensus as to what constitutes a “sexy man.” The phrase, “Tall, dark and handsome” applies here.
    Charles Darwin, a man ahead of his time much like the manosphere, also covers this in his book: “The Descent of Man”.

    He states, “Both sexes, if the females as well as the males were permitted to exert any choice, would choose their partners not for mental charms, or property, or social position, but almost solely from external appearance.”

    I wonder what Charles Darwin would think if he ever came around to seeing Tinder in action… He would probably nod his head knowingly.

  • jf12

    Even among the elites, very very very few high-profile men that I know of, and I know many, and you know of many too, have trophy wives. Almost all of the movers and shakers want a *stable* homelife where they can relax and kick back. They want their wives to bring them a sammich and cold one, NOT to have to take her out to show her off.

    The Trophy Wife trope may have been primarily wishful thinking and projection on women’s part, not just for male-shaming. Women were encouraged to think of themselves as potential trophy wives, not for their increasingly-unlikely to make-it-big current husband, but for a hypothetical newly rich man who for some reason wants a woman currently married to a schleb.

  • jf12

    @BiT, most women do not know when they are horny, even. They need instruction, and you’ll see a little flashbulb “Oh! That’s why …”

    It’s a combination of lack of libido and incuriousness. A fine statistical summary is that most women seldom if ever masturbate to orgasm, like less than once a month like sexless marriages. A recent news article, something about a mirror on the floor in a public booth or something, told about many women seeing their vaginas at like age 40 for the very first time, and nobody was surprised that so many women had never bothered.

  • orion

    @ Mark Minter

    It is not probably not true that those “sexy” traits are not fitness indicators.

    The peacocks tail for example must be carried around all year and the bird must be healthy or else he will not have a “sexy” tail.

    Amothz Zakavi calls it the handicap principle, the signal must be costly for then it is honest.

    The same is probably true for stotting, where gazelles deliberately slow down and spring up high in the air just because, while a predator is pursuing them.

    What they are doing is bragging, they risk their lifes to be noticed.

    Unfortunately, in humans today, what may once have been the behavior of very high ranking males is now predominantly exhibited by men who are probably not going to be engineers, doctors and whatnot in their futures.

  • cryo

    Apropos of nothing in particular, I believe that your average post-Wall carousel rider would rather eke out the remainder of her sexual relevance getting fucked and chucked by alphas then submit to marriage to a beta. They really do hate betas that much. The Wall is real but so are thirsty THIRSTY men. There are so many Alpha proxies to enable women’s sexual strategy in our modern nightmare world that the beta male is bordering on irrelevant.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @cryo,

    The Wall is real but so are thirsty THIRSTY men.

    Roosh had a post about this last week, and I hate to say I agree, but you also need to consider the context under which post-Wall women are able to get with those thirsty men.

    As a rule, the Alphas they’d want aren’t thirsty.

  • jf12

    Recent research has converged on the conventional wisdom: comfort and trust kill sex, but fear and chaos promote sex.

    http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/40333/title/The-Sex-Paradox/

  • Mark Minter

    @orion.

    I tend to agree with you. I learn towards the idea of”good genes”, male traits as indicators of immunoproficiency and thus the whole testosterone thing I rant about. Human female preference observably prefers those male traits and behaviors, muscles, arrogance, “assholiness”, that are consistent with high testosterone.

    But there is this whole Fisherian school of thought that says “She chooses sexy for the sole reason that to not do so condemns her offspring to not be chosen because all of the other females are choosing sexy.” When Darwin was asked “Why?”, he more or less replied, “Because I said so.” It is somewhat of a circular argument, “She chooses sexy because sexy is what is chosen” and selection favors reproductive success.

    But whether the reason is “beauty” in and of itself or whether it is good genes, the end result is the same, when the utility of the male is less then the female gets more selective on the basis of male attractiveness.

    And the funny thing to me when I read this discussion of this “Fisher” vs “Good Genes” argument between various schools of thought in Biology, (which has been going on quite some time. Amothz Zakavi proposed the Handicap Principle in 1975) there was no mention of this “Cads vs Dads, Good Father vs Good Genes” discussion that seems to be so common among social discussions of female preference. But social discussions are speaking of humans, blank slate culturally determined, body separated from soul beings, so in no way those behaviors and tendencies so widespread, so consistently observed among animals would ever occur in complex blank slatey humans also.

    Just consider just how many observed situations that are core tenets of the manosphere that this statement (about the female preference for aesthetics when male utility is low or nonexistent) applies to. And also how it is probably the driving force behind feminism, “Keep those betas away from us”.

  • Tilikum

    @ Mark

    “the female preference for aesthetics when male utility is low or nonexistent”

    observable in the 90’s and 2000’s, in the last 4 years this is rapidly changing on the ground in my observation.

  • jacklabear

    Tilikum, tell us more about your observations.

    There may be hope for my beta ass yet!
    Actually, my ambition in life is to be a gigolo. I’ve made good progress in the gym the last 5 years. Except at my age the only underwear modeling gig I’m likely to get is for Depends. Wrinkle game.

  • heyjay

    Tilikum:

    The pendulum always swings both ways. As soon as the western “daddy” states can’t keep up with providing due to some sort of crisis this pattern of female choice will inevitably change.
    It’s not like the female always chooses the sexy guy, I think it’s more complex and depends on the state of the environment.

  • Jokanaan

    @Mazrim

    Actually, Bond (played by George Lazenby) fell in love AND got married in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1968). Same as the original novel.

  • Fred Flange, how drugnk I amm

    Small refinement. The “Trophy Wife” is now no longer a thing but for a brief time it was, during the 60’s – 70’s – 80’s initial divorce boom, when everyone headed for the exits. Some higher-finance alpha men did throw over their wives for younger chippies. A handful of public examples established the meme: Mike Love of the Beach Boys (at least 7 times!), Donald Trump throwing over Ivana, some sports figures marrying their mistresses to maintain what was thought to be the necessary “family” image.

    For a time the Trophy Wife was real enough to figure prominently in two of Tom Wolfe’s books, “Bonfire of the Vanities” and “A Man In Full”, which were fiction based on facts gleaned from closely observed reportage of the very rich. But in reality the Trophy Wife trend was neither frequent nor long-lasting; the alpha learned that if he was going to throw a wife over, he wouldn’t remarry, though he would definitely bang the younger chippy. That I have seen, and continue to see today, in the little Peyton Place I inhabit.

    Some may recall that lots of women used the first wave of feminism as an excuse for divorce as well: to escape the “patriarchal construct” of the SAHM mindset via “consciousness raising” which could not be done with those awful menz around. Often to the bafflement of gobsmacked husbands who had no idea anything was wrong. “Consciousness raising” has since morphed and we now call it “I’m not haaaapy”, more or less the same thing but they don’t use that outmoded term anymore, sounds too seventiies.

  • jf12

    The single biggest problem with the handicap theory is its ubiquitous Goldilockness. Why aren’t the most attractive males the MOST handicapped, a reasonable person could ask? Well, says the theory, obviously it’s because being only a little bit handicapped is more attractive…

    In contrast, the single biggest problem with the good genes theory is its ubiquitous pedestalization of female choices, as if they can actually sniff out who will have better children. It has never been experimentally demonstrated that females choose the males who could have the most children.

    Almost all non-Fisherian explanations are post hoc. It seems to me only Fisher touches on initialization.

  • jf12

    The trophy husband is the healthy wealthy and wise provider beta who is handicapped by his betaness but not too handicapped.

  • Anthony

    I think Fred Flange has something to it – once it became more than acceptable to divorce, lots of men and women in mismatch marriages got divorced. Imagine the 50s or 60s high school alpha. He seduces a few girls, mostly with lower SMV than him (those with similar SMV hold out for at least an engagement), and accidentally knocks one up. They get married, they raise the kids. It’s now 1980-something, the kids are grown up, and high-school alpha realizes he’s still got it, and his wife really doesn’t. So he pulls the plug on the marriage, and starts dating young, hot women because he can. He might even marry one if he’s also financially secure. (Especially if he’s somebody in the corporate world – it’s ok to bring a trophy wife to corporate functions, but not a girlfriend, in the ’80s.)

    These days, without shotgun marriages, there’s a whole lot less incentive for guys to marry down when young. If a guy marries young, and at age 50 can still get a much younger woman into the sack, he’s probably not going to marry those younger women, and if he’s not rich, they’re not going to want to marry him. If he’s rich, his lawyer will tell him not to remarry, even if he dumps his wife and takes up with younger women.

  • jf12

    @Anthony re: “(Especially if he’s somebody in the corporate world – it’s ok to bring a trophy wife to corporate functions, but not a girlfriend, in the ’80s.)”

    It was more ok then than now, for “somebodies” to have girlfriends openly and be all blatant and non-politically correct about it. I was there.

  • Nathan

    “Both sexes, if the females as well as the males were permitted to exert any choice, would choose their partners not for mental charms, or property, or social position, but almost solely from external appearance.”

    I believe that completely

  • Johnycomelately

    Of all the ‘upgrading’ I’ve witnessed (admittedly not very frequent) its always been an established beta bucks guy that was seduced by a carouseler approaching the wall.

    From what I witnessed it wasn’t ‘upgrading’ that I saw but deliberate and calculated mate stealing by another female.

    Attributing blame to males for female intrasexual competition anxiety is a common theme. Rather than directly engage in female on female conflict they’ll use males as a proxy.

    Upgrading = mate stealing
    Wage gap = material status competition
    Rape culture = alleviating slut status
    Creepy men = sexual status signaling competition
    Male immaturity (Peter Pan) = It’s not my fault I can’t find a man
    Mens unrealistic beauty standards = I can’t compete with my peers

    The list goes on, every female complaint of male behaviour is effectively an attempt by women to get males to improve the lot of the losers of female intrasexual competition.

  • M3

    I’ve written about this in the past.

    It’s pretty much a myth about men trading up.. it’s a myth created by the ability of those in the public eye (super alpha’s like Clooney and media moguls) who can trade up without much penalty (well, they get killed in divorce settlements but they seem to not care because they do it again and again and again.. maybe they’re just stupid?)

    Point is, we all want to trade up when the SMV isn’t matched or even.

    Most men will remain faithful, true and loyal to their SMV equal or greater, and will tolerate for a very long time their SMV lesser simplly because they’ve been conditioned from conception the trope about those evil men who leave their dutiful wives who gave up their lives for their men only to be cast aside.. it’s like telling kids ghost stories with morals attached to guide them.

    Women on the other hand will destroy their SMV lessers, either with outright nuke rejections.. or when convenient.. beta them up and then extract what they needed (provisioning, children, support) and then blast them on the way out with the herd encouraging her because she always deserved ‘better’.

    Women will also detest their SMV equals. Just having ‘good enough’ isn’t enough. Women need to be with men they feel are SMV superiors, in a sort of cosmic hypergamous nuclear arms race or a keeping up with the jones’s competition of ‘look what i got’ in order to feel happy and content with their partner.

    Men are easy to please and find contentment.

    Women not so much.

    The trophy wife trope has always been about projection, a projection of their own fear – what they do without a moment’s hesitation or doubt – being used against them when the tables turn and the SMV mismatch works against her favor.

    Eat Pray Love.. how empowering… until you hit the wall and ask the guy to ignore the sexual market he has an ability to engage in now that you can no longer sell your wares in it.

  • Nathan

    “super alpha’s like Clooney …”

    That meme needs to fade away. Clooney sucks. Look at his wife!

    Clooney = right place right time. Just like Obama

  • Fred Flange, how drugnk I amm

    @jf12: By the mid-80’s what you saw comports with what I saw (and see) too. Just sayin': during the 70’s in particular, there seemed to be a lingering convention that the niceties be observed, and it was thought the blondie on Mr. Alpha’s arm should be something more than the ONS du jour. Later on, as you note, nobody cared whether blondie was Mrs., Ms., or Escort Service. Everyone was too coked up by then to notice, I guess.

  • Joe Blow

    I see a lot of trophy wives, so-called, living in D.C. There are three basic varieties that are most common. All start with high achieving men who are at least contextually alpha.

    The first kind is the Power Couple Trophy Wife. These aren’t so trophy like, but they are often attractive enough, with both having high power jobs and similar elite backgrounds. A wife who is okay looking and on chatting terms with the White House Chief of Staff is worth knowing, right? She is usually a little younger than him. She screams “difficult.” They farm out their kids, if there are any, to low paid foreign domestic help. God help the partner in this family firm who loses their job first.

    The second kind is the Stay At Home Hottie. She may have gone to a top tier school, and she may have had a high power job, but rather than focus on career and moneymaking she decided to focus on keeping her body tight and her house well kept. These can be found jogging or heading too Yoga class in Bethesda or Chevy Chase, or Leesburg VA, during the morning. There are probably some pretty solid marriages here.

    The third kind is the Old Dude Married His Secretary Trophy Wife. She was a Hill staffer, a law firm secretary, an administrator at the lobbying firm. He is 67 or 73, an ex-Senator or a past-his-prime name partner in a big law firm, and his skin is more shriveled than the foreskin on an elephant’s dick. She probably has something on the ball, mainly her left hand. She typically starts out ranging from okay, to dog-ass-ugly looking in her early 20’s to early 30’s, but looks alright enough by 40, with new boobs and eyebrows stitched on, and fabulous clothes. She’s not hot-hot, but if you’re 80, she’s plenty hot enough. He ain’t going anywhere, and she’s inheriting millions when the old goat croaks it. The relationships are kind of icky when you see them up close, in fact there’s usually a whiff of the grotesque when you see them in person. This is exactly why you don’t bang the hired help.

  • jacklabear

    So no one is going to discuss the observation that women are increasingly going for betas? Tilikum?

    Government bureaucratic jobs (largely for women) have greatly increased since 2007. Other handouts like food stamps, WIC, increasing minimum wage (mostly single moms), disability and healthcare are also up. So it’s not like women are running out of economic handouts.

    I hear that women are increasingly pushing back on feminism advocating traditional roles for women. Maybe they are starting to realize that SAHM is better than sitting in a cube farm all day?
    Unfortunately for them, laws have been put in place that make betas wary of frivorcing SAHM parasites.

  • Steve H

    Couple thoughts,

    From this piece: “Whereas the Trophy Wife convention primarily revolved around elite men with the capacity, status and affluence (if not the intent) to discard their wives depended on suppressing the Apex Fallacy (only men of extraordinary means could entertain it), for women the Eat Pray Love schema can be realized by virtually any western woman – and statistically we see this played out in reality.”

    Whether or not that Apex Fallacy had any truth to it in an earlier generation, the starkest and most inarguable of differences here is in the cultural messaging between the ‘awful’ former and the ‘empowered’ latter.

    From BiT/Darwin:“Both sexes, if the females as well as the males were permitted to exert any choice, would choose their partners not for mental charms, or property, or social position, but almost solely from external appearance.”

    To Tilikum’s point, I think the situation on the ground is changing. It’s becoming less about external appearance (though that is still hugely important) than it is about pre-selection. The competition among women is fiercer than ever in recent years. Pre-selection is everything, and from what I see personally – this drives (prospective) mate preference to a huge degree more than mere aesthetics alone. This is why cultivating charisma and social acumen is so fundamental, now moreso than ever. Chalk it up to an increasingly ultra-competitive societal race-to-the-bottom, I suppose.

    From Johnnycomelately: “Rape culture = alleviating slut status”

    Exactly. That is all ‘rape culture’ really is. More aging post-wall sluts than ever + more aggrieved less-than-elite-looking 20-something women’s studies majors (who are also, though not yet post-wall, also sluts) than ever trying desperately to both justify their misery and cast the blame onto pragmatically self-interested men for their misery.

    From ‘Cashing Out': “to have any Man read this awareness back to them in no uncertain terms is a threat to women’s sexual strategy.”

    I’m finding this path of least resistance is the way to go. Don’t want to get too autobiographical, but I’ve started doing this. Just tell them what they are doing via red-pill behavioral analyses but using lay-person terminology to get the point across. It’s not even worth it to play the ‘ooh try and pass *this* bullshit test Mr. Alpha Man’ game, it’s just fuckin’ exhausting. “Here’s what you’re doing…” is simply less of a headache and I just don’t care enough to try + ‘win’ that game. Even playing that game, it seems to me, is accepting an FI-benefitting framework of ‘good communication’.

  • Steve H

    Yup, here we go again:

    “Today (July 2), Jewel announced her separation from (her husband) World-Champion rodeo cowboy, Ty Murray, citing the need for “growth” that became “undeniably stifled as a couple.””

  • Cris

    Some men will have a hard time leaving their wives because they are way too brainwashed. Even if their life depended on it, they probably couldn’t do it anyway. It’s kinda sad, by the way.

  • jf12

    @SteveH re: Jewel.

    There are a LOT more facebook pictures and stories about Ty being Such ! A ! Great ! Dad ! than her being such a great mom, and in contrast a LOT of stories about her not being such a great mom.

    http://www.swedenwithlove.com/2013/05/jewel-spreads-her-wings/

    I don’t think it matters that the stories were from her; he’ll win any custody battle if he wants to.

  • Nathan

    Life has become to easy for women, daycare, dishwasher, washer + dryer, ready made meals, order out, delivery, microwave, etc.
    They have nothing to do.
    Except shop and bitch

  • Beauty Is Truth

    “To Tilikum’s point, I think the situation on the ground is changing. It’s becoming less about external appearance (though that is still hugely important) than it is about pre-selection. The competition among women is fiercer than ever in recent years. Pre-selection is everything, and from what I see personally – this drives (prospective) mate preference to a huge degree more than mere aesthetics alone. This is why cultivating charisma and social acumen is so fundamental, now moreso than ever. Chalk it up to an increasingly ultra-competitive societal race-to-the-bottom, I suppose.”

    Wrong. External appearance has always been the number one criteria that women look out for in men who they deem worthy of fulfilling their Alpha Fuk strategy.The reason why more women have been more upfront at admitting this recently is because the provider role of the beta has already found a substitute. This substitute could be her job, family, or Big Daddy Government. Women have no need for betas so they will continue to reach out to good looking alphas with impunity. What we’re currently witnessing in the SMP is a raw look into what women really want, at least primally.

    Just take a look at Tinder and other forms of online dating where the big bulk of your pull will be your aesthetics. These places don’t care about pre-selection. Nothing turns on a young hot girl more than a HAWT guy.

  • Savage SMP

    @Beauty Is Truth

    You might want to add a new online form of dating. Have a look at 3nder. A Tinder for threesomes:

    https://www.facebook.com/3nderapp

    Look’s like the cuckold rate will go higher.

  • Steve H

    Elliot Rodger had an attractive external appearance. A ‘pleasing aesthetic’, if you will. And most people are not hooking up via Tinder. It is a very visible but marginal microcosm of the current dating/mating zeitgeist. I know a couple good-looking dudes who have gotten interest on Tinder, one even got a pussy pic from some desperate older single mom, but no fucks have been notched by either of them. Culture-trend appearances can be deceiving.

  • Will

    I think this might be one of the better comment threads in the manosphere.

    Everything is dead on. It’s ridiculous.

    From a big picture of it all though–Assuming the beta bucks alpha fucks theory–would people agree with these thoughts:

    A) If advertising beta providing to a young high smv girl pushes her attraction (read: tingles for alpha)–such as using your resources like money to take her out or do something–for you away…then DONT use your resources on her. INSTEAD it would be wise to use them on your male friends…that way it looks like you’re ‘the leader of the pack’ thus actually increasing the gina tingles for you moreso b/c that reflects alpha.

    And B) My father was not very high status. He is veryyy independent and narcissistic and in fact doesn’t have many male friends at all. He was probably a 6-7 looks wise too. BUT despite this he’s been married to my mom for 35 years. My mom was hot when she was younger. Probably an 8 maybe higher. She works full time and cooked meals for the entire family. She looks good for her age too.

    How did that happen? I’m confused.

    And C) Girls have this ability to RATIONALIZE everythingggg. And with such a huge exposure to ‘sexy good looking’ alphas an LTR with a super high smv girl won’t work…b/c sooner or later she will rationalize her way out and onto another ‘in the moment’ alpha.

    So in the end a think that a girl who was raised properly will select a lower alpha that has a high status career lined up. That way she knows she won’t need to divorce necessarily.

    Alpha is innate. Beta is developed. You can build beta but alpha is somewhat innate and already established (I.e. Genes). So the best thing to do to secure a hot girl for kids is to work on the career and then game somewhat pre wall girls.

    That seems to be what you can control to optimize your place in the smv.

  • heyjay

    @ Steve H:
    I wonder, if you don’t mind telling me, how going the path of the least resistance has worked for you so far. What are your objectives? Can you really pull with this or are you just jaded like myself?
    I’d appreciate your answer!

  • Glenn

    Is it a coincidence that this meme was perpetuated while women’s divorce rates were skyrocketing? I say it was a great way to distract from what was going on in society. When my erstwhile wife moved on in the early 90s, I had no idea that there was the tsunami of women initiated divorces going on. Even today, it’s not talked about in society as an “issue”. Apparently destroying the traditional family in 50 years is just not that big a deal…

    But today, women don’t need the cover. Men are so cowed that we are reduced to complaining about the terms under which we are being defeated in society, in that MRAs focus on divorce and family courts instead of the fact that large numbers of women are just up and leaving their marriages. To me, this is the core problem – everything else is small beer.

    Contrary to the ahistoric presentation of women in recent history in the media, many working class families have had working mothers. Professional women worked while having families and staying married. Our society could easily have evolved into women having more choices without destroying the nuclear family. I think one of the biggest lies that feminism and that fucking cunt Bette Friedan perpetuated is that marriage was oppressive for women in general (of course some marriages are stultifying). Friedan herself was a rabid communist who wrote communist propaganda for a living for a union newspaper who was supported by her well to do husband – who she beat on. She also had live in help. The “Feminine Mystique” was a fiction, and a hateful one but it indeed gave license and rise to radfems glomming onto the victim/oppressor dyad of Marxism and applying to women’s issues. This is how marriage became demonized for women and how exiting came to be seen as a righteous act.

    Friedan was a total fraud. Here’s a link to a debate she had with Herb Golderg in ’79 and you see that she admits that this anti-male, anti-marriage crusade was wrongheaded. http://youtu.be/dO39TKRFS_w
    Herb Goldberg is a genius, an academic psychologist who was fighting back against insane feminism back 30 years ago.

  • Softek

    Facial attractiveness is very important. Very, very important. We have much more control over this than we think, and people need to know about this and start raising their kids equipped with this knowledge. It will make an absolutely tremendous difference.

    Dr. Mew. Orthotropics. Buteyko Meets Dr. Mew is a good book that talks about facial attractiveness and how to develop an attractive face by practicing proper oral posture.

    I’m going to keep mentioning this periodically because people need to be aware of it.

    As for us adults, I still think proper oral posture can help, and I’ve actually noticed some changes for the better over the past few years of doing it consistently. But there are quicker options too, such as the Homeoblock. I might end up getting one of these eventually.

    Working out and getting muscular is in our control. But so is facial development, and we should teach our kids this. Just look up “orthotropics” and / or “dr. john mew” and you will see the proof. It’s nothing short of amazing, but the most dramatic effects come from teaching children at a young age to have proper oral posture.

    I think there are oral devices for them to use like the Homeoblock too which I am convinced is absolutely superior to traditional braces and retainers (which I had), and results in developing a much more symmetrical and attractive face.

    We can work out and develop strong, attractive bodies. With the proper knowledge we can develop full, attractive faces (also, with proper oral posture from a young age, no need for wisdom tooth removal, which also affects facial structure for the worse).

    I’m also completely against circumcision. I’ve been doing foreskin restoration. I will also say that penis enlargement within reason is completely possible with safe, consistent practice of stretching and jelqing — just as the foreskin can be developed over time with consistent practice.

    There are always going to be more and less attractive people. But less attractive people can work hard and improve how attractive they are. It takes an incredible amount of hard work — if you want to stretch and jelq and develop your foreskin back and also build muscle and functional strength, truly significant results may take at least a few years, and that might only be the beginning.

    Even if you don’t get the sexual rewards that naturally attractive people will have, you still get a lot of street cred in my opinion. I, at least, have a lot of respect for people who work very hard to achieve what they want in life, and bear whatever cross they have to bear without complaining and just focusing on improving.

    My friend was extremely attractive growing up, he’s hung like a horse, and he’s probably easily been with over 150 women, probably more, considering how old he is now and how there were plenty of nights he said with the band they’d pass around 9 or 10 girls like they were Halloween candy.

    Survival of the fittest is kind of a shitty thing to think about. But even if it’s true, it feels better when you just focus on the solution — improve yourself as much as possible.

    The Homeoblock is a unique device and I’ve heard guys say that after using it for a while they started noticing they were getting more female attention. That says a lot. This is perfectly within our control not only as parents but as a society in general — and I wish proper oral posture and orthotropics in general were a part of public education.

    We have to get over the fact that not only as men in a feminized society, but less than elite men, we have to work MUCH harder in order to get FAR LESS rewards. It’s just the way it is. When all your attention goes to improving yourself, there’s no room to feel bitter and angry about it. Just not enough RAM to process those thoughts when you’re running more productive programs.

  • Glenn

    @ Softek – One point. Do you not see everything you are doing or suggesting others do as “qualifying”?

  • jf12

    @Glenn, I agree. When I got divorced (yes, as passively as the verb form. I didn’t divorce; I got divorced upon.) in 1980 at the peak of the divorce rate, I had no idea women were driving 65% of them (the phrase power into ground, with women as the pilots, is appropriate).

    BTW I could not find a male lawyer who would bother with divorces even back then. At the first and only hearing/sentencing, I was the only male in the courtroom.

  • Glenn

    @ if12 – I don’t think most people deal with the most important consequence of all of this: The destruction of the nuclear family as the basic social organizing unit of society, and the removal from the family of masculine role models and the natural authority fathers always held in the past.

    This alone is wreaking havoc across society. Just think about family size. What single mother is going to have 3 kids – ya have to have more than two on average to replace the parents, yes? Divorce disrupts having kids too, I wanted 3-4 but after my ex and her taking my first away from me, I could never have another because I could never face losing another child in this manner.

    Consider how this means kids are raised by strangers instead of family members who love them? Consider how this implicitly demeans fatherhood in every way, I mean, you don’t get books and debates named “Are Men Necessary” without this culture taking hold.

    While I care about getting laid and hypergamy and feminism – the destruction of the family alone will destroy our society as we know it. Interestingly, among the elite of our society, divorce rates are much lower and intact families are much more common. Hmmm – hypergamy much? When women reach the top, they do tend to stick. Fyi, that data is available in Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, an amazing book on how our society is changing. He’s a trad con in some ways and I disagree with some of his ideas about solutions, but he nails how the family has been destroyed in the working class (black or white – doesn’t matter). The middle class is catching up, and it’s terrifying to see the rest of what doesn’t happen when families don’t form. Every marker of social success and engagement plummets. From Church attendance to work to coaching little leagues – all civic engagement falls through the floor. Employment full time is rare, home ownership, gov dependency – every indicator moves in the wrong direction when the family falls apart. And no wonder – it’s the basic organizing unit of society. Why would anyone think we could mess with that and not fuck up our society to a fare-thee-well?

  • cryo

    @Glenn

    Exactly right. Everybody wants to join the party and get their piece of the action now (this includes manosphere, PUA, etc) but nobody is willing to face the impending societal collapse. Without families, there is no civilization, simple as. I guess we just keep our eyes wide shut and take solace in banging sluts.

  • Muttley

    Hi Rollo,
    Still very much appreciating your work. Since you posted the Jeremy Meeks link above, I though you might find this interesting:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677286/British-mother-abandons-three-children-marry-violent-prisoner-met-online-impressed-honesty.html

  • Softek

    @ Glenn

    Health and nutrition have been passions of mine for years and this stuff extends far beyond qualifying. To be fair, I didn’t mention anything about that in my post.

    George Caitlin wrote about facial structure back in the 1800’s during his studies of native tribes. He was already aware back then that modern habits were interfering with our health. Proper facial development is more attractive because it actually is physically healthier. We are biologically designed to breathe and swallow in certain ways and when we do it properly, our airways are more open and our general health is better. It’s no coincidence that nasal breathing goes hand in hand with proper oral posture. Read about Buteyko and some of Ray Peat’s articles on carbon dioxide and the picture will get a little clearer. Although the nose acting as a natural filter speaks enough for itself.

    This also goes back to breastfeeding. Brian Palmer has written extensively about the importance of breastfeeding in proper cranial development. All these women who are against it now or feel like they just don’t want to do it because it’s inconvenient are affecting their children, and people shouldn’t think that’s okay. It’s not “my baby, my decision.” That’s a lazy excuse to be ignorant of their child’s needs that they’re responsible for. People need to be educated about these things.

    Proper oral posture can and does prevent the need for braces and wisdom tooth removal. Dr. John Mew has written extensively about this and has plenty of documented cases where he’s proved this to be true. Circumcision and braces/tooth extraction imply that the foreskin, frenulum, and wisdom teeth are vestigial organs instead of taking a much more intelligent viewpoint — that they’re normal and healthy parts of the human body and we should be wondering why it’s so commonplace to remove them — and what the effects of removing them are. The effects are almost exclusively negative, and the only positives about them are because they make a necessary compromise for already compromised health. Much better to have no compromised health to begin with.

    Not circumcising infants and also teaching children proper oral posture would benefit everyone. Squatting in the bathroom isn’t qualifying for anything sexual (at least I hope to God it’s not), but it’s beyond clear that that’s how humans are meant to go. “Nature Knows Best” by Jonathan Isbit explains all of that. Hemorrhoids, colitis,

    I’m primarily making the argument that we are biologically designed to be more attractive than we currently are in modern society, and that we’ve all become less attractive because of modern habits. And changing those habits is well within the realm of possibility and reason if people were just aware of these things.

    My own eyesight got a lot worse after I had my wisdom teeth removed, as in I went from 20/20 to needing glasses, because what happens when you do that? Your face partially collapses. Take out the teeth and the structure around them partially collapses. I have pictures of myself from before and after and my eyes are closer together now, my jaw narrower and not anywhere near as prominent.

    And as far as foreskin restoration goes, that’s purely for myself. On the coverage index I’m a C1 – most removed possible. The glans is completely exposed at all times and has keratinized. This is all about my own pleasure, which at the moment is next to zero. Circumcision is male infant genital mutilation, and it’s just swept under the rug. There is a huge problem with that whether anyone is going to admit it or not, and anyone that can’t see that is completely ignorant of the facts.

    All that out of the way, thanks for pointing out the qualifying attitude. I need to get it through my head that I actually am the prize, and internalize that attitude. I didn’t realize I was qualifying but now I do, and I need to correct that. Point taken.

  • Steve H

    From comment thread on Black Dragon’s latest post:

    “Even though the right wing has been increasingly powerless since the end of WWII, I think people tend to hate tradcons and Dalrock style Christians because of (1) the individual tragedies they play a role in and (2) also the way they would like to force their natural socio-sexual inclinations on others who have no such inclinations.

    Point 1 happens when Tradcons try to convince men to live 1950s style American monogamy and the results of such attempts at hard monogamous living transpire. Tradcons claim this was the way it always was for “good” people. This is false, the histories of non-western polygamy, pre-20th century legal prostitution, and defacto harems of Western monarchs/aristocrats/captains of industry/men of power all tell a different story. Tradcons claim men are happier in hard monogamous relationships. I think witnessing any man with options in action refutes this prudish fantasy.

    But what really inspires hatred for these people is when they convince some fellow to marry like he’s living in 1950 and its the 21st century and the man in question eventually suffers divorce, financial ruin, and family dispossession and then the tradcons simply walk off like they had nothing to do with this and look for another victim to persuade with their romantic prudish nonsense. Tradcons seem to think that if they can convince people to marry like its 1950 that somehow the old ways will return. Its really a dangerous type of magical thinking. People hate tradcons the way people hated generals after World War I for ordering men to run straight into machine gun nests: they play havoc with other men’s lives for goals that probably can’t be obtained and that are immaterial to the well being of those they sacrifice. ”

    We can bemoan the ‘collapse of the family’, but we can also take a look at the consequences of what happens when RP self-appointed civilization warriors try to weather the lifelong storm via noble attempts at trying to recreate the perfect insular traditional family. Being the change they want to see in the world…often leads to personal and familial catastrophe.

  • cryo

    @Steve H

    I don’t disagree. There is nothing that can be done. Simply convincing a few betas to marry a whore and start a family is not going to change anything. We are already fucked, I was just making an observation that it is the destruction of the family that will seal the deal.

    Humanity: doomed to destroy itself.

  • Glenn

    @ Softek – I tried the kinder gentler approach this time, glad it got through and you show some real class in the acknowledging of it. This is something women never do, right? All I can say is that one day the lens just flipped from me evaluating whether I was good enough for a women to just looking for those I find attractive and seeing if there is interest. I approach if I can, fire a round or two and advance or retreat. But their weird looks or whatever weird vibe doesn’t really even enter in any more. I also think because I’m not qualifying, I’m not as creepy. I was working a pretty young woman hard the other night at a gig, half my age and because i was charming and direct, she didn’t care. She kind of enjoyed the brief flirtation, it didn’t go anywhere but I got a buzz from it.

    I like that it’s called “game” cuz that’s what it feels like now. But don’t get me wrong, I know how horrible it is to feel invisible to women, to feel repulsive to women. When I got sick and I put on some weight and came within inches of going bankrupt (every woman in my life wasn’t there for me, but all my male friends and brother were), I plummetted from a fairly high SMV, living la vida loca in NYC, making 6 figures (but spending it all on child support, college and a nyc lifestyle) being dead broke in a year. This is how I got on this whole track.

    For me, part of getting my ass kicked was the shame I felt. I really had no idea how I had “internalized”my value in this world, to myself most of all, as being based on my success in life. As long as I was winning, well, then I could sort of stand myself. But man, when I stopped winning, wow, what an ego crash. And the women were like rats from a sinking ship, lol.

    But now I’ve internalized that women really aren’t that great a prize – and never were. Their love isn’t on offer – don’t you get that? You will never, ever have more than a brief taste here and there of unconditional love from a woman. She will always looking for a better deal – she can’t help it – and she will change strategies on you over time. So the best case most men can hope for is being “settled for” in lots of marriages. Rollo’s high alpha status and wife are the exception out there, not the rule. I’m not saying he’s lucky, I’m sure he maintains the frame but I don’t think he feels invulnerable either.

    Women are not wired to love you as a human being just like we are wired to want to fuck them all the time. There is no there there, and the sooner you see that, the better off you’re going to be. But they sure are fun to have sex with, and play around with a bit. I love goofing off with a woman – hike in the woods, out to lunch or see some music or a movie. But more than that? My male friends and family are superior company in all regards. Trustworthy, reasonable, loyal, reciprocal, skilled, resilient, adaptive – I don’t have to explain any of that shit to my male friends.

    When I got this, I also relaxed. I think part of being alpha is just being okay with the world as it is. Or even if you can’t be “okay” with it, just be with it. What are you really longing for? For me, when I really got honest, it was mostly lust and some occasional companionship. There is no white picket fence – Bette Friedan set it on fire. Get women off the pedestal, they will only use the elevation to kick you in the teeth. That’s the cold hard truth. You let a woman run things, your life is chaos and really, look at you. Women are driving you mad.

    Now I walk around seeing women almost like children. They have buttons and switches, and I observe them keenly without the constant conversation going on inside me whether I’m good enough for this one or that one . I see when their eyes light up and for whom, who they eyefuck and what occupies their attention (mostly BS). When you look closely, there is so much sexual context going on all around us all the time, but we don’t talk about it. I see it now and it’s interesting.

    I’m a bit late to the game at 51, but my life has never given me what I needed when I needed it or wanted it, why should that be different now? Fuck it, I’ll just try and roll with it, that’s where i’m at. In a sentence – I know it’s fucked, but let’s chill anyway, okay? I even really believe we are going to have some kind of serious calamity soonish – and I still say chill. This is the gift of my PTSD, I see really clearly where unproductive worry is running the show and can consciously calm down. You were abused too, right? This shit with women just feeds the low self esteem and worrying. I learned that I had an external locus of control when it came to my self-esteem and slowly but surely I’ve gotten closer to the pont where I just don’t give a shit what anyone else thinks anymore about me. Oftentimes now that means I just avoid what ails me. My sisters freak me out now – I see less of them. Funny, I think I’m creating ‘dread’ in them as I get more invitations now that have less babysitting and errands attached to them, lol.

    Happy trails.

  • Glenn

    @ cryo – Right on. Try this on. Our modern world is laced with the legacy of older times where man was always searching for deeper meaning. Mysticism, religion, and now a humanist philosophy, which I find substitutes politics for religion as dogma, all seem to be desperate to give us that something extra about life that we seem to crave, yes?

    Romantic love and monogamy is like that too in that they are that ‘special’ something that is all important in life. I bought into that for a long time, and than I asked myself, honestly, did I believe that? No, what I really believe is this. No man on his death bed ever said, gosh, I wish I got laid less, lol. I mean, when you put it like that, it’s obvious. Oneitis and dressing up obsession and neediness and weakness as “love” is absurd.

    So really, what are we left with that’s worth a shit anyway? Vassalage to nonsensical women? A marriage that at it’s best requires constant vigilance and walking on eggshells? Nah, let’s throw this whole thing in the shit heap and start over. And we might as well have as much sex as we can along the way.

  • John Connor

    Thanks to rollo future generations of wise men hold onto their dolo. My crews wallets never low. Hoes quick to blow. mgtows up in your area with the sickest flow. Had game since birth but you just now know or yet discovering. My black and white ancestors steady hovering.

  • Bluepillprofessor

    So the trophy wife fad was a head fake to take away attention from the fact there was a tsunami of female initiated I’mm not haaapppy divorces. I wonder how many other head fakes and seemingly deliberate misdirections we can identify?

    The most obvious is “Rape” culture which is clearly false and a misdirection to hide their AF/BB strategy and help secure their Beta Bucks with minimal sexual effort. Alphas know what they want and go get it but Betas (who do the EXACT same thing) are ‘rapey.’ Yuck, stop it right now little boy and go buy me something.

    Another is the 79% pay gap between men and women to hide the fact that women who do the same job as men actually get paid more.

    It seems almost everything they do is a head fake from hidden ovulation to the constant verbal yearnings for ‘nice’ guys so they can leave Beta boy at home while they go fuck the filthiest, most depraved tattooed bikers. No offense to bikers- or the depraved.

  • M3

    Not really relevant to the post, but really, you just cannot make shit like this up.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/07/20140703-071434.html

  • Softek

    @ Glenn

    One of the reasons I’m a little more levelheaded now is I got LJBF’d by my one-itis a few days ago. That was really the kick in the ass I needed.

    This is the best part, and I shit you not: a while after turning me down she posts a picture of herself on a CAROUSEL. A fucking carousel. You can’t write shit like this.

    Just took my entire blue pill fantasy and shattered it into a million pieces and then stabbed me with them.

    Now all I can think of is that she’s a two timing self absorbed slut, and I was a dumb enough schmuck to let her play me like she did. I finally can see the covert bullshit for myself, how she was allowing me to play “friends” with her, and keep flirting with me and stringing me along to keep the emotional support and occasional favors going without any intention of ever being sexual with me, despite all the subtle ‘hints’ she dropped that pointed in that direction.

    I was just a beta orbiter the whole time that I was thinking she would see I was really the one for her. What a fucking moron. Looking back on it I just want to slap myself in the face and tell myself to wake the fuck up.

    You tried to do that, but I guess the only way I could learn was the hard way. Hear it from the girl herself. I appreciate you trying but I guess that’s what it took — the feeling of betrayal and deception and basically like my entire reality shattered on the floor. Because it really did, and I’m glad for it.

    In reality it was the best thing that could’ve happened to me. Just over the past few days a whole bunch of emotional BS came up that’s been plaguing me my whole life. I do think that being abused has a lot to do with it. Neediness, obsession and weakness, as you said, aren’t “love” — you’re exactly right. Now that I have no one to project any fantasies onto I can finally take ownership of all that stuff. No one’s going to take it away from me and now I’m actually seeing the actual need to operate from self-interest and to be in charge of my own life for myself.

    In a significant way I feel like I just got the monkey off my back. It was painful as hell to be rejected and especially to see the aftermath of how she really doesn’t give a single flying fuck about me, especially after knowing her for all these years (around 10, which is embarrassing to admit), but it’s probably the biggest wakeup call I’ve had in my life.

    As far as any calamities that’ll happen, I’ve been suspecting the same thing for a while. There’s a lot of serious stuff going on.

    Best thing we can do is chill out, as you said. The real white picket fence fantasy is actualized in one thing and one thing alone: peace of mind. We are the only people that can give that gift to ourselves. Although I will say that the male friends I’ve made in my life have been extremely supportive and loyal. I have at least a couple best friends. I also recently got a puppy, and that helps too. Someone to actually appreciate my nurturing and support and provision.

    It’s been an emotional rollercoaster but I feel so much better after that and really seeing how much I was fucking up my own life. It stung like a bitch, but it’s been such a short time and my spirits are already coming back up. Phoenix from the ashes. The ashes are really just my own delusions that got destroyed when I saw my one-itis for the person she really was. Which was not attractive at all. Now I know what you meant by me having my head a mile up my ass — I just needed to hear it from the girl I was projecting all that stuff onto. That did the trick.

    I have a feeling that I might even get a good night’s sleep tonight for the first time in months. I’ve got a lot of thinking and a lot of work to do — I’m transforming slowly into living out of self-interest. What kind of service would I like to provide to people? What are my real talents? What do I want to do with them? What kind of fun do I want to have? Forget other people — what do I really want, and what feels right to me?

    Thanks for having patience with me by the way. I appreciate it. There’s a lesson in that too: who has your back when shit hits the fan? Who’s going to be there even after you flip out and show some ugly sides of yourself?

    The answer: other guys that have either been through the same stuff, are your friend, or both. And dogs.

    For now I’m just going to take some Benadryl and pass out. There’s a storm going on and I’m just going to listen to that. I’ve got a lot of processing to do. Thanks again for the support and for sharing your own experiences, it’s helped a lot.

  • Richard

    The main reason the man goes after the hot young wife is because the old wife, who is the perfect age to be a rip roaring whore in the bedroom, has decided to treat sex as if it’s only for young people.

    If wives stopped attaching emotional qualifiers to sex, and understood it as nothing more than a friendly back rub, and learned to fuck their husbands like porn stars…. especially 40+ when let’s face it marriage can sink into a mundane tedium….

    The divorce rates would plummet

    I’d replace the family court with a bondage dungeon and a couple of good dominatrix and send the couple in there for education.

    The ironic thing of the “Eat Pray Love” ideal is the 40+ woman rediscovers herself with the new guy, fucking like a champion when it suits her.

    This has little to do with so called Hypergamy, and everything to do with laziness.

  • Glenn

    @ Softek – Men, dogs – we’ve got a lot in common. Loyal, protective, fierce when necessary, and both will try to fuck an available bitch given half a chance…

    Ouch on the LJBF. 10 years, wow. I get it, you were in DEEP. So now you know – their is no way to negotiate or “earn” desire. To me, that is the core lesson of “friend zoning”. Even more to the point, think about what is going on with you trying to win her over for all this time. You were qualifying with her endlessly. Remember, the point of a “shit test” from a women is to establish her framing of you and really, to test your dominance. And once you have submitted to a woman’s frame, well, you just ain’t that attractive. You see, they want a dominant male, no matter what they say. So the entire posture of the “friend zone” guy sets you up to be impossible to want to fuck.

    There is something sick about women who do this. While I always resist this kind of thing, I had a women trick me into being her beta in waiting for a while – it was like she had to have me as her orbiter even though I had already opted out. I’ll try to make this pithy. Her name is Niki and I met her at some self-improvement course we were taking. I do my usual as she’s a cute petite blonde in her late 30s, I’m friendly for a short bit, make a move, she declines, I’m like okay.

    She’s fun though and one of these ‘Sex in the City’ type girls who has a wide social circle and always has something going on, so I plug into her circle of friends and go out to parties or meet her at clubs. I’m fine. No oneitis, I’ve moved on to other women. I really never thought much about it.

    She calls me up and tells me she needs to talk to me, I suggest dinner and meet her. I’ve known her for 2-3 years by now. She explains that she really does want to be with me. I’m stunned, literally I thought she wanted some business advice or something. But I liked her and was attracted to her so I’m like, “Right on”. But then when I’m walking her back to her apt, she won’t even make out with me, forget fucking her which is what I was after. I’m left scratching my head.

    She keeps me circling like this for a couple of months before I pull my head out of my ass. And remember, I never friend zone. But she sucked me in. Finally I confront her and she tells me this story. I’m no longer doing the self -improvement stuff, she’s doing some other crazy “class”. In it, apparently Niki’s issues with men have been made a case study in this class of about 60 women who are trying to “actualize” or some nonsense. Niki had been the classic, alpha cock carousel riding girl who never got off. Early 40s by this point, she was constantly going for these super high smv types and getting used. A Morrocan prince, drummer from a touring band – but now she’s older and it’s so much worse but she can’t stop.

    Turns out I’m her “project”. I’m described as the “perfect guy” for her by her and confirmed by her class. I make good money, am good looking (not stunning), have a kid already (this social proof of provider status does activate some women) and am apparently the type she “should” be interested in. So the class is making her do this. I’m an experiment. I cannot believe it. It was so bizarre. You see, I refused to be her beta provisioner/orbiter – you have to get that. I was not in a friend zone with her, she rented literally no space in my head. I didn’t hang out with her for a couple of months sometimes. I learned young to approach early if you are interested and move on, and always did that. So she had to rope me in by telling me she wanted to be with me – but already, from the outset, wasn’t actually attracted to me. It was so bizarre.

    I actually calmed down after a couple of months and she apologized profusely and we actually went back to being the kind of friends we were before. I had never cared about the guys she banged, we didn’t really talk about it. She would come out to my music gigs or I would be at her party or something, and Niki was a fun person, very energetic, social, friendly. I liked having her as a friend and didn’t crave anything more so I was happy to revert to that. Fyi, when this all came to a head, I immediately “closed” on another women I had in my orbit. The best way to get a woman out of your head is to pursue another one.

    I never could make any sense of it until the Red Pill. When I fully saw how she was force-fitting me into the beta orbiter role and solely saw me as a provider object – while having been my friend for a while, well it was mindblowing. And get this – Niki had been a very good friend in some way. Now I know. There is machinery in women that overrides their decency and humanity at times wrt to men. And of course, when push comes to shove, it’s always all about them. Message received ‘5 over 5′.

  • Retrenched

    @ Glenn

    Is it a coincidence that this meme was perpetuated while women’s divorce rates were skyrocketing? I say it was a great way to distract from what was going on in society.

    Similarly, we hear a lot about ‘Shallow Hal’ type men, when it’s women who regard 80-90% of the opposite sex as ‘below average’ and beneath them.

  • Anonymous Reader

    So the trophy wife fad was a head fake to take away attention from the fact there was a tsunami of female initiated I’mm not haaapppy divorces.

    Nope. There was no “trophy wife” fad. It didn’t exist. See the data at Dalrock’s – it’s not there.

    What was there? Female in-group preference and apex fallacy. If one upper middle class senior partner in a law firm gets a divorce from his wife and marries his secretary, then so far as women are concerned he’s “everyman”. Because women can’t see men below a certain ranking in the SMP, period.

    What was “there” was all in women’s fertile imaginations, aided by the infotainment industry that exists to sell stuff to….women.

    Maybe, possibly, perhaps there was a brief storm of men actually trading up in some parts of some states back in the 1970’s, when divorce laws changed. But that’s still the same thing – just because a rash of wealthy, upper middle class men in Marin County or Malibu, etc. took advantage of the 1969 divorce law to trade in their old wives, it still says nothing, nothing about the 99.99% of married men in California at that time.

    Women see what they want to see. In the 80’s, as men’s-fault was storming through the country, anti-family court was ripping families apart because women weren’t haaaaaapy, men were killing themselves in increasing numbers as the divorce industry chewed them up — and women wanted to be told scary stories about men “trading up” to trophy wives. Perhaps because the reality was a bit too ugly? Or perhaps out of sheer projection? Likely at this late date we can’t say, and as Rollo points out that “trophy wife” dog won’t hunt anymore, anyway.

    And the facts are clear: if there was any serious amount of divorce to “trade up” it hasn’t been going on for as long as we have reliable data.

    Much of feminism can be viewed as a bunch of females sitting around a campfire telling each other ghost stories.

  • rastov

    Hypergamy is not working in non-western societies, right? For example, in arabic countries, women dont choose their husband, their father chooses the husband, according to the rules defined by tribalism. In addition, hypergamy doesnt have a long time history in the western societies, either. Only after first world war, and women have become more intependent, hypergamy rules came to existance. Before that, women didnt have a right to vote even for the government, choosing the husband was impossible, unlike shown in medieval Hollywood movies.

  • Louise

    it’s an exaggeration to say that women couldn’t choose their husbands before WW1. they certainly did have choice, even if somewhat more limited. upper and upper middle class women were usually chaperoned, but they met suitable men at parties, balls, etc, and they would choose from among those men. lower class women, who were usually out at work, might have more or less choice depending on their circumstances (women in domestic service for instance had limited opportunities to meet men, they might only have one afternoon a week off).

    Hypergamy certainly did exist, look at the fierce competition for the most desirable men in jane austen’s novels for example – mr darcy is the target of miss bingley’s desperate advances, and Elizabeth rightly guesses that part of her attraction for mr darcy is that she does not flatter and praise him like other women he has been used to. or, going further back, look at anne Boleyn’s resolute refusal to become Henry VIII’s mistress – she had her eye on the ultimate prize, becoming Queen.

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 4,952 other followers

%d bloggers like this: