This week Black Poison Soul has decided that Hypergamy is less about the well established, biologically sound and well-studied aspects of feminine Hypergamy and all about women behaving badly. For the most part this essay is so scattered, angst-ridden and poorly reasoned it hardly bears responding to – the author is obviously unfamiliar with the well documented biological, neurological and hormonal influences of ovulatory shift – however he does provide an excellent illustration of how sociological dynamics have also evolved to compensate for women’s inherent mating strategy:
Let’s look at it from a different angle. Let’s say that these characteristics attributed to hypergamy are simply learned bad behavior – or a lack of learned good behavior. Let’s say that these characteristics are becoming more commonly-noted because society has gotten a lot easier on women simply because they’re women (aka we give them the pussy pass).
Take a dog. It develops bad habits. Do you leave it with those bad habits? Shit no! You train it. Positive and negative reinforcement, depending upon what’s appropriate. Eventually you end up with a well-trained and well-behaved dog.
In the old days they had ways of controlling (training) their women. Punishments. Social ostracism which was a force that actually meant something. They were married young before they started messing around, then it became the new husband’s job to train and deal with her appropriately. Even boot her out if she was far too obstroperous, the children (if any) going to him because he had the income and could afford to raise them.
Hypergamy is an evolved sexual strategy that’s worked for women for millennia. The behaviors associated with women’s sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) is a deductive manifestation of Hypergamy. On a societal level, the very fact that men would need to effect social control of Hypergamy validates the inherency of Hypergamy in women.
In the past polygamy, arranged marriages, courting rituals, petitioning a father for permission to marry his daughter and many other traditions that are now characterized as oppressive and antiquated were direct contingencies for men’s ambient awareness of women’s innate predilection for Hypergamy. It’s interesting that BPS should analogize women as untrained dogs without considering a dog is still going to do what a dog’s going to do. The operative condition being that a dog is going to be motivated by what’s been coded into its instinctual firmware as a result of what’s been evolutionarily beneficial to the survival of the canine species. The operant conditioning is training that dog to perform desired behaviors counter to that instinct.
But, I get it, there’s a real want for men frustrated by women’s Hypergamously motivated behavior to effect control by appealing to notions of personal responsibility. BPS makes the common error of (indirectly) appealing to women’s reason, as the rationally independent agents, who should logically want to be personally responsible for their bad behavior, or need some extrinsic correcting of them. A lifelong conditioning of egalitarian equalism has taught them that women should be as equitably deductive as men.
Men shouldn’t need to train women to act in both sexes’ best interests; as rational agents they should want to do this of their own accord.
It just doesn’t make sense that women would publically express a logical interest in, and desire for the comfort, dependability, provisioning and nurturing of a devoted Beta, yet overtly behave counter to that sentiment during the proliferative phase of her ovulatory cycle by directly inviting the sexual attentions of the most Alpha men her attractiveness can afford her.
What BPS has inadvertently illustrated here is the base conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
For the better part of human history, by violence or by social convention, men controlled, and instinctually understood, women’s Hypergamous natures. By rape, religion or resources men effectively made women compromise their sexual strategy. In fact to be a man was to understand one’s social station as being above, and responsible for, directing that of women’s.
Prior to the advent of courtly love, bastardized chivalry and romanticism being promoted to the highest ideal of love, Hypergamy was very pragmatically controlled by men. Dalrock has published some very convincing material on how romantic love has dethroned this old-order practical model.
What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage. Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage. This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.
Lifetime marriage, with separate defined roles for husband and wife and true commitment is what makes sex and romantic love moral in the biblical view. In our new view, romantic love makes sex moral, and the purpose of marriage is to publicly declare that you are experiencing the highest form of romantic love. Thus people now commonly refer to a wedding as “making our love official”.
The gradations we now apply to romantic love are symptomatic of the problem. We take great care to distinguish between “pure love” or “true love” and mere “infatuation” or “puppy love”.
[…] Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love. Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”
When you remove the moral connotations, what Dal describes here is an excellent parallel to the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. On a meta-societal scale, contemporary men have abdicated any claim to directing the process of how or with whom their genetic legacy will be preserved. And while the Feminine Imperative will expend great efforts to convince men, socially and legalistically, that their involvement in that decision making process isn’t important, on a societal level the fact remains – men must be made to (sometimes forcibly) abandon their sexual strategy and their genetic interests in favor of feminine Hypergamy.
One reason a father would symbolically ‘give’ his daughter away to her husband as part of the marriage ritual was a tacit acknowledgment of his approval of this man’s quality and direction of his genetic potential. Similarly, a suitor asking a father’s permission to marry his daughter was part of the qualification. In both instances, there is a presumption of a male-directed process of directing a woman’s Hypergamy and prospectively directing his involvement with that new family. The presumption was one that men would directly influence feminine Hypergamy.
As human society evolved a precedence for romantic, feminine-controlled Hypergamy gradually supplanted this male-directed Hypergamy. I’ve written in the past of how courtly love’s bastardization of the original intent of chivalry was indirectly designed to be the feminism of the middle ages. By co-opting men’s sense of chivalric honor with feminine social importance, (if not primacy) the Feminine Imperative gradually established the social conventions that would lead to a feminine-primary direction of Hypergamy.
Romantic, feminine-defined love progressively delegitimized the old-order, male-directed definition of love. Marriage ceased to be the condition in which romantic love could be experienced and was supplanted by the prerequisite of a romantic love condition in order for a marriage to be legitimized. In so doing the meta-social dynamic of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies shifted to feminine control.
At this point, I should note that the socially legitimized definition of love is not the same as each sex’s concept of love which is mirrored in either sex’s evolved sexual strategies. It’s important to remember the latent purpose of ensuring control over Hypergamy is the motive of forcing the romantic definition on a larger social order to the benefit of the feminine sexual strategy.
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon its own. In the old-order, men controlled and directed Hypergamy to a large extent and women had to compromise their strategy. In a post-sexual revolution social order, where women have effected a socially mandated, unilateral control over the direction of Hypergamy, a majority of men are forced to abandon their sexual strategy, and even the elite minority must eventually compromise their own. Legally, socially and psychologically men are expected to relinquish any claim to directing their own sexual strategy while deferring to women’s Hypergamy. Today, women qualify men for their Hypergamy with a right swipe on a Tinder profile.
The frustration BPS is writing about stems from the Old Set of Books expectation that women are predisposed to the functional, equitable equivalents of men’s rational based decision-making. The evolutionary nature of Hypergamy makes any notion of equalitarianism a recipe for men’s frustration. Hypergamy isn’t just a label, it’s a useful term for the very real dynamic of women’s sexual strategy.
BPS isn’t the first guy in the manosphere to blame men for their complicity in women behaving badly in their hypergamic interests. He’s lamenting a lack of men’s control over Hypergamy by making appeals to how it was in the good ole days and how men need to put their foot down and demand women to shape up or else they’ll stop playing their game. It’s bad men who permit women to behave badly and raise the next generation of yet more boys and girls who’ll behave even worse.
This then leads to the very appealing concept of personal responsibility – men are responsible for women’s irresponsibility, and exploring the nature of Hypergamy seems to only amount to a “the devil biology made her do it” excusability for that irresponsibility.
The
DevilBiology Made Me Do ItA large part of the red pill perspective leans on evolutionary psychology. Of course evo-psych isn’t the only factor in red pill awareness, but for the vast majority of Game deniers (people unaware of the origins of their conditions) this poses a problem of convenience. When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.
[…]Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is. So in the interests of perpetuating the best interests of one sex (and by extension the entire species) social and cultural norms fluidly evolve around it to accommodate what’s really an uncomfortable aspect of our humanity. Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures. I know of precious few men who’ve blamed their infidelity or sexual impulsivity solely upon their biological makeup. With the exception of the more natural Alphas, more often than not it was a carefully calculated (Game) and coordinated event.
March 8th, 2015 at 5:20 am
@walawala,
Yeah. Use it in your favor. That’s how it will run its course anyway, by guys adapting their game/priorities and more or less giving it the finger in whatever form. I imagine a 28 year old Japanese woman would be a whole lot easier to deal with than 10 years ago. I only use Japan because of the grasseater stuff. I don’t think Japanese women were ever problematic anyway but imagine now. Ten years of grass eaters likely has them scrambling to please.
I use it in my favor too, though differently than you. I simply have allowed hypergamy, obesity, divorce-rape, feminism, general ridiculous etc. to roll out the red carpet of sorts for me to live how I really always wanted to anyway–free, minimal with a young man’s attitude towards carnal fun that has lasted two full decades into adulthood and is only getting better. That devil on your shoulder urging you to kick it in the Phillipines and play with 18 year olds can be listened to now, guilt free. 30 years ago, you would have to have been really marginal to go against the grain like that. Even if you did, you’d likely be battling back feelings of guilt on a daily basis. Now it’s actually the smart, safe play thanks to hypergamy/unchecked feminine imperative/Marxist feminist hostility. IMO, the last thing anyone should do is to toss their own life into this bonfire, like a drop of water being tossed into a raging forest fire. It dissolves before it accomplishes anything anyway. It’s gotta burn itself out. On a personal level, turn all this bullshit into a ticket that lets you live how you wanted to anyway.
March 8th, 2015 at 7:22 am
Can someday tell me a good site about dread games?
Thx
March 8th, 2015 at 7:22 am
…somebody..
March 8th, 2015 at 9:39 am
Given today’s partially globalized meme-plex, one has to consider that social/cultural memes can be transmitted and enforced by forces that have nothing to do with fitness. There is so much talk of interconnectedness in our world today that I think we can become numb to the massive implications of it all.
Consider that one of the benefits a complex system such as human civilization used to feature is that it couldn’t propagate bad ideas so readily. But with today’s interconnected Western+ world, memes that don’t work locally can easily get transmitted globally. In the past, social/cultural ideas that didn’t work on a small scale would not get propagated on a larger scale. In fact, the way such systems work is that mostly only “better” institutions/practices replicated due to the success it confers on species that adopt it. Yet, in the West now, we are below replacement reproductive rates after a 50 year diet of Progressive-Marxist-Social justice ideology. This larger, conscious ‘politicization of everything’ strategy of the left is a carrier of radfem ideology and the FI, and the memeplex is consciously exploited by the left. All while right wing dingbats are still mumbling about Jesus. You guys have to get it, while you’re engaging in mythology, the radical collectivists/social justice warriors have hacked the social system. Remember – they actually believe we are socially constructed, and they are are out to reconstruct us. They believe the Age of Reason gave them license to create a better society and better human beings. We are living through the early results – and this is just the leading edge…
One of the questions we must answer is why this all goes so haywire now? How does all this cultural/social change occur so quickly? That is unprecedented.
Great article.
March 8th, 2015 at 10:07 am
This article is so spot-on, great work Rollo, really. It hits home for me as I what I’ve learned on my inner Red Pill journey is that the cultural ideas/institutions/social practices identified in this article are the very things men need to abandon as they are how the bit has been put in our mouths. A few thoughts.
Chivalry – It’s so perfect to see how this code was broader, both religious and political, yet also deeply personal. The entire idea that men EARN merit in society via their acts is drummed into us. I’m told that being servile will earn me respect – but in today’s world, it only means that I get a boot on my back. This is where the entire ‘good man’ ethos arises from, the idea of being a ‘gentleman’, and it was borrowed and co-opted and twisted by women.
I also think this may have been a last ditch attempt by men to control hypergamy in the sense that it gives men who aren’t particularly sexually arousing a chance with high value women conceptually – I think this is why so many men but into it. It’s a cultural SMV booster in men’s eyes – misguided, I know, but I think it’s this kind of blindness that men have which needs to be seen and overcome.
Courtly love – It vassalizes men. It culturally reinforces the tournament sexual game and decidedly shifts the balance of power to women.
Romantic love – Romance so utterly saturates western culture during this period of time, it’s hard to overstate how important it becomes as a cultural idea. Poetry, music, art, literature, fables, folklore, traditions, institutions are all infused with the idea. They also uniformly laud it’s ideals and set it up as a lofty standard to which we all should aspire.
It is interesting that courtly love originally was meant to be extra-marital, but that little blip got erased from the meme by the FI.
So, what is a man to do? As I looked inside myself and at my own beliefs, the answer became obvious. Don’t be a gentleman – that is a sucker’s game. Don’t do romance and don’t vassalize myself to women. Attempting to shed all of this lead me to a simple new formula. Glenn first and last.
I’m a selfish prick now. It’s an adaptive response to a world that shit down my throat for far too long. And you know what? I’m having a lot of fun. I also get along with women just fine now. It’s much easier to just be concerned about me. Don’t be so quick to crack on solipsism, it is a real relief to deal with the world like it’s a cartoon playing on a TV screen in my mind.
Spit the bit out. Fuck them all. Let women carry the world on their fucking shoulders – wait in fact, we have the early reports in on what a world run by women looks like. Species death, lol. An entire civilization ruined by idiotic harpies, sigh. It can only happen if men collectively keep being such pussies. That’s where you are right and wrong, Rollo. As individuals we cannot fight the larger cultural aspects of this, but collectively we could do so easily. Readily. In a single generation if we put our minds and backs into it.
Last. It’s interesting how all this shit only really works for women on a collective level. But one on one, with some women, I’m able to assert my dominance. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way to have a stable relationships with a woman. Current project is a 27 year old hottie who isn’t that smart and is really up against it in the world. She’s starting to realize just how complicated and hard the world is and is having a hard time of it. She was marveling at my musical accomplishments and how I’m a sailor who can captain a decent sized boat for coastal cruising and the many other things I’ve learned to do in my life, including my business and success. She gets now that I’m more powerful than her. One of the things that older men bring to the table with a younger women is the accumulated development as a man which flows from a lifetime of self-improvement. A younger man just won’t have raced sailboats, done back country alpine adventures, become a gigging musician, have his own business or be a competitive tournament poker player – but as a 52 year old guy, I’ve done that and much more.
The other difference now is that I only respond to women who are actually interested in being submissive to me. They are different women, and they don’t make me work very hard. Fine by me.
March 8th, 2015 at 10:24 am
This is why I think unicorn hunting is such a total beta tell. Rather than improve themselves to become the most alpha self they can be, they seek out frigid church girls in the idiotic belief that they don’t have teh hypergamies. And by doing so, they get to relax and stay beta.
The “science” around “gods girls” and hypergamy is really weak. And any time spent on an infidelity forums illustrates exactly where unicorn hunting can eventually leave a man. AWALT.
March 8th, 2015 at 10:29 am
I meant “good girls,” not “gods girls.”
March 8th, 2015 at 12:15 pm
You have swallowed every ridiculous concept in the Manosphere fish, hook, line, sinker, rod, reel and boat.
March 8th, 2015 at 1:07 pm
“they get to relax and stay beta.”
There is no relaxation for any man on this planet, women will keep taking and taking; then still ask men to ‘lean in.”
Sheryl Sandberg and women aren’t ‘leaning in’ to give pity fucks to short men, fat men, or poor men. Hypergamy doesn’t care.
The comments are somewhat entertaining and reassuring that not all men have rolled over and died yet.
March 8th, 2015 at 1:21 pm
@Rollo – “a good relationship is effortless”..
Truer words have never been spoken.
March 8th, 2015 at 1:40 pm
“The frustration BPS is writing about stems from the Old Set of Books expectation that women are predisposed to the functional, equitable equivalents of men’s rational based decision-making”.
Again – this sentence shows the unbelievable level of our stupidity as men. Men are rational decision making beings when it comes to women???? All this BPD fat whores who manage to snag good men, far above their SMV, into marriage succeeded because men are .. ehm, rational?
Women ARE rational, they are much, much more rational, cold hearted, pragmatic and calculating than men when it comes to relationship. They eneter into relationship only if condition are favourable for her. Either it is the oppornutity to fuck man with good genes, far above their own position in SMP and see if they can trick him into commintment..or it is the marriage with rich and stupid beta in which she acquires provider, slave, warrior and worker drone for her whole life.
Women are doing their best to have their strategy fulfilled – which is – cock carousel till late twenties and then beta provider for the rest of her life. If the life with this beta provider becomes uncomfortable she ditches him, robs him of his very property and generally do her best to extract as many resources from him as possible, while searching for new sucker.
What is irrational here???? It is optimal strategy for her and her children to survive as comfortably as possible, at the expense of men. She is doing her best to survive on most favourable condition while acquiring the best genes possible!!! Of course it is at the expense of beta men but it does not mean that women are irrational. It means that BETA MEN are stupid to let themselves to be expoited by women for their very lives.
Again – MEN are stupid and irrational when it comes to relationships, they are naive romanticts, not women!
Men do not exepct form women “rationality” when it comes to dating, they expect ROMANTIC SOUL. They expect compassion, warm heart, responsiblity, sacrifice…..soul mates. They expect the same as they have.
But on the other side is – COLD, HARD manipulation and RATIONALITY directed to how effective build a nest with her man, extract as many resources as possible from him and if he becomes a burden for her, DITCH HIM. It is machiavellian strategy in its pure, superb form!
Women are much more rational and pragmatic when it comes to dating then men.
RED PILL is all about rationality. Men HAVE TO LEARN to be rational when it comes to women – this one carries a message!
March 8th, 2015 at 1:45 pm
“Get men to watch women sports…” – HA!!!
‘Lean in’….kick rocks!
What nonsense.
March 8th, 2015 at 2:02 pm
Gregg- isn’t it ironic that men are rational in every facet of their lives- at least more so than women- except for relationships?
And women, being controlled by emotion in every facet of their lives- end up being more rational in relationships?
Somewhere God- if there is one- is laughing his ass off
March 8th, 2015 at 2:35 pm
@ Gregg…..it really is ironic!!
And the real tragedy is that the majority of men don’t even know this fact.
We will see how the future will develop…but what’s most interesting for me is, how the internet and Blogs like this, will influence the men in future!
March 8th, 2015 at 2:55 pm
@hobbes
“Gregg- isn’t it ironic that men are rational in every facet of their lives- at least more so than women- except for relationships?”
We are made that way. Remmeber that worker drone/provider role we have to fulfill for women. We have to be the rational problem solvers in all other areas – to be able to slave for her as a capable worker, builder, soldier, protector, you name it.
But this “rationality” could not overlap into relationship. Should we be rational ven here, the following things would happen:
1. We would enter into relationships with women only if conditions were advantageous for us (BPD, fat whores, used up women, etc. will be forever alone),
2. We will not work for her, slave for her, we will demand reciprocity here, or even demand form her that she work for us, we will ditch her as sooon as she will not satisfy us in bed of life with her becomes otherwise uncomfortable (Provider marriages abolished).
3. We will make alliances with our fellow males, instead of fighting each other (which only benefits women) and we will subjugate and conquer women as a group. Women will be our servants – they do not stand a chance if men work together…
In other words, we will behave as women. Given that we are stronger, if men were rational in relationships, hypergamy would be hopelessly defeated in a year.
Even if we were rational in an individual level (without making alliances with our fellow males) relationships with women would be like battle of two rational manipulators in which one of them has strenght on his side. Guess who would winn?
March 8th, 2015 at 3:23 pm
It almost sounds like BPS is arguing the same thing that Rollo does in that women act the way they do due to increased societal acceptance with regards to their sexual imperatives, but he just doesn’t want to call it “hypergamy”.
Call it what you will, but the end result is the same; if men want to get ahead in the SMP, they still need to be aware of the phenomenon however it is framed, and tailor their strategy accordingly.
March 8th, 2015 at 3:34 pm
I’m not a big pro sports fan to begin with. Watching is boring after I spent 16 years playing soccer in my younger days. I’d rather get out there and move than watch someone else do it. But even I have to note the reason I’m not gonna watch professional women’s sports is simple:
The top woman athlete cannot perform to the physical level that the top man can. If I’m gonna watch professional sports, I want to watch the absolute pinnacle of humanity perform. Women are not the sporting pinnacle of humanity. Period. End of story.
Women need to get this through their heads the same way they need to get the boner test through their heads. I won’t ever want to watch professional female sports, and I won’t ever want a woman that can’t pass the boner test. Even in my most Blue Pill days I didn’t want to.
March 8th, 2015 at 4:27 pm
gregg – “Women are doing their best to have their strategy fulfilled – which is – cock carousel till late twenties and then beta provider for the rest of her life.”
No. This was the understanding under the Old Set of Books, 2nd edition.
The idea that a beta might not be her first but he would be her last. I think most betas would accept that if it were a durable choice to settle and accept the responsibilities and obligations of that choice.
The new reality is the beta is simply the next, or a brief respite from the carousel while she collects additional merit badges. She also sets herself up to ride the carousel again using the beta’s wealth as her financial safety net. Anyone who signs up for that is a chump. Looking at the marriage stats it appears a small but growing number of men generally see the Beta Bux role as a chump play.
I don’t think women are more rational in their relationships. The difference is they are much more ruthless in pursuit of their strategies, no matter how irrational they might be. If they were rational they’d not be fat as that reduces their options at the upper level. Hypergamy doesn’t care for anything but itself. It’s the solipsism that permits the ruthlessness, after all men don’t really exist except as projections, and certainy not as unique sentient beings independant those protections.
Your 3 point description of men organizing to win is largely spot on. If men could get past the winner take all idealism of the current SMP, an idealism that can only manifest with open and unrestrained hypergamy, then such might be possible. It’s not, but that’s because there are enough parasitic Alphas to maintain the status quo for the time being. In order for such a plan to work you would need to convince the Apex Alphas, and many lesser Alphas, to reduces the potential optionality for a cause greater than themselves.
Really do you believe any man who has unlimited access to the pussy buffet would freely give that up for any reason?
March 8th, 2015 at 6:09 pm
The title photo for this post says to me “I really only wanted a wedding, not a husband”.
The Sheryl Sanderberg partnership with the NBA is about to show people a new extreme of the alpha fux beta bux.
People tend to perceive black males as more alpha, but unfortunately they also can be some of the most beta when it comes to identifying with the feminine for the sake of being appreciated.
March 8th, 2015 at 6:11 pm
Anybody keep watching that video to the Ronda Rousey part? They discussed a reporter allowing her to flip him as if it was a real contest of a man and a woman trying to battle.
Nobody even really brought the question of it either.
March 8th, 2015 at 6:27 pm
I enjoy reading this website, sometimes there’s too much thought that goes into it though. You want a woman? Take creatine everyday. Hit the gym. Everyday. No days off. Make money. Everyday. Get your education. Look them in the eye and let them know they wouldnt be able to walk the next day if they had a night with you. When you act like this, women can smell it.
March 8th, 2015 at 6:45 pm
Alpha traits are not necessarily genetic. They are learned and practiced, largely via a healthy culture that is not incessantly trying to propagandize males into thinking that alpha traits are genetic. Over time, that might sink into DNA, but it’s not a prerequisite. (A good father can teach these principles, but that is still lessons taught.) Pfff.
Male infidelity is not useful in taming hypergamy. (It is useful in playing feminine games, and that’s it.)
noun, plural fidelities.
1. strict observance of promises, duties, etc.:
a servant’s fidelity.
2. loyalty:
“Fidelity” is not about females. It is about YOUR life, of which a female is merely a subsidiary. To harbor infidelity toward someone who you allow to live in your life, in your very household, is the highest form of folly. That is YOUR life that you are fucking with. Do you really want to fuck with YOUR life in that way?
Who, in a healthy mind, would encourage you to be disloyal, to anything? Either be loyal, or don’t, but don’t fuck up your life by trying to live in some middle zone… it doesn’t exist. Either be loyal to something, or don’t. For example, I am not loyal to soy products, and I never will be. I am, however, loyal to beef. Notice that there is no middle ground. I am either loyal to something, or I’m not. I don’t pretend to be loyal to something, and then not actually be loyal to that thing. That would be what is commonly known as “lying.” If you want to be loyal to a female for your own selfish reasons, then be loyal to her. If you don’t want to be loyal to her, then don’t. (By the way, you can tell her that, straight up, to her face, and it won’t affect your relationship with her. Females are pretty resilient, in that regard. They forever seek the best that they can get, and if you aren’t it, then you aren’t it. But if you are, then they will stick by your side. So, really, the issue is you… get on that, stat.)
Be careful who you listen to, gentlemen. Not everyone on the internet has your best interests in mind. There are other agendas at foot.
“So, Does anyone believe that females as a species are capable (willing?) of recognizing the destructive effects of hypergamy and as a group redirecting it themselves?
Or, is the only option male control?”
Females are mammals, same as you. They are biologically programmed, same as you. To transcend hypergamy is a spiritual pursuit, and by “spiritual” I mean becoming more than a mere mammal. Mankind has the ability to direct its own evolution, unlike any other species of which we are aware. All of this manosphere stuff is totally true. It is also biological. You can sit around and bitch about it, or you can transcend it. To transcend it requires that you get in touch with your spirituality… the electricity that runs through your cells. Where did that electricity come from? And are you in charge of it? Or are you bitching about the world around you? Food for thought. And make no mistake, the *males* who fund feminism via non-profit foundations do NOT want you thinking about such things. I, on the other hand, encourage you to think about them, because, quite selfishly, I believe that the world I inhabit will be better for me and mine, the more males that contemplate such matters.
See, what this whole manosphere thing comes down to is this: YOU have been lied to your entire life, about EVERYTHING. Your parents raised you on lies. They didn’t mean to do it. They, themselves, were raised on lies. They knew nothing different. Don’t be angry with them. They loved you, and did the best they could by you. But they were lied to also, and they transmitted those lies to you in your upbringing.
So, now here you are, on The Rational Male, waking up from a lifetime of lies. Congratulations. That is the first step. It’s painful. It sucks. There is no getting around that. To take the red pill (in all things, not just intersexual relationships) is to die: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model
Ego death is decidedly NOT fun. It’s just not.
Fail fast. Move through those five stages as quickly as you are able. It’s a spectrum. Different males require different periods of time to get through it. No matter. Just move through it as quickly as you are able, so that you can get on with YOUR life… as a healthy male.
Question those who counsel you to shit on fidelity in YOUR life.
And most importantly, viciously guard the FIDELITY of all things in your life. After all, it is YOUR life. If you won’t defend its fidelity, then who will?
March 8th, 2015 at 10:15 pm
It begins…
March 9th, 2015 at 12:26 am
“Lean In” doesn’t even allow for the possibility that even one man somewhere is already treating women appropriately (not that they even want that, but that’s another issue). The whole, “Guys, it’s time” melodrama of wholesale change among males is just getting insane.
Feminists’ brains under a scan would likely resemble heroin addicts’ brains and I mean that seriously and actually. I bet they have similar electro-neurological flow, chemical allocation/levels etc. Now they can get ‘hits’ online. What we’re seeing is exactly like trying to cure a heroin addict by gradually giving them more heroin. Now try to use logic to get that addict off heroin. Ha ha. It’s no longer a logical issue at all in late stages, just like feminism. You’re looking at a very serious chemical addiction here. The feminist indignation spike leads to a strong chemical payoff and that’s why it’s getting more insane. “War on Women” “I’m not a binder!” “Man Up” “Lean in” “He for She.” The hits are coming more frequently and at higher dosages.
“Lean In” What the hell does that even mean? What the hell is it? What are the steps? The techniques? The changes? Those things aren’t addressed because they’re not there. It’s a pure emotion button that has nothing else of consequence to even consider.
March 9th, 2015 at 12:36 am
@Bob Wallace,
Can you clarify? So ‘every’ tenet of the manosphere is being bought ‘hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat’ according to you. That’s using two total extremes not just one. ‘Every’ manosphere idea is wrong and any resonance of any ideas to any manospherian is a situation of total deception? I can see a guy disagreeing with something here or there but you seem to disagree with every concept in a total way. That’s what I’m getting. So, wow, that’s some strong stuff coming from you. Quite emotional, frankly. So what leads to that much emotion? I think it would have to be a situation in which some of the manosphere tenets really bother you in a personal way. Possibly because they reveal to you the fact that there were some options that were on the table for you that you didn’t pursue or weren’t aware enough to recognize. Instead of acknowledging those options you go HulkSmash on EVERY manosphere tenet all the way to that fishing metaphor extreme. Hmmm…..Can you clarify a bit?
March 9th, 2015 at 8:56 am
Hey Rollo I like your blog but have a couple of points:
– alpha fucks beta bucks is misleading since the real aim is alpha fucks alpha bucks. Its just that most women cant get high quality guys when they are older so they settle for the next best thing
– chicks have always been this way even in ancient times, its just more out in the open now. So the idea that its a new thing is wrong, tho its more prevalent after religion became less relevant
– feminised society is actually a good thing if you are an eyes wide open guy. Think about it.. Top guys always got loads of pussy and its just that much easier now that most guys have been mentally castrated. Why are the realists complaining??
Where I come from down under most of the guys have been completely pussified…any dude with a gram of game can go to the club and take his pick from upper echelon women. I’m having a hard time seeing the downside of feminisation of society. Like even dudes with tats n piercings push prams these days n me n my crew have a monopoly on all the fresh tight pussy HAHA
March 9th, 2015 at 10:52 am
Hypergamy loves to eat.
If they are continuously talking to other guys, attention whoring with their orbiters, always keeping a back up option then Next them. Screw that crap. You are just a means to an end. We can see your bullshit women!
The dollar trail will never do you wrong. A women that can rise above hypergamy (is that possible?) will give. FI conditioning and I bet my car and sister’s dowry that not one of these women gives shit. They just take. It is a manS world they say. Bullshit.
March 9th, 2015 at 12:07 pm
I think that thinking that women are these mindless automatons that are absolute slaves to some supposed instinct like hypergamy is being overblown. Sure most women want the best guy that she can get, but so do men want the best woman for them to marry, that’s being human. Both women and men are flawed creatures. Don’t you think that women want stability and emotional attachment in their lives and are willing to make a commitment to a specific man and definitely a man that they have children with? The notion that a woman will just up and bail on her husband and family at the first sign of a “better” man, however defined, is not entirely accurate, I’m not saying it never happens. Men and women seem to love each other differently, I get that, and the same in some respects.
March 9th, 2015 at 12:19 pm
“Don’t you think that women want stability and emotional attachment in their lives and are willing to make a commitment to a specific man and definitely a man that they have children with?”
No.
Women don’t make commitments they only accept offers of commitment. They want, WANT, men to commit to them while retaining their options. They don’t want to commit to anything that limits potential optionality. There is no settling but for the shortest term possible or only for the very,very best in the long term.
March 9th, 2015 at 12:41 pm
Women want stability when it comes time for children.
Women want emotional attachment; but at the same time want to be free to sever those attachments if they no longer serve her purposes or are TOO strong.
Women do “commit”, but only in their own way. By “commitment” I mean they submit to and follow a worthy man, and refuse sex to other men if he is worthy enough. Women are willing to commit, but only to a man who is attractive enough to hold and keep her interest, and only to a man who is strong enough to leave her should she fail to uphold her end of the bargain.
The typical woman doesn’t see most men as attractive enough for her to offer exclusive sexual access.
March 9th, 2015 at 1:34 pm
Sure most women want the best guy that she can get, but so do men want the best woman for them to marry, that’s being human.
A common misunderstanding.
What you’re describing is “optimization”, and, yes, both sexes engage in it, and not just when it comes to selecting a mate.
Hypergamy is different from optimization in that it not only seeks to optimize, but *only* is attracted to what is superior to itself. Women do this, men do not.
So, a male 8 is attracted to women between 6 and 10, generally. He would prefer the 10 to the 6, but if there are no 7-10s available at that time, he’ll do the 6 because he is still attracted to her, even though she is less than optimal.
A female 6, by contrast, is attracted to male 7-10s, not very attracted to male 6s (maybe every now and then, but generally not), and not attracted at all to any male below 6. Unlike a man, if there are no “optimal” 7-10s available, she’ll just abstain, rather than going for a 6 or lower.
That’s what hypergamy looks like — it isn’t about optimization, it’s about where the attraction cutoff lies, and for women that cutoff is *above* them, whereas for men it is *below* them (for the most part, other than for very low value men, who have so many problems that it’s best not to dwell on them).
AF/BB, or lane-changing, is when a woman actively subverts her hypergamy, because she realizes at some point that she can’t get a hypergamously attractive man to marry/commit to her. So, say a female 6 marries a male 6 (rarely anything less than peer level of attractiveness, but it does happen in some odd cases), because he has other good for marriage (i.e., beta) qualities, even though she isn’t really turned on by him very much, and certainly nothing like she was with the 7-10s whom she had sex with but who were not going to commit to her. This is what we refer to as an “alpha widow”, and it creates problems in marriages — it stems from hypergamy and the way that hypergamy is permitted to be exercised in a free sex market society, like ours. And it’s very different from the way men proceed. A male 8, say, who is looking to marry may decide to marry a female 6 over a female 8 if the 6 is better “wife material” than the 8, but keep in mind that he’s still attracted to the 6, because he isn’t hypergamous and only attracted to women who are “higher than” his own value. So while he has compromised on optimization, he hasn’t compromised completely on attraction in that he is still attracted to the 6 he has chosen to marry. A woman who changes lanes, by contrast, compromises her attraction almost completely, because she just isn’t attracted to SMV peers much at all, and only to SMV “betters” — that is the essence of hypergamy, and how it differs from optimization.
Don’t worry, it’s a common source of confusion, particularly among people who are still learning.
March 9th, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Deti – “Women do ‘commit’, but only in their own way. ”
The only way that statement is true is with scare quotes around “commit” thus indicating something similar but different, distinct, not yet fully defined, but not the same as common usage of commit.
A better way would to say might be that a woman will acquiesce to the terms of commitment offered by a sufficiently attractive man.
Commitment has great deal finality, and usually involves some degree of compromise and even sacrifice to make it work. That requires agency and responsibility the two things women have been liberated from from socially.
March 9th, 2015 at 3:47 pm
“Women do “commit”, but only in their own way. By “commitment” I mean they submit to and follow a worthy man, and refuse sex to other men if he is worthy enough. Women are willing to commit, but only to a man who is attractive enough to hold and keep her interest, and only to a man who is strong enough to leave her should she fail to uphold her end of the bargain. ”
That is not commitment and certainly not honest commitment.
That is whoring out for non-monetary ressources.
Not that I expect women to behave in any different way as soon as immediate pressure of genetic annihilation by denial of access to provision (–> social ostracism) or physical elimination (–> core muslim countries) is off the table.
Returning to nature analogies:
Just because weeds turn up in every lawn – you don’t go ahead and say “Oh well, weeds are just fine, they will crop up anyhow, so why keep the lawn in shape?” You uproot the weeds again and again and again – it’s a permanent job.
Men in the West have failed to keep their lawn clean – weeds are just doing what they are SUPPOSED to do.
@ “Use hypergamy for your own gain”-subdiscussion:
I agree, of course.
The problem is not that women become whores as soon as they can do so.
The problem is that those who whore too much are not *permanently kept in that station*, but instead allwoed to marry, have good jobs & provisions etc.pp.
Whores/sluts are useful for sexual release – they just have to be permanently kept down and reduced (by reducing their chances in life), thus slowly weeding them out (which can never be totally achieved) while maximising their use at the same time.
Weed/lawn, there we go. :-)
March 9th, 2015 at 4:17 pm
@thedeti
Women want emotional attachment; but at the same time want to be free to sever those attachments if they no longer serve her purposes or are TOO strong.
Women want emotional attachment as a means to an end: control. Nothing more, nothing less.
– alpha fucks beta bucks is misleading since the real aim is alpha fucks alpha bucks. Its just that most women cant get high quality guys when they are older so they settle for the next best thing
He’s acknowledged this a lot of times on blog. Women always have the dualistic strategy of wanting both come hell or high water but have been trained to believe it’s impossible to find both in one man “these days”. With the social acceptance of this view and the feminist push that women should actively pursue AF and BB separately, it has become the de facto rule of modern first world society in Open Hypergamy.
– chicks have always been this way even in ancient times, its just more out in the open now. So the idea that its a new thing is wrong, tho its more prevalent after religion became less relevant
Rollo has repeatedly referred to evolutionary psychology as place where the idea of hypergamy comes from. The “evolution” in there implies it’s millions of years old. Any perception by the reader that hypergamy is views as “new” on here is entirely on the reader.
To most men their revelation about hypergamy is new. Hypergamy itself is not, and is never touted on here as being new. Open Hypergamy is a new social construct though, as you note without calling it by those exact words.
– feminised society is actually a good thing if you are an eyes wide open guy. Think about it.. Top guys always got loads of pussy and its just that much easier now that most guys have been mentally castrated. Why are the realists complaining??
Because a lot of realists are trying to raise kids in this environment, and Open Hypergamy is awful for child rearing. It encourages both sexes (but women in particular) to focus on short term sexual strategies with a complete sacrifice of long term commitment and stability. This is fine if all you want to do is get laid (and indeed I would agree with your assessment when that’s your objective), but guys that want to settle down and start a family are pretty much fucked. Never mind what children of single mothers go through without a dad around and the damage that causes to society as a whole.
They’re complaining because it’s fun for now if you’ve got Game, but unsustainable in the long run.
March 9th, 2015 at 4:19 pm
@thedeti
Whoops, everything after replying to the first quote of yours was replying to jock itch. Sorry bout that.
@jock itch
See my previous post for replies to your points.
March 9th, 2015 at 10:02 pm
@Sun
“but have been trained to believe it’s impossible to find both in one man “these days”.”
That almost points to the idea that AF/BB is evolving to add another factor; that of obligation to feminism and its perpetual dissatisfaction with men. They have to throw that into the mix now. It’s a survival adaptation because feminism strives for constant, steady resource transfer, now often without even knowing the male. It’s nearly an evolved state that women must always be unhappy with their men. Feminism demands that. Therefore. A true AF/AB stud will be misperceived as a non-sexy ‘provider’ even if he looks and acts like Thor. This allows the constant dissatisfaction and complaint that is damn near evolutionarily entrenched, imo. Is ‘evolutionarily’ a word?
So it’s AF/BB/CB
Alpha Fucks
Beta Bucks
Constant Bitching
March 9th, 2015 at 10:48 pm
@melmoth:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/01/the-myth-of-the-good-guy/
March 9th, 2015 at 10:51 pm
@Melmoth- I actually think about it a little differently. Women cannot abide the AF/BB combination in one man because the qualities that make one alpha or beta are opposed to each other. You can not be dangerous/risky and safe/reliable at the same time. One state precludes the other. And what women want most of all is to be able to believe and rely on you being whatever you are. A fake alpha is her worst nightmare, as well as a man who comes across as a real beta and turns out to be alpha.
Its the madonna/whore complex for women- an alpha/beta schism. The main difference being that a man can easily find a happy medium and is happy with a woman who exhibits traits of both for him. But for a women the traits that make up Alpha and Beta cannot exist and be trusted to be real in one man.
This is why women make a big deal about being a “lady in the streets, a whore in the sheets” or ads show her rock climbing and fighting in Iraq, then wearing a hot red dress later in the evening. She is allowed these disparate traits because men can reconcile it. A woman can not, it’s one or the other.
It’s why I disagree to some extent with people who say women want to lock down a real alpha- nope. Although I am sure she thinks it as well. But guys are buying her bullshit when they believe that. The fact is that when a woman truly thinks you are alpha she will play the game of telling herself she wants a relationship, but the relationship will immediately show her he wasn’t really alpha- this is how men a re supposedly “beta-ized”. They weren’t beta-ized. They were beta enough to be believably reliable for marriage. in that moment her is beta. A real alpha, to her, can never be safe or tameable.
Her sschism keeps her bouncing back and forth- when with a real alpha- someone untameable, dangerous, risky.. she longs for safety and security. Eventually he dumps her or she gets tired and she seeks a beta. Once the beta is caught her heart longs for the risk, the danger etc of alpha. Etc.
There is an old saying that women want fried ice. That is hypergamy at play, she wants it all, but hypergamy will not allow for anything in the middle.
March 10th, 2015 at 12:32 am
I met alpha guys who are married before. They are the typical ‘dead beat dad’ types so if u want kids then that’s your viable path
The bucks part of the equation is a secondary concern. Women want the protection bodyguard dude n clear direction first and foremost. They are quicker to dump a wussy than a poor but confident strongman
U can sit here n bitch about chicks but it wont change shit. Better to use ur energy for max personal benefit
It could be worse.. Like u could be born in a third world country or a place where men are disposable
Now u know the ‘hidden truth’ then u need to decide wat u want. If u r dying to have kids then have them.. But do it in full knowledge. Ur idea of love needs to be updated and refined towards reality
Me, I’ll be by the pool getting drunk with some random girls. If they get pregnant we can negotiate which days I have access to kids. I hope she finds a real nice guy with lots of money but still has time to service me periodically
March 12th, 2015 at 10:47 am
lol@”If they get pregnant we can negotiate…”
“Alpha negotiations”!
March 12th, 2015 at 1:51 pm
“Top guys always got loads of pussy and its just that much easier now that most guys have been mentally castrated. Why are the realists complaining??” I don’t consider myself to be a “top guy” – but let me answer you question:
You will know why realists complain (no matter how much pussy they get) when you have fucked enough of them.
Perhaps it wil be after one, perhaps ten, perhaps after a hundred.
But then you will know.
March 13th, 2015 at 1:07 am
Hypergamy is fire. You don’t get angry at fire. You get angry at the circumstances that created it.
Hypergamy is fire. It will always exist, but you can install fire alarms, make sure your wiring is sound and do other things to minimize its risk.
March 13th, 2015 at 9:15 am
@Hobbes – “Women cannot abide the AF/BB combination in one man because the qualities that make one alpha or beta are opposed to each other. You can not be dangerous/risky and safe/reliable at the same time. One state precludes the other. And what women want most of all is to be able to believe and rely on you being whatever you are. A fake alpha is her worst nightmare, as well as a man who comes across as a real beta and turns out to be alpha.
Its the madonna/whore complex for women- an alpha/beta schism. The main difference being that a man can easily find a happy medium and is happy with a woman who exhibits traits of both for him. But for a women the traits that make up Alpha and Beta cannot exist and be trusted to be real in one man.”
I’ve linked this before, but I think it’s relevant here:
https://hvren.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/to-whatever-self-be-true/
https://hvren.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/to-whatever-self-be-true-part-2/
https://hvren.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/to-whatever-self-be-true-part-3-the-formula/
Basically, this guy disagrees. He thinks you need a combination of traits which, by themselves, he categorizes as ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ for an LTR. The traits are different, not necessarily in opposition. The ‘alpha’ traits need to be stronger (not necessarily more frequent) than the ‘beta’ traits (he postulates a 5/3 rule).
Kinda analytical, perhaps, but he proposes it as a diagnostic tool rather than something to be thinking about all the time.
“You can not be dangerous/risky and safe/reliable at the same time. One state precludes the other.”
Quite true. So don’t do the two at the same time. Alternate. 5 times risky, 3 times safe. Be unpredictable. Grease the hamster wheel. An act of kindness will flip the script next time you pull out the asshole – “Oh, but he’s really a good person inside! Remember when he did X for me? I just need to be better for him and reduce his stress” instead of “Why is he always such a jerk? Why do I put up with this?”*
A state of being ‘in love,’ such as it is for a woman, is a transient sensation created by a combination of excitement/indignation from strong alpha presence and a memory of kindness.
A man can be perceived as alpha even if he demonstrates some degree of nurturing characteristics – they just can’t be the takeaway. She needs to maintain a central concept of him as alpha, or all is lost – but if he can pull that off while still having enough comforting characteristics to make living with him tolerable, onward it goes.
*Yes, I know she’ll still fuck him while thinking this. For now, pre-epiphany.
March 16th, 2015 at 12:51 pm
You explain basic human psychology in such a complicated way. How about this as a simpler solution: People should stop behaving like unruly animals and learn some self-respect.
Men could prevent hypergamy by simply changing their own behavior. All they need to do is (a) refuse to have sex with a woman until marriage, (b) record every marriage in an official registry, and (c) avoid any woman who is already married. Men are complicit in hypergamy. Men betray each other. It’s not completely the woman’s fault if the man knows she is cheating on another man and still knowingly has sex with her anyway.
March 20th, 2015 at 5:29 pm
[…] There was a time when men’s idealistic concept of love was respected above the opportunistic (Hypergamy based) concept of love. I explored this social control of Hypergamy in Women Behaving Badly. […]
March 23rd, 2015 at 1:44 pm
To say that women love in a way fundamentally different from men seems reasonable from an evolutionary perspective, but isn’t compatible with attachment theory — and attachment seems to be a pretty solid basis for understanding intimacy in all kinds of human relationships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
But maybe intimacy isn’t what you’re talking about when you’re talking about love?
March 23rd, 2015 at 1:49 pm
I think it’s entirely compatible, when you consider that women tend to form stronger attachments to men 1-2 SMV degrees above themselves. It’s a form of passive dread that bonds women to high value men.
March 24th, 2015 at 3:26 am
What is your reasoning, exactly? Because passive dread does not really sound like attachment, at least not on the face of it.
March 31st, 2015 at 6:45 pm
[…] In Women Behaving Badly I made mention of Dalrock’s standing assertions that the context of romantic love has superseded the condition of a committed monogamy – traditionally marriage – as an idealized goal-state. Essentially this represents a reversal of a previous intersexual dynamic that served as a check and balance of women’s innate Hypergamy: […]
April 8th, 2015 at 9:08 am
The first step in reasserting male control over hypergamy is to not trying to change the women or the society. The first step is to create a separate community, a tribe of like-minded people, in a area isolated from the liberal-dominated culture. There, you can create a new culture that affirm the traditional understanding of sexual relationships.
April 9th, 2015 at 4:16 am
new tribe? lol. like a tree house with a sign ‘no girls allowed’?? u will die a virgin bro