The Hypergamy Conspiracy

Rollo Tomassi:

“Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.”

Aunt Sue:

“Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.”


“I don’t think that’s right.

The theory is more like this, from what I have read. Hypergamy is a woman’s natural (which is to say, genetically wired) preference for a higher status male–that is, higher status than herself and also higher status than the other men in her field of vision and also perhaps higher status than men she has known in the past and even (at the extremes) higher status than most men she can personally imagine meeting. That cuts across a range of possible relationships, all the way from a ONS to marriage. In all cases, women naturally prefer the highest status man they can get. And sometimes they want so much status that they won’t settle on ANY man they could actually get.

“Status” has a varied meaning in this definition. Certain things correllate with high status, for intance money, prestige, social standing, etc. However a man can have all of that and still be low status because of low status intrapersonal behavior (i.e., needy schlumpitude). The highest possible status male would be rich, good looking, fit, well dressed, high social cache, high prestige job (preferably one which involves risk, physical risk being better than mere monetary risk), and also extroverted, dominant, the leader of his group of friends, able to command any social situation, and so on. However, women are wired to be turned on more by the latter BEHAVORIAL traits than by be the former SUBSTANTIVE traits. So, if you have have to choose one or the other, to get women, be socially dominant and a broke societal loser rather than socially awkward and a rich societal winner. But best to be both, if possible.

As to marriage, sure women want to marry up. But this does not exhaust the effects of hypergamy. Women can marry up–both intrinsically and in their own mind–and still ditch their catch because someone “better” comes along. That is hypergamy at work.

Also, when women are pursuing short and medium term mating, hypergamy has no less force. They always prefer the most socially dominant male they can get. This is often relative (A&B are both a little dweeby but A is more alpha than B and since I want someone NOW I choose A) but sometimes it is more intrinsic (A&B are both a little dweeby and even though A is a little more alpha, since I don’t have to have someone NOW, I am going to hold out for the Real Deal).

It’s not all about marriage. It’s about mate selection accross the range of circumstances.

That, at any rate, is how I believe the manosphere understands “hypergamy.”

Aunt Sue:

“Yes, because they made it up. Researchers do not recognize that definition. It’s pure Game.”

The main reason I only sporadically participate in the comment threads at Aunt Sue’s echo chamber Blog is because conversational gems like this have a marked tendency to get buried under, sometimes, thousands of other comments. I think it’s a shame really. I wanted to draw particular attention to the difference in interpretation of terms with regards to the dynamic of Hypergamy here.

Escoffier makes an astute analysis of Hypergamy in a much broader perspective than Susan’s definition-approved “researchers” are willing to recognize. On the fem-centric side we have Sue casually dismiss “Hypergamy” (twice) in this context as some fabrication of the Game-set and therefor not a legitimate analysis. A rose is a rose, and as I’ve stated in prior threads, Hypergamy is a term that should have a much broader definition when considered in context with the feminine imperative and the eminently observable feminine behaviors that manifest as a result of Hypergamy’s influence.

That the term Hypergamy should be so wantonly limited in its definition, and in such a way that it serves to deliberately confuse a better understanding of it as an evolutionary impulse on the feminine psyche, speaks volumes about the importance of maintaining its misunderstanding to the feminine imperative.

It’s almost ironic that the collective feminine ego should even need to deign to recognize Hypergamy in the terms that it is cast as in Susan’s default response. “Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.” forces the feminine to at least begrudgingly accept that women are in fact basing their long-term commitment prospects on status (as defined by researchers), and not some ephemeral soul-mate, emotional precept. God forbid men (PhDs or otherwise) should have the temerity to extrapolate any further social, psychological or evolutionary implications that could’ve influenced that Hypergamy dynamic into existence.

While I wont argue the credentials of the researchers Sue will undoubtedly quote – I often acknowledge all of the same in other posts and comments – I will however make the point that her interpretation (as is everyone’s) is subject to bias. And in this case, that bias serves the feminine imperative in keeping the definition of Hypergamy in as closed a way as possible to benefit the feminine. In the evolving understanding of the motivators that influence intergender relations there are going to be terms that describe concepts.

AFC’s, Alpha, Beta, Hypergamy, etc. are all defined by the concepts they represent.

‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the feminine imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate. The real question then is, why would that concept be threatening to the feminine? You can delegitimize the term, but the concept is still the operative issue. Why is the concept of that larger scope of the term so offensive to a fem-centric society?

The Conspiracy that Wasn’t

One issue many of my critics have is that in exposing these inconsistencies, these operative social conventions and the latent purposes behind them, my writing (really most of the manosphere) seems to take on a conspiratorial tone. I can fully appreciate this, and it might shock a few readers to know that I  reject much of the popularized MRA perspective in this respect. I agree with an MRA perspective in a rational analysis to a certain degree, but there is no grand conspiracy, no secret mysterious cabal pushing a negative perception of masculinity – and this is exactly why what I outline on this blog is so pervasive. There doesn’t need to be a unitary group of ‘anti-men’ bent on some melodramatic goal of world domination; because this feminized ideal is already embedded in our socialization. Fem-centrism IS our collective social consciousness.

It doesn’t need a centralized directorship because the mindset is already so installed and perpetuated by society at large it’s now normalized, taken for granted and self-perpetuating. AFCs raising AFCs leads to still more AFCs. This generation doesn’t realize their own bias because it’s been standardized, encouraged and reinforced in them, and society, over the course of several generations now.

What’s to question, especially when calling attention to the feminization dynamic leads to ridicule and ostricization?

So to answer the conspiracy question; no, there is no illuminati shadow conspiracy and that’s exactly what makes feminization the normalized and overlooked default.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

69 comments on “The Hypergamy Conspiracy

  1. Good article, but I’m waiting for someone to acknowledge that men also engage in a form of hypergamy in the sense that we’re looking for the younger/better looking woman. Granted it’s a bit different as men are willing to settle for sex now while looking for the better looking women and would add the new conquest to a harem if possible.

  2. The real question then is, why would that concept be threatening to the feminine?

    In my view, you have to ask what is one of the primary, instinctual drives of most women? Marriage, children, and motherhood and the ASSOCIATED PROVISIONING OF A DEDICATED, COMMITTED MALE. The fact is motherhood with a committed male is a less problematic life than motherhood without a committed male. So, at least in part, a committed male is a tool to achieve that goal of motherhood. Of course, there is more to the relationship then just that dynamic, and many men desire children on some level as well. But I have no doubt the female instinctual desire for children dwarfs that of men, and when the rubber hits the road a women needs a man for that purpose.

    So then what? Now we’ve got a math problem. Not all women can get a guy from the top 10% (status, social dominance, wealth, intelligence, height, etc.) for exclusive commitment and genes for reproduction. So women compete for those men, and as time progresses and they get a better handle of THEIR OWN COMPETITIVE POSITIONING they are going to be more inclined to “settle” for a lesser man in terms of those traits that trigger hypergamous desire. This is where I think Susan’s definition of hypergamy comes into play. It is to provide comfort to those lesser men that they absolutely don’t have to worry about their women “trading up” or looking for a better man or acting on that if the opportunity presents itself.

    ” “Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.

    So….as long the guy is just incrementally higher status and meets that hypergamous trigger point, everything is A-OK, and he has nothing to worry about. Of course, it would be trivial to find stories of
    women leaving their current man for a “better” man.

    This goes back to your post on A and B guys. My guess is quite a few guys wouldn’t commit to that provisioning role, and being a tool, if they knew or suspected they were the consolation prize in the hypergamous competition when the woman realized she couldn’t win the grand prize. At that point, it becomes imperative to convince that second choice guy he really was the first choice all along and does in fact meet your hypergamous desire.

    Now to me, rather then try to paint over the biological instincts we have, I think it makes more sense to work with socialization to promote more socially useful behavior. I think for a long time, women were heavily socialized to keep that true hypergamous instinct in check, and take lifelong committment seriously. That changed over the last 40 years.

    Actually, over at HUS we had a very contentious debate over essentially the idea of a “female frame change” with one female commenter sort of leading the charge in terms of women introspecting and changing some of their behaviors in relation to their actual hypergamous desires. Women cannot change their biological instincts anymore then we men can (I still want to fuck every 22-year old hottie I see in the gym). And guys lie too about their instincts. There are a couple of female commenters who have repeatedly noted their husbands have said they don’t think about other women sexually at all. Hahaahah….how absolutely ludicrous.

    In any case, I don’t think the answer is to confuse the core biological programming (what hypergamy) but to face it realistically.

  3. H Man,

    In most cases though, the guy isn’t looking to dump/get rid of the existing woman. He is just looking to add to the total, and thus acting on his polygamous drive for variety.

    This can be seen in marital infidelity where often the guy isn’t looking to divorce the wife, but the women is usually looking to switch guys. The woman wants the “better” man. The guy just wants sexually different.

  4. Hypergamy is threatening because it says that all women crave alphas, but that they do it in an utilitarian way. Which contradicts the pure / empathetic / all kinds of goods / peaceful idealization of women.

    Hypergamy at its core is the red pill.

    That a woman cares more about your status and what she gets from you more than she cares about “you”. And that the minute that what she gets from you changes for the worse, she´ll leave for a better / higher status one who can give her better stuff.

    Hypergamy basically says that “love” is for women what lust is for men.

    Its not a pretty light, and specially un-pretty when the thing is placed on a pedestal and is setting the rules for everything else.

    1. “Hypergamy at its core is the red pill.”

      This statement pretty much explains why when PUAs started studying game and learning the concepts, a massive amount of now-well-known pickup technology was learned from observing and duplicating the behavior of women who have infinitely more socializing experience than men (especially an outgoing hot girl VS a socially akward computer nerd).

      Backturns, takeaways, making the person qualify themselves, frame control, kino, negging, social proof, jealousy plotlines, being the prize, assuming attraction, push/pull, abundance mentality, etc. etc. all that shit is Flirty Woman 101 and how girls act on their hypergamy to trade up.

      The big difference is that like Rollo says, that behavior from girls is so infused into our society that it’s the default state and most of us are so brainwashed to not just accept it but to villify NOT accepting it that there’s no conspiracy going on, it’s just mass psychology in action.

      The good news is that men learning game learn to succeed within this fucked up paradigm by approaching this stuff consciously, whereas women chase their hypergamy subconsciously and will deny, even to themselves, that they’re doing it. Even when presented with in-your-face “you just said this, but now you say this, so which is it?” evidence of what they’re doing their hamster will scramble to rationalize it all to avoid admitting what’s obvious.

      Funny example I saw the other day, guy asking girls if men and women can be friends (they all say “yes”) then he asks them if their guy friends want to fuck them (they all say “yes”, then slowly realize the contradiction and one girl even just walks away):

      That’s why game works wonders on the “intelligent, confident” women that think game only works on dumb drunk bar sluts. It’s like we’re playing Chess except a guy with solid game consciously knows the rules and is seeing 10 steps ahead and she’s just sliding pieces around instinctively.

      “And that the minute that what she gets from you changes for the worse, she´ll leave for a better / higher status one who can give her better stuff.”

      I think a big part of why guys become game haters is because they start to dabble in the game (either reading a lot of other people’s experiences or actually going out and trying stuff half-heartedly) and get confronted with the massive massive mindfuck of just how cold and utilitarian women are when you learn to see through all the bullshit society has told you and it fucks with the 20+ years of social programming they’ve had to believe that women are special princesses incapable of doing the things guys with game see them do regularly. Same thing is what creates the bitter PUA/natural who hates women. I’ve been around a lot of newbies and it’s honestly hard to tell which path a guy will go down (bitter hatred or forgiving acceptance) when he runs into this wall.

      Any guy who’s spent a lot of time around girls knows that NO ONE is more cut-throat than a woman who has no more use for someone (whether it’s a man or a female friend). And most of society will coddle her for it and tell her she’s the victim lol

      1. Sadly, this is the situation i’m currently in…..

        Its like once you Realize everything you were taught was a lie, It gets to a point (I know some guys that done exactly this) where you feel like not even trying because of how screwed up it is now. I’m not going to just give up, but it really screws with you.

  5. “I’m waiting for someone to acknowledge that men also engage in a form of hypergamy in the sense that we’re looking for the younger/better looking woman. ”

    I don’t think anyone has claimed otherwise… it’s a widely accepted fact. As Yohami pointed out, female hypergamy contradicts the commonly held notion of feminine “goodness” – therefore it’s not heard about nearly as much.

  6. The real question then is, why would that concept be threatening to the feminine?

    I think Mike C. nailed it. No one wants to admit they were second fiddle, but it has to be true on some level for all of us. We typically marry our SMV counter parts (the man usually being of higher status). The fact that women might be attracted to a man of higher status if he should come along is, of course, true. It’s shameful for a woman to feel this, at least on the level that she would entertain any type of infidelity, and it should be. Women can’t just go around and admit to each other, themselves and their men that they find a higher status man attractive as it would make women as a whole look horrible (not that women haven’t done a wonderful job in this regard, regardless.) Also, in a strong marriage, it is the woman’s job to protect her man’s ego and, when needed, bolster it with her whole being. Part of doing that is not allowing the truth of hypergamy to penetrate the mind. While it might be easier to understand one’s own self when hypergamy is understood, the shame is also increased and must be dealt with. I don’t think most women do too well with shame.

    1. “The fact that women might be attracted to a man of higher status if he should come along is, of course, true.”

      Being unable to accept this fact is what holds a lot of guys back from excelling at game. I never get jealous because I accept that if a better man came along, my girl will be attracted to him. That’s just the nature of women. All I can do is be the best man I can be. If she leaves me, she leaves me, that’s alright, I’ll find another one and I wish her the best.

      But she won’t leave me, because other men are gameless betas and not any threat at all lol I’ve dated girls who were gorgeous and in high-value social circles with rich guys offering them trips to Paris and mansion parties and blowing up her Facebook wall trying their dozens of little beta ways to try to woo her with their shitty game, sometimes even while I have my arm around her. I don’t even acknowledge those guys exist, they’re so insignificant a concern. The fact that I ignore them or laugh at them or encourage her to pursue them is a part of what keeps my value higher than them.

      But a lot of guys starting out in game still have the madonna/whore complex or low self-esteem scarcity issues under their confident exterior and want to “fight” hypergamy. So they get jealous at all those little beta orbiters the girl has and jealous of the flirting she does with them and eventually lowers his value enough that those guys start looking good to the girl by comparison and her hypergamy takes over.

      This is also a big key in maintaining an open relationship, which is the only type of relationship I’ll do these days. If I want an honest up-front open relationship with a girl, I have to accept that she may sleep around with other guys since that’s our deal. As long as she doesn’t come over for a couple days and a few showers and teeth-brushings she can go suck off half the city for all I care.

      But she won’t go and do that. Why? Because other men suck and don’t know how to REALLY attract a woman and I’m the top of the hypergamy chain for her. The end result is I get to play around without the stress of cheating (combing the bathroom for wrong-colored hairs and making excuses for where I was last night and shit, ugh, fuck all that) and my girl only wants me.

      1. Exactly.

        This is the reason I’ve always maintained that there is no such thing as the mythical ‘Quality Woman’. Every woman is innately hypergamous and they are only “quality” insofar as a Man can stay on top of the hypergamous food chain.

        1. That’s true partially, however you have to admit that the current situation has been abetted by high-status males for their own convenience, it´s been documented elsewhere and more importantly the change in attitudes has been swift, without these high status males financing the women´s movement wouldn´t have achieved much.

          By the way our ancestors (great great grandfathers and backwards) would have spit on us for been such a pussies (collectively) and knew instinctively all the things we are discussing. How could such knowledge become lost?

          1. subverted not lost
            you can easily pick up many ancient texts today and read about these insights on the nature of women, in plain sight, unhidden
            the biblical allegory of paradise lost itself is a glaring example of one

            the modern day subversion of the ancient order of things was facilitated by intellectual arrogance. technology and progress afforded present day academics the deluded notion that they are smarter than those “barbarians” who built the pyramids with their hands. hence, with their noble hearts and their feeble brains, it became their mission to undermine the social rules put in place through thousands of years of our ancestors’ collective experience.

            they’ve written books and they have phds, you know. we should all listen to them

  7. Yohami,

    “Hypergamy is threatening because it says that all women crave alphas, but that they do it in an utilitarian way. Which contradicts the pure / empathetic / all kinds of goods / peaceful idealization of women. ”

    – I got the overall theme of your message but these sentences are a little unclear. What do you mean by utilitarian? They just want to use us? Please expand a bit on this.

  8. Given that for the greater part of history and up until very recently women had no choice in their mate selection, I’m surprised that hyperagamy is seen as a selection strategy rather than a coping mechanism.

    It makes sense that evolutionary traits adapted to supplicate to mate dominance would prevail.

    From this lens game makes more sense.

    1. In most species the males compete and the winner breeds with the female. The female just waits on the side until they are done. I wouldnt call that “coping”… it’s more like the two sides of the same coin.

      Men want power – women want the powerful man. Men want success – women want the successful man. Men want to dominate – women want the dominant man. Etc.

          1. What can she test him for if there is no other man though? She already has the best. What if he was even better?!

          2. She already has the best. What if he was even better?!

            the testing isn’t necessarily conscious, and even if it were, women don’t behave rationally anyway.

            her subconscious is thinking ‘perhaps a fish will sprout legs, walk out of the water and evolve into man better than what i’ve got’.

  9. Men groking hypergamy is very threatening to women because it will make men stop sacrificing themselves like they do now for women’s benefits.

    1. Yep. I believe it’s really that simple. It’s also threatening to the parents of daughters for the same reason.

  10. “There doesn’t need to be a unitary group of ‘anti-men’ bent on some melodramatic goal of world domination; because this feminized ideal is already embedded in our socialization.”

    The ways and means of said socialization having been well-document by those in power who have worked for several generation to see it come to fruition. The men who move the world can be likened to a meticulous director, ala Stanley Kubrick; anything you see/feel is there because they *wanted* you to see/feel it. The tragedy comes from when you believe it to be anything more than fiction.

    “It doesn’t need a centralized directorship because the mindset is already so installed and perpetuated by society at large it’s now normalized, taken for granted and self-perpetuating.”

    Because we now dwell in a well-crafted echo chamber. Every day that you live is a day lived on a conquered planet. Men like us are merely here to fight over the scraps (for how can you overthrow a controlling faction that you don’t even believe exists?).

    “AFCs raising AFCs leads to still more AFCs. This generation doesn’t realize their own bias because it’s been standardized, encouraged and reinforced in them, and society, over the course of several generations now.”

    Author Neil Postman once posited that George Orwell was incorrect: the world wouldn’t fall victim to a centralized government that would subdue the masses under the grinding of a leather boot; the world would fall victim to their own hedonism and gluttony, ultimately enslaving themselves. He claimed that Aldous Huxley was the more correct of the two (e.g. Brave New World), that the world had already learned the lessons of Nazi Germany and that they would not fall victim to tyranny by force a second time. What Mr. Postman egregiously overlooked is that – at the start of Brave New World – we learn that a fascist government was installed to burn all of the books, destroy all of the monuments, and murder millions in order to begin a system-wide reformation of the minds and hearts of the world (via sex and drugs)…just how 1984 predicted. By the time the Soma-laden system was in place, the average man could not remember a world outside of the ruler’s control, and scientists (and philosophers such as yourself) would defend it as the status quo.

    “So to answer the conspiracy question; no, there is no illuminati shadow conspiracy and that’s exactly what makes feminization the normalized and overlooked default.”

    ‘It is as it is because it has always been.’ But unfortunately this is wrong. This “fem-centric” reality was installed because it draws the tightest noose around civilizations, pitting men against women until reproduction of the plebes is reduced to a statistically insignificant blip on the radar. This is divide and conquer on the most basic, most elegantly precise level. So what is the truth of our natures? The historical norm for men is possession via strength and force; hypergamy is the genetic coding that encourages a woman to willingly (and pleasurably) submit to the strongest *rapist*. There was no ‘shaming’ for men ‘rejected’ by women in a tribe; women are only the ‘gatekeepers’ of sex insofar as men permit them to be. Why this “pretty little lie” persists among those attempting to remove the blinders of others is beyond me, and must be left for another discussion, but the reality is far simpler (and more nefarious) than the skeptics would like to believe: the conspiracy isn’t as sexy (or as ‘melodramatic’) as everyone is wont to quip, but it is incredibly efficient.

    Tl;dr You’re getting your chicken and your egg mixed up.

    1. “Women are only the ‘gatekeepers’ of sex insofar as men permit them to be.”


      My grandmother came from a culture where men kidnapped women from distant villages. These women didn’t wait on the sidelines for brutes to duke it out and often they hated the men they were paired with but eventually everyone had to get along (though it wasn’t like anyone was asking what their ‘feelings’ were).

      Although there are genuine conspirators (what on earth are think tanks and black budgets) I think they are unwitting pawns in a cycle playing itself out.

  11. Great post.

    I’m honestly kind of surprised more people don’t view feminism as simply the story of our current culture and that so many MRA’s think its a conspiracy. If it was, we’d see it more often because there would be something TO see. We’d see a curtain and wonder who was hiding behind it, spouting off inane requests to kill their foes.

    Maybe its just my theatre background, but I’ve always been aware of the societal story we’re raised on and that it is so powerful for never being seen or made aware of by most. That being said, I was completely unaware of the Feminist role in the story till now, but neither here nor there.

    If anyone wants to read a good literary example of this and questioning cultural/societal stories, I’d recommend the books Ishmael and The Story of B by Daniel Quinn.

    1. “I’m honestly kind of surprised more people don’t view feminism as simply the story of our current culture and that so many MRA’s think its a conspiracy.”

      Many MRA’s sit inside and blog about the injustice of the world and conspiracies and take their ball and “go their own way” instead of going out and actually socializing with and learning what attracts women, which will teach you everything you need to know about female psychology and the effects of feminism and the general state of society. Everything from the White Knight defending a girl he’s just met who doesn’t give a shit about him to a girl seemingly loving you for 3 hours then never answering her phone when you call to a girl’s friends calling her a slut for going home with the guy they all wanted to go home with, it’s all right there waiting for guys to see it if they’d go out more.

        1. I’ve actually never even heard of the MRA or the manosphere till a few months ago (though I did pop onto Roissy’s blog now and then, but had no idea it had an actual community around it). Most PUAs have never heard of the MRA because it’s silly to us since we’re finding ways to slip past all the obstacles MRAs bitch about.

          It’s an interesting perspective though. I think the MRA has a lot of good points that, as I get older, become more relevant (on marriage/divorce, child custody, etc.). But there’s just this massively bitter vibe that comes off so many of them that it’s hard to really get behind. Like the psycho feminazis or PETA where it’s like “dude, I get it, you got a message, but fucking tone down the intensity a little you’re creeping everyone out”

      1. And most PUA’s have convinced themselves that they are ok with running through a revolving door of unfeminine, uninspiring women. Actually, a lot of them wouldn’t know a feminine woman if they saw one because they grew up around a women who think femininity is a quarter inch of makeup and a boob job.

        What’s the difference between a PUA and an MRA? About 10 years.

        When you get to a certain age and start thinking about having a family you will probably start to realize that the MRA crowd has some good points.

        1. lol okay dude. You might as well just say “game only works on ditzy bar sluts!!!11111” like the feminists do. “That might work on those makeup-caked fake boob college girls but that would never work with a REAL quality woman like my co-worker Janice. She’s feminine, you wouldn’t even know what a feminine woman looks like, let alone be able to get one!!1111”

          Does it make you angry that PUAs can get feminine, high-quality women just as easily as we can get low quality bar sluts? Because you’ve put those women on such a high pedestal that it’s frustrating to you that we can do the exact same shit we do with the low quality girls which if you accepted it, would force you to confront your own limited beliefs and force you to admit that all the bullshit in your head about “these feminine girls are SPECIAL” is just your own ego rationalizing away your lack of self-esteem?

          Does it make you angry that you condescending “give it 10 years” old farts are still years behind PUAs in terms of coming up with solutions for half the shit you bitch about?

          You know why PUAs don’t whine endlessly about how unfair marriage and divorce laws and shit are? Because we have PUAs like this guy who’ve already broken down all the psychology involved in marriage/monogamy/having kids/etc.:

          Done. Solved. YEARS ago. The answer is don’t get married since you can do anything outside of marriage that you can do in marriage, or if you foolishly want to get married keep it an open marriage and protect your ass so that you don’t lose all your power in the situ.

          Time to move on. 2+2=4 everyone, there’s no need to sit around bitching about how it should equal 5 or combing the depths of why 2 is 2 instead of 3.

          Some PUAs are older and have life experience, marriages, divorces, multiple long term relationships, open relationships, kids, etc. AND those PUAs are analyzing and breaking down the psychology behind those situations AND sharing the information with eachother. Surprise, we’re not all a bunch of college frat boys getting hammered at the bar. OMG alert the press!! Maybe skimming The Game DIDN’T give you the full picture of PUAs after all, who knew?

          We are figuring out how to overcome the shit the MRA whines about, and we are prospering.

          MRA has some points. They’re great points. Fantastic points. But they’re made. Move on and start enjoying your life and learning to love women instead of being bitter old fucks lol

          The difference between a PUA and an MRA isn’t 10 years. It’s taking action.

        2. Oh definitely.

          The MRA stuff I read for my future. Getting a good grasp of the legal and social situations and challenges facing men. Then I do what I can to support and push those issues forward as a 26 year old man.

          The PUA stuff I read for the now. For how to build myself up in a way that has inner game (being a person of worth) and outer game (displaying that worth).

          Both are important.

  12. The default response to anything that influences the mind (by the person who is being controlled, after they realize they are being controlled) is to think “There must be some kind of conspiracy” so it is no surprise that blue pill folks file the feminine imperative in the same category as “big business”. There’s no conspiracy….it is simply the market acting in its own self interest.

  13. no conspiracy
    its simple
    the human species is evolving towards a special form of eusociality with distinct drone and worker castes being differentiated now as we discuss

    how do you think the ants and the bees and the naked mole rats got there?

    before evolution caught up on them, they also argued about the weird phenomenon they were observing and what it was all about (the impending demise of their individualities, really) in ant-barbershops and bee-coffeeshops and naked mole rat-online forums.

    it will take a while for us. but who cares. plough on, proto-borgs

  14. Ant Fred: Hey Bob, I don’t get it. No chicks will fuck me. They all want to fuck Bill and James.

    Ant Bob: Yeah, that’s weird. They wont fuck me too. But you know what’s even weirder? Bill and James and Jason and Mark and all those other studs all seem to ignore the chicks and only want to fuck Joanna!

    Ant Fred: Joanna? That huge, blubber of whale fat of a girl? That’s crazy. What has the world come to?

  15. This post is quite timely. So I’m banging the married girl I’ve been banging off and on for 3 years.

    She claims hubby is chasing around other women—so that justifies her hanging with me…

    But after banging me…she always says “Do you think I could be your girlfriend?”

    Which is a shit-test….to which I respond with some re-frame….but on another level, it’s interesting that she’s quite ok still being married and shagging around and even angling to be someone’s gf.

    Another friend of mine recently met some hottie in a bar who came on strong but he was too afraid to f-close fearing she might go mental and start stalking him because he’s married. I had to reassure him that women aren’t generally like that when it comes to this pointing out that hypergamy is as much a feminee trait as it is a male’s.

    It’s just that many guys have bought nto the feminine guit-trip that only guys screw around…

  16. “It’s just that many guys have bought nto the feminine guit-trip that only guys screw around…”

    Too true, but the scales dropped from my eyes when I picked up a woman at a bar in DC in 2010. In her hotel bed she told me that she had to take an early flight out the next morning to meet her boyfriend before going home to her husband and family. So in essence, with me, she was cheating on her boyfriend with whom she was cheating on her husband… and rationalizing the whole thing by saying the boyfriend was being an asshole at that time. Amazing.

  17. Pingback: Year One «
  18. It doesn’t need a centralized directorship because the mindset is already so installed and perpetuated by society at large it’s now normalized, taken for granted and self-perpetuating. AFCs raising AFCs leads to still more AFCs. This generation doesn’t realize their own bias because it’s been standardized, encouraged and reinforced in them, and society, over the course of several generations now.

    C.S. Lewis had some pointed comments that relate. The blind spots each age has to its own assumptions … a sense of chronological snobbery where what is current is always better than that is past ages. It was why he insisted reading and understanding other periods as they were, not through our own blinders, as the best way to see our own blind spots.

  19. Gents,

    I don’t think some of you are entirely swallowing the Red Pill. You can’t control your woman’s hypergamy. Sure you can try, you might be successful for a while in impacting it. However, there are too many variables outside of your control. Ultimately you can’t control how she views her situation and you. Any attempts to reason that you can is you being unable to accept the truth.

    Your attempts to better yourself so that you’re worthy is nauseating. You will only be loved based on what she feels/gets from you (regardless of reality). If you’re unable to do as much as she thinks other men can then you fail. period. It doesn’t matter if you actually are better than her new lover; reality has no place in hamster-ville.

    You can’t earn a woman’s love. EVER. (Because it’s not love in the sense that we think it is and want it. See another post here.) Stop trying to earn something that can’t be earned. Trying to earn/be worthy of a woman is operating in a woman’s frame.

  20. Pingback: Anonymous
  21. I would be absolutely fascinated to hear Rollo’s comments on Benjamin Franklin’s advice to a young man on choosing a mistress (I took this to simply mean lover, not an illicit affair partner) as it pertains to SMV, hypergamy, etc. Franklin, always astute, seemed to have insight rarely paralleled on many a topic:

    From Franklin’s letter to his young male confidant (on choosing a mistress):

    ” But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons:

    1. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor’d with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable.

    2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.

    3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc’d may be attended with much Inconvenience.

    4. Because thro’ more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin’d to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.

    5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding2 only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.

    6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.

    7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.

    8thly and Lastly They are so grateful!!”

  22. Hypergamous mating was the rational, predictable consequence of enforced female depency and pervasive discrimination against women operating ilthrough both the substance and processes of law. Until recently, most women were forced to secure their material needs through marriage, and thus marriage was an enourmously consequential institution, and one that was not predicated on something as fickle as love. As modern women continue to make economic advances, dominating university, assuming responsibility for their own success and privileging work over family, it has become evident that hypergamy is not an imperative but rather an artifact of patriarchal social relations. For all those who resent hypergamy, take heart in the certainty that women have evidenced an enthusiastic willingness to relegate it to the dustbin of history. Inferior women will always seek it as a refuge- and thus stigamize it by association. She

    1. Unfortunately you’re ignoring the role women’s natural biology plays in hypergamy.

      Women’s neurological and hormonal makeup influences their sexual strategy. Hypergamy is the logical result of a predisposition for short term sexual selection based on physical prowess and social dominance during the ovulatory phase, and long term provisioning and security during the luteal phase.

      Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. Run that past your women’s studies class once spring break is over.

  23. Why doesn’t everyone just have sex with each other. Find someone you feel comfortable around, date them and you both just go out and fuck everyone you want. Its always the same bullshit male vs. female both fighting for the same two things while not allowing the other person to have either, possession and self gratification. We are all nothing but selfish idiots. Get over it, then live it and die it.

    And I would like to add the best version of ourselves, male or female, come from seeing it how it is and being able to separate ourselves from it — its all petty. Not from standing right there in the ring focusing on the fight. Go your own way.

  24. Have only dated men with less social skills and less money then me! Discuss! Explain my lack of ‘Hypergamy’, which isn’t even a thing!

    1. Have only dated men with less social skills and less money then me! Discuss! Explain my lack of ‘Hypergamy’, which isn’t even a thing!

      You are fat and physically unattractive? Maybe you overestimate your social skills as well?

  25. Pingback: The Purple Pill |
  26. The word hypergamy had a special meaning in the late 19th century when a British man who coined the term observed the caste system in India. There still exists the writings of a Mr. W. Coldstream. He observed that Hindu women were forced to marry a man of the same or higher caste. She was by law not allowed to marry lower than her caste, less she lose her life. Her parents had to put up a large dowry and pay for an expensive wedding befitting the caste of the man she married. Daughters were then considered a burden and often were not allowed to live past birth in poor families of lower castes. The original meaning of hypergamy included the woman having no choice by law. That’s a far cry from the woman having a choice. The Oxford English Dictionary still holds to the original definition when describing hypergamy. In a free society, women may want resources to raise children, but men want youthful eggs and youthful women to have children with. A new term has to be thought up for this situation, since hypergamy does not cut it, as the genetic reality is a two way street when it comes to reproduction. It does not cut it as a woman having no choice is conveniently left out of the revamped hypergamy terminology. It is intellectually dishonest to revamp a word that has a definite meaning and overlook that men also seek things above their status, as in a genetically superior woman. Gaining resources is nothing more than gaining genetically superior men, otherwise why would the Brahman have the highest IQs of all the castes in India? Hypergamy was never meant as it is being used today. Pick a different word that includes both genders seeking a reproductive strategy that benefits them and their offspring. That would be intellectually honest, instead of blaming women for everything, miscalling it hypergamy… and men come out smelling like roses. How convenient. How intellectually dishonest.

  27. “Pick a different word that includes both genders seeking a reproductive strategy that benefits them and their offspring.”

    In my opinion you are using a false premise.

    The premise of red pill awareness as we discuss here is that times have changed in “this free society” and in order for one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed today, the other gender’s by necessity is compromised.

    Try starting from that premise instead of the premise defined by “a reproductive strategy that benefits both of them and their offspring”. And it is better phrased as one genders sexual strategy because more often the genders are actually not seeking a reproductive strategy, despite Mother Nature originally intending it to be a reproductive strategy.

    I already succeeded in my reproductive strategy and those days are over.

    The reason why red pill awareness uses the premise as I stated instead of your premise is that the deck has become stacked against men’s sexual strategy. Things change. Genders adapt. Rollo has defined Hypergamy as a concept to advance red pill awareness (also a concept), not a previously well defined definition.

    But thanks for playing. What you are talking about is not relevant to what we are discussing among ourselves in the realm of the “manosphere”.

    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
    ― attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan

  28. “Why doesn’t everyone just have sex with each other. Find someone you feel comfortable around, date them and you both just go out and fuck everyone you want.”

    Because we are not Bonobos–pigmy, dwarf or gracile chimpanzees–(Pan paniscus). And we men don’t live in a world where we don’t have to strive and work for resources. Only matriarchal societies with not a care in the world act like that…..

    “Not from standing right there in the ring focusing on the fight. Go your own way.”

    Men are the do-ers. They have to be in the ring. Or else you would have no sexual desire for them.

    Cue Teddy Roosevelt’s Man in the Arena speech…..

  29. Oops, I got stuck in a thread from 2012 when I clicked on latest comments and thought it was the current thread. How did that happen? I guess I got distracted.

  30. How did that happen?

    It’s a conspiracy

    Fun reading these old comments like:

    over at HUS we had a very contentious debate

  31. Ok, I’ll cue the man while I continue to ponder and be a red-pill-awareness enthusiast:

    According to his wife, Rod Serling often said that “the ultimate obscenity is not caring, not doing something about what you feel, not feeling! Just drawing back and drawing in, becoming narcissistic.”

    “There is nothing in the dark that isn’t there when the lights are on.”
    ― Rod Serling

    “Being like everybody is the same as being nobody.”
    ― Rod Serling

    “Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete”
    ― Rod Serling

    “…the worst aspect of our time is prejudice… In almost everything I’ve written, there is a thread of this – man’s seemingly palpable need to dislike someone other than himself.”
    ― Rod Serling

    “You see. No shock. No engulfment. No tearing assunder. What you feared would come like an explosion is like a whisper. What you thought was the end is the beginning.”
    ― Rod Serling

    “According to the Bible, God created the heavens and the Earth. It is man’s prerogative – and woman’s – to create their own particular and private hell.”
    ― Rod Serling, The Twilight Zone: Complete Stories

    “It has forever been thus: So long as men write what they think, then all of the other freedoms – all of them – may remain intact. And it is then that writing becomes a weapon of truth, an article of faith, an act of courage.”
    ― Rod Serling

    “To My Children,
    I’m dedicating my little story to you; doubtless you will be among the very few who will ever read it. It seems war stories aren’t very well received at this point. I’m told they’re out-dated, untimely and as might be expected – make some unpleasant reading. And, as you have no doubt already perceived, human beings don’t like to remember unpleasant things. They gird themselves with the armor of wishful thinking, protect themselves with a shield of impenetrable optimism, and, with a few exceptions, seem to accomplish their “forgetting” quite admirably.
    But you, my children, I don’t want you to be among those who choose to forget. I want you to read my stories and a lot of others like them. I want you to fill your heads with Remarque and Tolstoy and Ernie Pyle. I want you to know what shrapnel, and “88’s” and mortar shells and mustard gas mean. I want you to feel, no matter how vicariously, a semblance of the feeling of a torn limb, a burnt patch of flesh, the crippling, numbing sensation of fear, the hopeless emptiness of fatigue. All these things are complimentary to the province of War and they should be taught and demonstrated in classrooms along with the more heroic aspects of uniforms, and flags, and honor and patriotism. I have no idea what your generation will be like. In mine we were to enjoy “Peace in our time”. A very well meaning gentleman waved his umbrella and shouted those very words…less than a year before the whole world went to war. But this gentleman was suffering the worldly disease of insufferable optimism. He and his fellow humans kept polishing the rose colored glasses when actually they should have taken them off. They were sacrificing reason and reality for a brief and temporal peace of mind, the same peace of mind that many of my contemporaries derive by steadfastly refraining from remembering the War that came before.
    [excerpt from a dedication to an unpublished short story, “First Squad, First Platoon”; from Serling to his as yet unborn children]”
    ― Rod Serling

    “And something inside the young man cracked. The small compartment in the back of his mind, where man closets his fears, ties them up, controls and commands them, broke open and they surged across brain and nerves and muscles—a nightmare flood in open rebellion.”
    ― Rod Serling, Stories from the Twilight Zone

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: