Hypergamy Synthesis

synthesis

After last week’s essay on the idealistic nature of the Quality Woman I had an interesting question arise:

Rollo,

I know you like to divorce humanistic and moralistic variables as much as possible from your blog and I understand why. I would like you to explain this point:

“There would be a contingent of moral absolutists who would declare that it’s men, by virtue of their great moral self-awareness and thus responsibility, who need to enforce controls over the socially destructive nature of hypergamy. Ironically this moral impetus is yet one more control itself to ensure hypergamy works to the benefit of those who subscribe to their moral absolutism.”

I understand you say that hypergamy doesn’t care about moral imperatives but how would the attempt of men to enforce controls over it (which I’m not sure is entirely possible) backfire on those men?

As is my standing rule, I strive for a separation of moralism and rationality on this blog, up to the point where the topic crosses over into a better rational understanding of a particular dynamic by addressing the moral element of it – this is one such an occasion.

What I’m saying is that, in the context of hypergamy, moral absolutism, religiosity, secular appeals to ‘higher self’ ideals,..hell, even white knightery, are all founded in a desire to control hypergamy to better fit their subscriber’s perceived strengths and weaknesses in coping with hypergamy.

I’ve written in several blog posts about how the feminine imperative would ideally strive for a set of controlled environmental conditions that favor’s women’s capacity to optimally satisfy their hypergamic natures (i.e. feminism, feminine-bastardized chivalry, etc). As impossible as this is in a long term sense, the feminine will exhaustively construct social dynamics it thinks change the ‘rules’ to favor hypergamy – lowering the basket to better play the game, etc.

Men given to moral absolute ideals, like blue pill men still plugged in, do something similar in their own mindset, and just like the feminine imperative, find themselves equally disappointed when the Rules don’t change to meet their capacity to play the game. They’ll disqualify women from their definition of ‘quality’ in the same fashion women will disqualify men as ‘misogynists’ when either refuse, deliberately or indifferently, to comply with what their ideal conditions predispose their beliefs for.

Hypergamy isn’t going to change, so if a moralist or a feminist wants to minimize or maximize hypergamy to their benefit, social and psychological schemas need to develop around what serves either the best. This is exactly why white knight beta chumps seek to define what the essence of Alpha should be in terms that best describes themselves. They seek to control hypergamy by redefining hypergamy’s ideal to fit their own description – likewise fem-centrism will seek to redefine masculinity to better fit a hypergamous ideal (Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks in the same, or in two distinct, definitions of a man).

Conditionally necessitous women will seek to redefine for men what men ‘should’ want in an ideal partner by defining female desirability as it pertains to themselves. Thus we get fat acceptance and a refocusing of women’s intrinsic qualities as what men should prefer rather than the male-hypergamic impulse of men to be aroused by women’s physical appeal.

Control and Synthesis

Now, all of that isn’t an indictment of multiple millennias of human social progress, but rather it’s to reveal the base motivator of that progress.

One of the main issues I see for both genders coming to terms with the reality of Hypergamy is this want for applying humanistic / moral variables into the resolution of hypergamic problems.

In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about your moral imperatives – it exists with equal efficiency both within and without a moral context.

Hypergamy has been a very uncomfortable truth of human existence since long before we had a formal name for the dynamic. Every inter-gender social convention in human history has been an attempt to either marginalize its influence, or in the case of women, misdirect men from the truth of how their hypergamy, directly or indirectly, compels their most intimate decisions. So pervasive is hypergamy that it had to be evolutionarily sublimated into our subconscious/preconscious minds. The conceptual awareness of hypergamy was so disturbing to the human condition that, in our evolved past, humanity literally selected-for people with the ability to psychologically repress the awareness of it. Thus you get dynamics like the War Brides phenomenon, and while moralistically it’s pretty fucked up, both the men and women who benefit from it simply shrug their shoulders and say everything from “it is what it is” to “it all worked out for God’s glory.”

Our concepts of romance, tenets of religion, even our innate understanding of gender differences, are all manifestations that reflect the human want to anthropomorphize and exercise control over hypergamy. We want to believe our ‘higher’ selves can rise above the physical demands of hypergamy only to have those moral idealizations reflect hypergamy within that idealized context.

44 comments

  1. 1) MUCH wisdom in this post. This is why I heart your blog.

    2) The one thing I have to give props to the Manosphere for is labeling Hypergamy. It’s not a term we’ve used (or even use now) in the PUA community. We understood the concept of women chasing higher-value but we never really got more in-depth than that (since to execute, that’s as much of an understanding of the concept as you need). I like that Hypergamy has been so thoroughly explored here in general because understanding a post like this, where the moral “this idea makes me feel icky” side of it is seperated, is a big part of accepting women as they are and finally swallowing the last of the red pill.

    Understanding that it’s not that they’re “evil” or “low quality” or “sluts”, or that they’re purposely doing it just to be sadistically cruel to you, is what makes it possible to still love women despite this very real concept.

    It’s similar to rejection…a newbie to pickup is devestated by every rejection and shit-test, because he thinks that in that 10 seconds of his approach, her shooting him down or testing him is personal and based on the guy’s worth as a human being. One of the first things we teach them is that she can’t “know” you in 10 seconds, so she’s rejecting your approach not YOU as a human being. And we explain how shit-testing is simply the way girls test a guy for congruency so that she CAN be attracted to him…and that they do this instinctively. They’re not being mean, they’re just following their programming.

    Once a guy can understand this, rejection becomes funny and he starts plowing thru it, and shit-tests become a cute playful flirting game to him instead of a devestating attack on his being as a whole.

    3) This post is why I laugh at the Madonna/whore complex. Even THAT is a socially morally-constructed judgement and attemp to control Hypergamy. It’s not that I care if some dudes are bitter and hate women and cry about “all American women are whores” and go uproot their life to live in EE and convince themselves that the girls are higher quality (even tho really, there ARE hot girls there but those guys are banging the same average 6s and 7s they would be here).

    Like, you can construct whatever fantasy world you want, just like a Jezebel fatty can convince herself that her degrees and “feisty attitude” should be attractive to men and men should loce her 300lbs body.

    But much like the fatty’s life will be a lot easier and less frustrating on a day to day basis if she simply accepted reality and hit the gym, a guy with a Madonna/whore complex will find life a lot easier and less frustrating if he accepts Hypergamy (aka reality) and takes women off the pedestal he has half of them on.

  2. Point of order – swallowing the red pill doesn’t make a man disregard his absolute insistence on morality, honor and the like. If he’s given to that sort of thinking, he remains oriented that way. He just no longer expects women to uphold those principles, or to care that he values those things. They aren’t even on the radar for the vast majority of women, not in the way men understand those concepts anyhow.

    The moral and honorable man, on the other hand, still holds himself and other men to those standards.

  3. @YaReally,

    Thanks for your contribution and great post. I know you catch some flak at times but I think it’s because you’ve swallowed the red pill more entirely than most, even compared to alot of the ‘red pill’ guys around these parts, and guys don’t like to hear the REALLY uncomfortable truths. Same with Rollo. When I read some posts from these guys there is still an underlying tone of how things ‘ought’ to be, not as they really are. I don’t blame them for being this way, as a life without hope is no life at all for many men, and reality seems hopeless. For me, I just try to live in the moments, the now, as much as I can, that’s how I cope with it. But I don’t delude myself into thinking women are different somewhere else. I’ve traveled plenty. They’re the same from Mexico City to Mumbai. Plus I don’t like the whole “leave and travel for better women” thing. This is clearly a more upper-middle class solution, just how the modern feminist plight is really a white upper-middle class movement.

  4. This pretty much sums up why I believe the “MHRM” and “MGTOW” are doomed to failure. They’re wrestling with the angry god of biomechanics. They don’t care that they have wandered into the same reality-dead-zone that feminists have when they try to readjust society to care for men as it does for women. The movement was ironically at its most effective when it focused almost completely on highlighting the inconsistency with reality in feminism.

    It all comes down to the rules. You can’t change them, you can only know them and conform to them. Any other reaction constitutes a retreat into the solipsistic fantasy-land of preferential reality.

  5. A white knight beta chump seeking to define what the essence of Alpha should be in terms that best describes himself is seeking to rationalize his SMP failures as being due to his self-defined virtues (i.e., the other party is wrong) instead of his SMV faults. After all, being hated/despised or failing because of one’s virtues feels so much better than having to admit the truth, and fuels the morally superior position of suffering bravely under self-defined injustice.

    “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.” -H. L. Mencken

  6. So Rollo, is hypergammy a partial function of biology? I ask, as being a 55 year old man, with a wife who just turned 50, but still gets approached by 30 ish guys, once her T starts to drop, does her hypergammy go down also?

  7. Re: EE girls. depends. Some men can get girls with higher SMV, while others are banging 7s with increased regularity. If you are a 7 who is regularly banging 5s and 6s in the U.S, being able to ignore all 5s and just mess the occasional 6 while regularly banging 7s sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

  8. @ BC

    You’ve nailed it. It’s just male hamsterization at that point. Delicate egos. Like I always say, kill your ego. Then you can truly start to progress.

  9. @ The Karamazov Idea

    You’re right it does come down to the rules. But the rules dictate that most men will be losers. This is what makes them uncomfortable and unaccepting of reality. You’re assessment is correct, but it’s too harsh for most to bear.

  10. If all morality stems from our desire to control these forces, begs the question if we are not better individually served letting go of them. Seek the overman ideal.

    The problem i keep seeing is hypergamy doesnt care if we live in mud huts and kill each other with clubs. These forces unrestrained will have impacts on society. Even just a decade or two ago the meme was the nerd would make good and get the girl, not reality but even that idea dies. My concern is less witn hypergamy, but when the bottom 90% of men decide it’s just not worth busting ass working for nothing. Now the arguement will be that they can try to be more alpha, problem is alpha is a scale and leads to an arms race. Everyone runs as fast as they can just to stay in place.

  11. Warning. This comment might take a few or four whacks on the space bar to skip over. But I wouldn’t if I were you.

    I continue to explore the concepts of things I learned at this blog. I am bouncing around sporadically from idea to idea and am having trouble staying focused on any one idea. But I keep getting pulled as much as being due to any lack of mental discipline.

    I was searching for a study about the lack of congruence and dissonance between physical indicators of arousal in women and their mental perception of arousal. The whole Testosterone thing drving women’s sexual choices.

    I was actually searching for “Chimpanzee Porn” because the article I was looking for used it. The researcher had imposed the sound of Bobono monkeys over the visuals of Chimpanzees having sex because they were more “vocal” during sex and the researcher noted that women display measured physical arousal even though they didn’t recognize being aroused.

    And one of links in the search phrase I was using came back with this imbedded in the text:

    “Cultural historians believe that romantic love was created sometime in the 14th century”.

    Google is the most wonderful thing ever created by men. How this linked got included with a search phrase on “Chimpanzee Porn” is a particularly unique result that would prove it relevant only to my particular “Googling” habits. But I guess Sergei felt I needed to see it. And I did.

    OK, we moved down this line of thought at some point on Rational Male a few months ago in the discussion of the beginnings of “chivalry”, so I bit on the link that came up.

    The link stated that the idea of “Romantic Love” was created by troubadours in verses by the idea of “Courtly Love” that arose in its beginnings the the end of the 12th century. So I started going back,back,back,back, back (-Chris Berman) and I found this:

    http://kalpen.myweb.uga.edu/Capellanus.pdf

    The book is important. The foreword by John Jay Perry was written in 1941. The title of this book is “The Art of Courtly Love” but it is actually a Victorian Era title imposed on the work that has several other different titles as a function of the era when the translation was performed, country where the translator lived, and particular social attitudes prevalent when and where the translator produced the translation. I think the “Romantic Era” was when these ideas of “courtly love” finally percolated up into mainstream thought, well, actually women’s mainstream thought, and defined love as we believe it be today, or at least defined it as women wish that definition to be imposed on men.

    The title I generally use is “Treatise on Love”. Andreas Capellenus was the Chaplain of Countess Marie, and the preface goes into all of this history and I don’t want to get it into it. Read it.

    It is the seminal work on the subject and there is no earlier work by a European. There is reference to Ibn Hazm, an Islamic writer from Spain, who began to define the idea of “love” in Islamic cultures. It went through a series of other writers in the 13th century and orally communicated through verse and song during the 14th century and made its way into the consciousness of western thought from the 14th century on.

    The key thing is that these Troubadours were not some “traveling band” singing for their supper. Maybe later, but at this time, they were major nobles, from both the nobility and the higher noble classes. The first major one referenced was Duke William of Aquitaine, who was Marie’s grandfather. These were important people of the time. This would maybe be like, God forbid, Senator Harry Reid, breaking into a song after dinner about the importance of passing spending bills to ease the particular issues about the “sequester” that are key issues to Democrats or Ben Bernake letting loose about the Quantitative Easing. Ok, maybe not exactly.

    The issue at the time, was that, as the historians state, that “Love as we know it did not exist. Marriage was as much as about land and politics as anything else”. It was said you “Married a fiefdom and a wife got thrown in the bargain”. Imagine a time where firelight and sunlight were practically the only light, when people rarely traveled more than 12 miles from their place of birth, when nothing, and I mean nothing, changed. The major cathedral built in Nimes took 38 generations to complete. The skyline never changed, towns remained the same. There were no books. None. All knowledge was conveyed orally and generally died with a person. The only cultural conditioning was what you got by watching the people you saw. And you saw very few people. Even at the peasant level, most marriages were the tossing together of two available young people, and that was that. But particularly at the noble level, all marriages were entirely based on practical considerations and nothing to do with “love” as we know it.

    And the major church writers the time, just skewered women. The preface named several, and while I can’t find actual text of the writers specific to women, Bernard de Morlaix, John of Salisbury, I can find overall references to what they said about morality in general. They were a group that very much about self control. And it was thought that due to the “wickedness” of women, it was probably superior to remain a virgin. And thus the idea of the “celibate” priest was born. He could not be “godly”, and should be suspect, if he allowed himself to come under the temptation of women.These guys were definitely the “Red Pill” writers of the time. The general idea was not so much that sex was bad, but women were so bad, and sex was lure, the hook, so they damned sex as a means to keep men from getting ensnared in the traps and wickedness that women lay for men. And the thought has a little bit of merit, I must say.

    So, think about this. The men in power at the time, saw some of the stuff we see, and they gave a huge “thumbs down” on women. Huge.

    Now, heading into the second 500 years of Christianity, throw a “rubbing elbows” with Moslems in Spain, and this idea of “love” starts to percolate about, sort of this “counter-culture” idea of the time. It did not exist at all before in European culture, this idea of “soul mates” and “intertwined” spirits and “the ennobling qualities of love”, love as the be all and end all, the very reason to live.

    And it was made up.

    By women. Duh?

    So there were moments, during this period 1170-1250 were in certain places the women got control. It the case of this Marie, she got control of this region “Troyes” in southern France when her son was named to be noble over the region and he was 11 years old. So she accompanied him down there and was the defacto “regent” during his “minority”. Her husband became King while she was down there. So this was a woman of major influence. And her sister was married to someone that also became King of someplace else. Their mother had been both Queen of France and then Queen of England after she divorced the King of France. This was a powerful woman who got what she wanted. And two of the chief architects of “love” were her two daughters, who married extremely high status men.

    The same thing happened at the same time in about 3 other major places in the area, and these women, began to “flirt: with idea of “Courtly Love”. Flirt maybe is a little weak of word. But the general idea of most writers about the theme is that they “Proposed it as countervailing religion or thought to Christianity.” Christianity had so vilified women during the past 200 years, and this “love” stuff was really one of the first “feminisms”.

    And near I am can tell, it was literally the birth of the Feminine Imperative. At least, the birth of the version that we know today.

    The general idea was this.

    “Women are the love. Women give praise to men and the power of that praise is the driving motivator of men. All good things that men do are only done in the true spirit of love to earn the right to the love that the woman confers to the men. Women define what is good. Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”.

    Sound familiar.

    So that was why some “Sir Goodguy” hite knight would tie the scarf of the woman around his neck during some contest. It was his sign to her that he was doing this brave dead for her love and his recognition that she saw him as good and worthy.

    They actually created these things called “The Court of Love”. And these men and women, and you can imagine the men in those courts were the 12th or 13th century equivalents of Manginas, would literally “rule” on love. They would debate questions, actions, and then determine is an act was good or bad and then that further defined “love”. Remember again, this was not idle chit chat after dinner. These were the major movers and shakers of the time. This was the court that would go on to exert cultural and intellectual control over Europe until 1914. And really even later than that. For nearly 1000 years, the French held sway in everything and Paris was the center of the world. Except at this time, this part of France, the south was the big deal.

    One example I saw was letter written by a man that said, he and a woman were having heated discussion of two points, (1) Can true love exists in a marriage. (2) Can there be jealousy between the married partners. The Countess, the Queen of Love, at that time wrote back and said “No, love cannot exist in a marriage. Love is freely given and asks for nothing in return. Marriage is a contract of duties. So there is no love in a marriage. And Jealousy is a prerequisite of love and since only lovers could be jealous and since married people were not lovers, then their could be no jealousy in a marriage. ” And that was that. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Love had issued a ruling. And its weight was everything.

    And needless to say, it was a mighty convenient development for women that were traded off into marriage as pawns attached to land. So it conferred the key power of social definition and the final say of what is good in men, and good in society, and that women should and will be the definers, and the arbiters, and the judges of all of that.

    The translators, and this particular author John Jay Parry, mention that was nothing particularly distinguishing about Andreas Capellanus that would make it seem like he was the person to end up as this great literary figure that wrote a work that is “One of those capital works that explain the thought of a great epoch, which explain the secret of a civilization”. Parry said often, some of the prose was different in style and “meter”, such that it seemed “dictated” to him.

    And frankly I am sure the whole book was “dictated” to him. That he was, in fact, as chaplain, the mouthpiece of these women, and his position as Chaplain allowed the viewpoints expressed to be accepted in a way that a work created and made public by women, given what it expresses, would have viewed more critically by readers. Keep in mind that it was written in Latin, and only those who were either Clerics or the nobility could read the thing. What wasn’t literally dictated, was more or less, transcribed thought, and he knew that Marie was final “editor” in the content. And his position, both as Chaplain, and his very livelihood, depending on her being happy with the finished product.

    So let me make an analogy, and step just a little bit in time. Things are little muddled today cultural to make a similar one from a very current example.

    Consider Hugh Hefner. And consider his show called Playboy After Dark. This was a time of much “friction”, the early 60s. Civil rights and racism are extreme issues. Sexual “freedom” is coming about. The “rights” of just about everyone are much talked about. The setting which was sort of this contrived “salon” from Paris. The set looked like a large living room in a swanky spiffy Playboy bachelor pad. All these “cool”, meaning avante guarde, “open minded”, intellectually superior, artistically superior, liberal people are just hanging out, having a spiffy party. Hef does more for civil rights in a minute than 50 writers do in 10 years by having Sammy Davis Jr on the show. Hef did more for women’s liberation by having a “guest” on the show to talk about it and the camera sees Hef nodding approval, than 50 screeching female professors could ever do.

    So then that “cool” boy, that wants to be like Hef, all through the 60s and the 70s, the “cool boy” believes in Equal Rights, Racism, Feminism and this idea of “gender” and “race” being a culturally imposed concept. And that “cool” boy does it exactly because it is “artistically and culturally superior” than the conservative ideas of the time. So then imagine how pervasive both of those viewpoints on Racism and Sexism are today and how “religious” both have become in such a short time, historically. All of us have experienced the reaction of people to our Red Pill beliefs that border on religious arguments. And some of the biggest fighters of what we propose are men. So a philosophy can quickly move from the fringe and become core if the “right” people get behind it and push it.

    So then imagine the same thing back in 1200, the “cool” boy, the son of the nobles, that reads latin, has a little bit of education, he thinks the Catholic church is a bunch of sticks in the mud. He is literally built, wired, for sex, to want women. And this idea of “love” makes absolute sense to him, or at least he wants it to make sense, because the top of line, highest status women, those noble women in that area between Barcelona and maybe, Bologna, were all giving approval to those men that bought into it. So by saying “I believe in Love” or “I am in Love’s army”, or “I am a soldier of love”, what he is saying is “I’m cool, man. Please like me.”

    And just like today, any guy that goes against Feminism or attacks the behavior of women is shunned. I hurl some attack on women in comments to an article, and some woman comes back with “Oh, I be you just get you tons”. So in 1200, It is “No ‘Love”, then no ‘love'”, you were ostracized by women, at least the cool French Chicks who were the celebs of the day.

    And so it takes hold, and as Feminism has co-opted the church, today’s women have imposed their viewpoint on church acceptance of divorce, premarital sex, with the whole idea of the “magic vagina” of women compelling those men into better behavior and better performance, and the woman has the right and the duty to punish him for failure to live up to the love that the woman has given him as a gift that he must continue to earn, the same thing happens with “love”. It co-opts the Catholic church of the day, and throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, “love” creeps into the morality and consciousness of the people at the time. The “love” thing is dominating the “court” and is leaks into the church in the relationship of accomplices that they first and second estate have which each other. It catches on and becomes the dominant aspect of the culture and women are “rehabilited”, seize control, and never let go. They have the “authority” because they have the “morality”, and they drive the course of society by controlling what is “moral” and what is “honorable”. And what constitutes both, from that point forward, are generally what is in the best interest of women, given their situation, given the time.

    So why is this important to us?

    First, the whole idea of “Courtly Love” was entirely hypergamistic. Entirely. The Capellanus book has as the heart of the second part, 9 dialogues. These dialogues define the Feminine Imperative.

    Keep in mind, at this time, there might have been maybe 500 books floating around in total. And this is the only one on this topic available for a 100 years. The only other referenced work before this was Ovid “The Art of Love” and most scholars really see Ovid as more of a satire on the “treatises” written during his day, and not as a REFERENCE MANUAL that people today, including myself (pre-Red Pill) , see it.

    I took it as “how to” book. And what it should be titled is “How to be a AFC Beta”. Also keep in mind that books were so rare, that everything thing was relayed as an oral tradition. Even as late at 1513, Luther said he had been a priest for 3 years before he ever even saw a Bible. And that’s the effing bible.

    So here you are somewhere in 1200, and this major Noble dude guy, or high status babe, gets up and starts taking or singing about this new “love” thing, and everyone is nodding and agreeing. And if they don’t nod and agree, then they don’t get to be in the group, they’re fired. The High Status women turn on them, and they are ostracized.

    So in the 9 dialogues, there are a series of conversations that men of one of three status would have with a women of one of the same three statuses. Those statuses being “commoner, noble, high noble”. And these dialogues set the ground work, the rules, of what both men and women of all three classes should, do, feel, and think about “love”. And “love” is only between those classes. Peasants don’t love. They need to stay on the farm and work it. They have no time for “love”. And love is only between people that aren’t married.

    And there you go right there, with anachronistic thought. You probably thought, single people. No. Single people weren’t dating and marrying. No way. That was decided by someone else. You were probably going to be part of some arranged marriage. “Love” was between married people, at least married women and a man, but not married to each other. You can already see the way hypergamy is influencing the idea of “love”. Girl gets pawned off as a 14 year old or 15 year old as part of some arrangement between older family members. She probably didn’t like her husband very much, given what we know about women today. And he probably didn’t like her much either. I am sure there were just as many men when they first saw there “betrothed” thought, “Oh fuck, you have got to be shitting me. I have to marry this bitch?”

    And in these dialogues, pure hypergamy is enforced and codified. The dialogues enforced class, at least enforced it for men. Men could try and love “up”, but most likely they couldn’t unless they displayed such extreme good character that their character was better than all of the available men in the class of the woman he was “hitting on”. But it also set a nice set of rules for women “move up”. But the women were the ones, in every case, to judge the men, the determine that even though the women were “moving” up, they still were to ones to say “OK, I’ll take you You are worthy of my love”.

    And then it also codified acceptance for women to be able to “cheat” on their husbands. “Courtly Love” was only between people that were not married. They got around the 10 commandments, by stipulating that the true lover never asks for sex in return for his love. He loves merely for the purity of his love. And that the whole endeavor was supposed to remain entirely secret. That if it became public, then the “love” was dead. Over. At best he got a kiss, maybe an embrace. Gentlemen in the army of “love” never tell. And Gentlemen never demand sex. Which of course, all of this was bullshit. But since “Courtly Love” was “love” for “love”‘s sake then those husbands couldn’t get jealous, and nobody loves their husband anyway. So it gave a socially acceptable way for this woman that had this beta forced on her by marriage, then get out their and have exposure to the alphas that she truly wanted. And it gave her a social means to circumvent the church. And since everyone, at least everyone who mattered, was married to someone they didn’t like, then it was an early version of “Don’t ask; don’t tell”.

    And it also has the basis of monogamy, as we know it, codified by women, in that the definition of it truly benefits women. “The true lover that truly loves only loves the one. He cannot love two. The sight of other women do not affect him because he has true love for his true love.” Notice that are a lot of “he” and ‘his” words used. The book asserts that those men that would want sex with lots of women and have passion for someone other than “the one” under the guise of love is an an “ass”, mule, dressed up in the finest livery, but still an “ass”.

    Schopenhauer said “Love! If you would have thought it up, your fellows would have thought you daft. The mere idea that because a woman allows you her favors, that you should support her for life.”

    Well, it was thought up. By these women in the south of France, and it curled around and snaked its way into the current consciousness of people like it was something that people have done since the dawn of men. And it wasn’t.

    When you read Capellanus’ statement of what “love” is, it is the seminal definition, the very “jump street”, the Genesis of the codification of “OneItis”. And when you read the dialogues, and then this list of the “Rules of Love” which is the part of the book that is most public, you see the fingerprint of the Feminine Imperative.

    http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/rules_of_love.html

    I think at some point in my reading, someone had described Capellanus as being very “Copernican”,as in Copernicus, and astrology, threatening the religion and the concept of the world.

    I say we use him again in a Copernican manner, as the very argument that the Feminine Imperative is an entirely contrived ideal.

    And we reject “love”, as in the definition of it by Capellanus. We see it as the social manipulation that it was to orchestrate the emotions of men, and actions from those emotions, entirely for the benefit of women.

    Churchill said “In England, it is permitted unless it is not permitted. In Germany, it is permitted only if it is permitted. In Russia, it is not permitted even if it is permitted. And in France, it is permitted, even when it is not permitted.”

    To some degree that combination of all four “permitteds” describes the Feminine Imperative. It is permitted when they want it to be permitted and not permitted when they do not. Even if it is not permitted then it is permitted, if it is in the benefit of women. And especially, it is not permitted even when it is permitted, in the case where it might benefit men at the expense of women.

    They only way to put a brunt on the Feminine Imperative is make them pay a cost for their behavior. And the best way for men to do that is the rejection of “love”.

    In the words of YaReally, “The manosphere is the new counter-culture”.

    We are the new “cool boys”. We are the new “rebels”.

    And you need to read Capellanus, and as you read it, to see the manipulation in the pages. Maybe it was adopted because it had social value to blunt the negative behavior or the men of the time and turn it in a constructive direction.

    But today it is only something that is used to provide advantage for women. And that advantage is often used at the expense of men, and furthermore, for the punishment of men, the social shaming of men, when women deem the men’s behavior or actions to be at the detriment of women. And they are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner of their verdict. And no one ever challenges them.

    And we begin by rejecting unilaterally, out of hand, “love” for the pack of lies it is.

    So I say we use our position as influence peddlers, taste makers, of our day and time, and shame men Mangina men, and White Knights as fools. toddies for women and their “love”. And make no mistake, that whole White Knight shit comes exactly from this book. We all should read “Treatise on Love”, deconstruct it, and expose it for the bullshit sham it is.

    I have ranted this in the past. It is time for men to gain an entirely new consciousness, a new awareness, a entirely new set of constructivism abstracts on which to frame their thinking.

    The constant whine, complaint, criticism of the manosphere is that is attacks “love”, it makes “love” impossible, it kills “love”.

    And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal. And modern Feminism has brought about the recognition of the impossibility of it and rubbed it in the face of men. If you pine for it, it you whine about it, the end of it, the lack of it, then you deny the truth of it.

    Modern life is entirely developed as a means to blunt the natural advantages that men have. This “love” is a further handicap, a weight on your shoulders, that limits your ability to use your advantage, physically, mentally, by women exploiting the emotional advantage that women have over men. She only has this advantage if you allow her to have it.

    So discard it. It is religion in you that does not work to your advantage.

    So yes, “They have a right to do anything that we can’t stop them for doing”.

    But we have the capacity and the ability to make them pay for it.

    In the end, and my life right now is living proof of this, they need us more than we need them. We want them; they need us. And the things that most women want, they get from us. And without the handicap of “love”, you can make them pay, and pay, and pay, until they fucking cry uncle.

  12. Nice article Rollo.

    I have to say though I’ve yet to see this “fat acceptance” that you speak of. It’s widely known that the looks and appearance of a woman is very important to men and I’ve yet to be ridiculed for it. I don’t feel any pressure to accept that fat is good and I don’t feel I ever will because it creates a physical response of disgust in me.

    People can try all they want to get fatness accepted but it won’t happen because they are fighting against evolutionary biology.

  13. Seems to me, doing away with the VAWA and the kind of thinking which leads to such foolishness is the way to keep hypergamy in check.

    A man’s well timed pimp hand will do more then any appeal to morality, law, justice and God. I say that as a God fearing man, who values authority, responsibility etc all.

    Any behavioral system that counts on women seeing the long term down side of their actions is doomed to fail, while a slap to the face or Han print on the ads is immediate cause effect interaction. Sort of like raising a child or puppy.

  14. @Karamazov,

    My understanding of MGTOW is really just to seek ultimate happiness and not subject themselves to the feminist State. I don’t think they have any other option but to fully live for themselves.

    I don’t see that as doomed to failure, I see that as the only rational response. Fvk and chvk is the only way to happiness in a society that punishes the committed man.

  15. “In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about your moral imperatives – it exists with equal efficiency both within and without a moral context.”

    Are you implying that hypergamy “exists with equal efficiency” in Saudi Arabia and America?

    And if you want to get philosophical,

    “to define what the essence of Alpha should be in terms that best describes themselves. They seek to control hypergamy by redefining hypergamy’s ideal to fit their own description”

    what does your supposed “amorality” say about you?

  16. Hypergamy absolutely “exists with equal efficiency” in America and in Saudi Arabia.

    In America, we have an overly generous welfare state and lax marriage laws. Women flock to Alphas because they can, and in fact the government subsidizes this/protects women from the economic choices of these actions. Mairrage rates are tiny for low income folks (who do not out earn the welfare state), and birth rates are low.

    In Saudi Arabia, there is no generous welfare state, but it is legal for men to marry multiple women. Women flock to and marry the most alpha man they can get, even if that man is already married. Beta men in Saudi Arabia are among the most under sexed in the world. Some of these men even become terrorists after they work hard and play by the rules and their efforts amount to nothing in the SMP.

    2 systems of very different morality, each undergoing major problems due to Hypergamy.

    Like Rollo says above, Hypergamy is always here, a destructive force against civilization, the only question is how you try to contain it.

  17. @ Rotten

    I had a similar initial reaction to yours to Different T’s post. But I think that’s sort of missing the point…

    “Are you implying that hypergamy “exists with equal efficiency” in Saudi Arabia and America?”

    This seems to be a rhetorical re-frame. What Rollo is getting at, I think, is that hypergamy’s going to exist in force whether the preacher rationalizes it from the pulpit or nobody every talks about or mentions it. At the end of the day, women still seek to mate upward socially, and can be counted upon to work to make society amenable to this goal.

    The laws of nature can be moralized. There is actually much to be said for doing so. But hypergamy can only be reshaped by the surrounding social-economic-moral context.(And hypergamy is, in fact, so powerful that it is a major driver of what the surrounding social-economic-moral context actually is.) Moralizing alone will rarely be an effective force against hypergamy. Fighting hypergamy is somewhat similar to trying to win a jujitsu match with a giant octopus. He’s got more limbs than you, and his don’t break.

    That doesn’t mean we can’t seek admirable ways to contain and channel it for the betterment of mankind. We can and we should. But as long as there are human females, there will be hypergamy. It will be powerful, and it will be efficient. All the moralizing in the world won’t change that.

  18. A lot of focus in the comments is about the destructive nature of hypergamy. I bet my 100 cents that if hypothetically hypergamy was replaced by some other mate selection criteria e.g. “rationalgamy” in which a man writes a letter of motivation to a women and rationally lists why she should be with him and she rationally chooses a mate, we’d have some other group of men bemoaning about how “shallow” women are.
    What I mean to say is whatever mate selection criteria women have men …….. some men always will bemoan. That I think is the crux of this post that morals and ethics will always be re engineered to affect optimal mate selection by men. Even women do this( e.g. cries of “Man-UP”. ) How are we different?
    Now I get the anger about how society will excuse even the most blatant of hypergamic cruelties but if you get game,a sane head and some luck..you’ll be ok.
    Interestingly if we compare the cultures on a scale of “freedom to execute hypergamy” vs “other societal progress e.g. wealth etc” one realizes that a moderate amount of hypergamic freedom has always been given to women,and in pre feminist times you still had to perform(job etc.).Now yu just perform differently.

  19. @Coy

    Nice reframe. The problem is not men bemoaning. The problem is women behaving in a harmful way to society, to men and to themselves.

    but if you get game,a sane head and some luck..you’ll be ok.

    If you are lucky, you’ll be ok because the definition of luck is that the things that happen to you are good things so, obviously, you will be ok. Big deal.

    But a society cannot be built based on the fact that the average person needs luck to be ok. Try this:

    – If a child got money, a sane head and some luck… he’ll be able to get a school.

    – If you have status, a sane head and some luck… you’ll have enough tap water.

    – You, single mom, don’t receive alimony or child support. But if you are hard-working, have a sane head and some luck… you’ll be able to feed your children.

    a moderate amount of hypergamic freedom has always been given to women,and in pre feminist times you still had to perform(job etc.).Now yu just perform differently.

    Having a job contributes to the society. Having a funny hat à la Mystery, being cocky-funny and banging lots of sluts does not.

  20. @Mark Minter

    I say we use him again in a Copernican manner, as the very argument that the Feminine Imperative is an entirely contrived ideal.

    And we reject “love”, as in the definition of it by Capellanus. We see it as the social manipulation that it was to orchestrate the emotions of men, and actions from those emotions, entirely for the benefit of women.

    I hear your words and understand and agree.

    I would not say that Love does not exist. This notion of love as explained to us is supposed to be some magical thing that happens when two soulmates make eye contact. Entire television ad campaigns are spent on this ridiculous notion.

    I submit that love can exist without providing leverage to hypergamous females. If this were not so, then you would never find couples, whose marriage was arranged, telling you that they love their spouses. You can find such situations. Therefore, love can exist outside of the bag of tricks that the feminine imperative seeks to create.

    What I think men need to reject is the implied requirement that only her love (approval) need exist to form a relationship. That’s the deception, that only women can define what constitutes love (approval), and that their definition must be met before a relationship can proceed. Obviously, you can’t reject the approval conditions of another if approval was never granted to begin with. Hence the problem…

  21. @Rotten

    You may want to look into Saudi Arabia a bit more before deciding “Women flock to and marry the most alpha man they can get, even if that man is already married.” Additionally, contrast marriage law.

    @Alden

    To make the above point more clearly, consider:

    “At the end of EACH day, women still seek to mate upward socially.”

    Given that frame: “Are you implying that hypergamy ‘exists with equal efficiency’ in Saudi Arabia and America?”

    Both may want to read Minter’s post.

  22. “That I’m more interested in shaking the ghosts out of the machine to better understand it.”

    I meant in terms of your definition of “alpha” and “hypergamy.” You may not have a concrete definition, but there is definitely something there and it is influencing your morality/amorality/behavior.

    How are you able to quote like that?

  23. @imnobody
    you aptly misunderstand me.What you say I agree with 100%.Every nerd learning game is every nerd not in a lab making stuff.and women are burning away civilization by rewarding bad boys.

    So what do we do?

    women will do what they have done for centuries ………optimise hypergamy as socially permissible as possible.Its your job to get what you want from them in the process.
    ps: by luck i mean the probabilistic nature of world where stuff isnt black and white and all women aren’t “evil”.

  24. @Different T

    How are you able to quote like that?

    Like this:
    <blockquote>How are you able to quote like that?</blockquote>

    But there’s a huge catch… if you ever enter them in incorrectly, if you miss a < or > or /… you can mess up the comments below yours and force the blog owner to manually fix the comments. That’s very annoying. I get very anal about most of my comments, so I rarely make a mistake (but poor Dalrock had to fix one of mine the other day, I felt terrible).

  25. This clash we are witnessing here is the clash between civilization and our primal impulses, between higher brain functions and the hind brain.

    While in the past, hypergamy might have better served the species as a mate selection process, it now collides head first with what the current sate of the species defines might define as good qualities to perpetuate.

    And I trust the higher brain that pulled us out of caves and got us building pyramids to find its way around yet another obstacle in us reaching Jupiter.

    But that’s just wishful thinking. For now, hypergamy is what it is. The first step is to become aware of it and how it permeates every facet the society we live in, being it the US or Saudi Arabia.

  26. Its your job to get what you want from them in the process.””””””””

    agreed they ain’t all mind readers tell em what you want

  27. I quote my first semi-redpill exposure – Doc Love

    “She has no Character. She has no Honesty. She has no Loyalty. She has no Integrity. You can’t Trust her. Otherwise, she’s great!”

    I know, but you have to start somewhere…He got me here.

    For the past four years, I’ve been trying to figure out what * I * did to implode a 25 year marriage. Yes, I laid it all on me. What else could it be? Damn near blew my brains out 2 or 3 times. Hypergamy? WTF? That caused her and her swinger-couple friends to spike my drink with GHB…not once but twice? Because I wouldn’t play along? Yeah, Fuck morals. I’m 50 years old. I’m on “Team Minter” now.

    “Every fucking day I see something in one of the major blogs that makes me think “Fucking bitches!!!”. Next…

    Thanks Mark, Thanks Rollo!

  28. What a relief — an absolute fucking relief — to see that our resident Jesuit, “King A,” appears to have vanished for good.

    It’s nice to be rid of his snark, sarcasm, and bombast.

    Minter is a thousand times better, and more relevant.

    Hurrah!

  29. Unrelated request:

    I’d email directly but I couldn’t seem to find any address to do so, so I apologize to those involved in the discussion here.

    By pure luck, I stumbled upon this blog around the time it came to be. I wasn’t looking for it, but found it via a school friend that is really one of the great white knight / manginas of our time. Needless to say he was not singing the blog’s praise. I told him I bookmarked it. He thought I was joking. I wasn’t because I found myself in a mid-30’s slump following a successful 15 yrs. with women beginning in college in the early 90’s when I red-pilled. We didn’t call it that back then. We didn’t call it anything. We just called it “stop being a nice guy.” This blog reminded me of some things I knew at one point but had taken for granted and forgotten. Learned some great new concepts as well and it’s been very useful and appreciated. Thank you.

    As I got my head back in line on this site, I got my techiniques back in line over at CH and Roosh. Things have picked up over the last year and look quite good for the back half of my life as I face 39 next month. I’ve wanted to share this blog with a couple of people that I though might be poised for it’s message, but I think it’d be tough to get their heads around it were they to pick things up in the current posts.

    You’re beginning to address a lot of finer points that I enjoy, but I enjoy them because I have the background. I really think I was lucky to get the blogs in the order that they arrived. The early posts set up the subsequent ones. So this preamble is really just setting up this suggestion:

    See if there’s some way to offer your blogs in chronological order. The categories are nice if one know what they’re looking for, but the newbie doesn’t. At this stage in your game, I think some of your new readers would be well-served to simply be shown a starting point and told to follow the yellow brick road.

    Just a suggestion and thanks again for you efforts. They’ve been well-received and worth the time.

    JF

  30. Why so angry?

    Female hypergamy is to MMV
    what male wandering eyes are to SMV.

    Two sides of the same coin.

    We both are winning for the greater benefits of the species.

  31. LOL I’m beginning to think the writing on this blog is becoming sort of a self parody…it seems to be getting ridiculously “technical”

  32. Pingback: Hail to the V |
  33. @Edward

    LOL I’m beginning to think the writing on this blog is becoming sort of a self parody…it seems to be getting ridiculously “technical”

    Frankly, I enjoy it. It’s a welcome fountain of usefulness when compared to all the articles on relationships written by women. Those articles are tremendously lacking in solid definitions. They’re all full of internal inconsistencies and exude a very poor exploration of the facts… They’re all so bad as to be absolutely useless. If you’re going to discuss the nuance of human interaction, you can’t get by with simplicity. That’s like trying to describe the universe with basic arithmetic.

  34. Have a look what hypergamy did to those poor fuckers in Columbia:

    Would love to hear a quick take from Rollo on this.

  35. @The Karamazov Idea

    MGTOW have not failed. In fact they are not trying to achieve anything or change anything. They understand the concept of hypergamy perfectly.

    They have decided to opt out. They will see to it to live their lives the way they want to live them. No more sacrifcing for the family/society. No more labouring long hours to produce for the family.

    You see and even if these men still seek to get laid they pump and dump. There are always younger models being replaced by the older ones and this has and can go on forever.

    What these feminists/women have failed to realize is that they “need” us. We only want them.

    If men do not work to their full capacity then society/government loses out. The tax base is suddendly shrinking. Why is this happening? Why don’t men man up? It is because they simply don’t care anymore. And even if they are producing they are only spending it on themselves.

    These are the same boys you drugged in school because they were too hyperactive. Or the boys who got shafted by the feminized school system. Or the boys who did not have access to the same programs/and government funds as their female peers did.

    I have read that 60% of men under 40 in Japan are herbivores. Those implications are startling. 60% of the young men not seeking sex with women because they are not interested. And even if they are they do not intiate. And we all know the great track record females have at intiating romance,etc.

    So I don’t see no problem with getting laid when needed, seeing as the standards for them putting out these days are very low,

    I say let it all burn to the ground. Deprive the gynocentric state and let it all come crashing down.

  36. > What these feminists/women have failed to realize is that they “need” us. We only want them.

    Men want women, but women need men.

    Excellent meme.

  37. ” We want to believe our ‘higher’ selves can rise above the physical demands of hypergamy only to have those moral idealizations reflect hypergamy within that idealized context.”
    Religion school life…

Speak your mind

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s