Socialized Hypergamy

2

This weekend’s discussion post was inspired by commenter Johnnycomelateley

Rape hysteria also has a deeper motive, equalitarianism (high taxes and social distribution) has changed the economic ecology and altered the incentives for female bonding patterns.

Several economists and anthropologists contend that society is transitioning from monogamy to serial monogamy (serial polygyny).

For serial polygyny to be facilitated women require absolutely unfettered, unrestricted, unconditional, uncommitted, unrestrained, unmoralizing, independent and completely free and unqualified safe access to sexual free choice. Unbounded by contracts, agreements, social norms, moral restraints, religious injunctions, social ties, aesthetic norms, maternal obligations, infanticide (abortion), selling progeny (adoption) and economic restrictions.

Anything that is deemed as restrictive is seen as limiting this choice, male spaces, employment obstacles, undesirable attention, unsafe neighbourhoods, male aesthetic standards, religion and of course rape.

What we are seeing is ‘choice hysteria’, anytime someone somewhere restricts female sexual choice it is met with unbounded fury. Even centuries long legal precedents and wrongful imprisonment must acquiesce to facilitate free choice.

Here are some quotes showing we are transitioning to serial polygyny.

Murdock’s (1967) Ethnographic Atlas categorized just 16% of 862 cultures as exclusively monogamous, with polygamy being found at some level in the rest.

A 2011 study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that just 23% of women and 14.7% of men aged 25-44 had one (or zero) opposite-sex lifetime partners.

Frank Marlowe, Biological Anthropology – Cambridge
When males provide all the income but some have much more than others, richer males achieve polygyny, while ecologically imposed monogamy prevails in case of moderate inequality. When males provide an intermediate level of investment with little variation, females are not excessively dependent on males and serial monogamy may arise.

David de la Croix, Professor of Economics
In a society with few rich males and virtually no rich females, polygyny is supported by rich males, who can naturally monopolize a larger number of partners, and poor females, who prefer to be the n-th wife of a rich male rather than marrying a poor male monogamously.

Eventually, however, the number of rich males increases enough, and poor females prefer to marry monogamously.

Serial monogamy follows from a further enrichment of the society, through a rise in either the share of rich males, or the the proportion of rich females.

Monique Mulder, Anthropology
A key finding here is that while men do not benefit from multiple marriages, women do. Although the data are very variable (large standard errors), women appear to gain more from multiple mating than do men.

I’ve written more than a few posts about equalism here, but one thing that needs to be made clear is that a true state of egalitarian equalism among the sexes is neither tenable nor sustainable in any realistic measure. There is always a dominant / submissive dynamic in all human relations (not just intersexual ones), even in same sex pairings. While that dom-sub relation may be flexible in various circumstantial instances, the meta-relationship dynamic tends to place the more dominant personality at the top of an intersexual relation.

For the better part of human history this dominance has been expected from a Man, and I daresay as a species we evolved into that dominant role both physically and psychologically. But for the past 60+ years, since the advent of ubiquitous, unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control, the social and physical constraints of women’s innate Hypergamy, that had been kept in check by Men’s default dominance, has been unfettered.

When I wrote Owed Sex I went into detail about how women’s perception of their hypergamous choices have been contained by men:

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

When I wrote that post it was before the Yes Means Yes law had been enacted as well as before the “rape crisis” hysteria we find ourselves in as the result of the machinations of a feminist writer who actively hunts for pulp fiction rape stories to embellish. All now proven a complete and calculated fabrication.

However the base motivation is still the same, and I agree with Johnnycomelately, the social press for equalism is a suitable mask for socialized Hypergamy.

The Feminine Imperative isn’t interested in anything like an idealized state of egalitarian equalism between the sexes; it is only interested in unilateral, uncontested, and socially assured optimization of women’s Hypergamy.

Equalism is an anathema to Hypergamy.

So long as women are subject to innate hypergamous influences there can never be a socialized state of egalitarian equalism between men and women. By its very nature the Feminine Imperative will always seek an unequal state – maximal restriction of male sexuality and maximal unrestriction of optimized feminine Hypergamy. The persistence of pressing the idea that equalism between the sexes is a realizable goal state is necessary to achieve those maximized / optimized conditions.

For men, the end result of that optimized state is really a form of normative, accepted, socialized cuckoldry. However, the efforts to achieve this state are in social evidence all around us now.

Milo Yiannopoulos has an excellent two-part article, Sexodus, on Breitbart London outlining the cultural impact socialized Hypergamy is having on men today and how they are “checking out of society”.

In part two Milo explains:

Men, driven, as many of them like to say, by fact and not emotion, can see that society is not fair to them and more dangerous for them. They point to the fact that they are more likely to be murder victims and more likely to commit suicide. Women do not choose to serve in the Armed Forces and they experience fewer deaths and injuries in the line of work generally.

Women get shorter custodial sentences for the same crimes. There are more scholarships available to them in college. They receive better and cheaper healthcare, and can pick from favourable insurance packages available only to girls. When it comes to children, women are presumed to be the primary caregiver and given preferential treatment by the courts. They have more, better contraceptive options.

Women are less likely to be homeless, unemployed or to abuse drugs than men. They are less likely to be depressed or to suffer from mental illness. There is less pressure on them to achieve financial success. They are less likely to live in poverty. They are given priority by emergency and medical services.

Some might call these statistical trends “female privilege.” Yet everywhere and at all times, say men’s rights advocates, the “lived experiences” and perceived oppression of women is given a hundred per cent of the airtime, in defiance of the reality that women haven’t just achieved parity with men but have overtaken them in almost every conceivable respect. What inequalities remain are the result of women’s choices, say respectable feminist academics such as Christina Hoff Sommers, not structural biases.

And yet men are constantly beaten up over bizarre invented concepts such as rape culture and patriarchal privilege. The bizarre but inevitable conclusion of all this is that women are fueling their own unhappiness by driving men to consider them as sex objects and nothing more, because the thought of engaging in a relationship with a woman is horrifying, or too exhausting to contemplate.

I don’t see men as ‘checking out’ of society so much as I see them being  forced to develop personal and cultural contingencies to adapt to a feminine-primary social order that’s based on socialized Hypergamy. The obvious comparisons to Japan’s culture of “herbivorous” men is nothing new to the manosphere, but what is new is the increasing awareness of the consequences of socialized Hypergamy.

The MGTOW movement (such as it is) is a good example of this adaptation, but even men going their own way are still directly and indirectly subject to the social pressures created by feminine social primacy and socialized Hypergamy. Irrespective of how insulated a man may think he is with regard to interacting with women, he’s still subject to the correlative impact of the societal changes that mandate maximally restricting his sexuality while legislating women’s right to optimal Hypergamy into law.

Imagined “rape crisis” hysteria, affirmative consent laws, politicians attempting to redefine rape as men ‘misrepresenting’ themselves in order to have sex with a woman, and defining domestic abuse as “restricting of finances“, higher divorce rates, marriage rates at an all time low, are all evidence of a feminine-primary socialization of Hypergamy that hides behind an egalitarian ruse.

The more men refuse to cooperate with socialized Hypergamy, the more the Feminine Imperative will legislate their compliance with it. But at some point it will reach a state of critical mass. The UVA gang rape hoax, the fem-centric maliciousness of Sabrina Rubin-Erdely and the blind, ego-invested adherence to an unassailable feminine correct narrative of its ‘believers’ was a good primer for this critical mass.

Most of what I’ve delved into here has been manosphere staple for more than 13 years now, but the mainstream exposure from the likes of Milo and even the national dialogue generated from the UVA gang rape hoax (as deliberately distractive as it is), is evidence that the previously hidden social machinations of feminine social primacy are becoming unignorable.

As Open Hypergamy and the Sandbergian embrace of women’s sexual pluralism becomes more normative, so too will Red Pill awareness become more mainstream. Men aren’t dropping out of feminine-primary society, they’re adapting contingencies for it, learning workarounds, comparing notes, and a growing Red Pill awareness is at the heart of that adaptation, even for men who’ve never heard of it.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

326 comments on “Socialized Hypergamy

  1. Glenn
    December 17th, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Islam’s depredations in India to me paints a different picture. Islam spread by the sword. They haven’t given up those roots. The Sunni-Shia wars are another case in point. But people have been arguing that for quite some time. We will not resolve it nor our differences. I just though I’d note them. One other data point. The King of Saudi Arabia in 1923 welcomed the Jews going to Palestine because they were an economic benefit.

  2. @ M. Simon – Careful, you are dangerously close to sounding like one of those conservative dingbats. Of course Islam was an imperial, violent, warring , slaughtering band of madmen. So was Genghis Khan. Have you read up on the 30 Years War in Europe? Do I really have to show you how awfully humans and their empires and armies empires have behaved? In fact, an actually sober look at history doesn’t really see the German Nazis as the outlier everyone wants to make them out to be.

    Just compare the violence of Islam to say that of the Mongols or go all the way back to when Chin united the 7 clans to create China. He slaughtered people with reckless abandon. There is plenty of slaughter and genocide to go around, my friend. Or you could look at the endless wars of conquest in Europe and how many were slaughtered, long before the word Nazi was ever uttered.

    That doesn’t let Islam off the hook for it being unreformed and revanchist today. I’m not a defender of Islam. But you tried to conflate it with Nazism in your last comment and frankly, that’s just hyperbolic bullshit that isn’t defensible. I mostly hear this from Jews who want to justify the Zionists invasion, colonization and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. If you are one of those, let’s just stop here and agree to not discuss this topic. Just go back to Jatobinsky and his ideas – you’ll see that he talked openly about the reality of Zionism and it’s depradations. He may have been the last honest Zionist on the planet. But in the end, I don’t argue with Zionists, fyi, I deride them. And this is no space to do that. You could also read Blumenthal’s latest on life in Israel today – Goliath. It’s a devastating read for any Zionist, that’s why they banned him from the country…And oh yeah, if you don’t know who Jatobinsky was, perhaps you might reconsider running your yap on this topic.

    And I’m really out now. Bye.

  3. Going your own way cannot be white-knighting, because a lot of MGTOW dudes, not all, have clear aversion to women. I guess mostly their value isn’t really high and to preserve themselves from rejection they chose to not play at all.

    That being said, part of MGTOW sounds pretty alpha to me. They only care for themselves and do what they want. The only thing they don’t engage in is dealing with women however. And I wouldn’t classify them as being omega or necessarily beta. I’v read elsewhere that women are being weaponized through feminism and this sums the situation up pretty good.
    See alphas are not immune to the negative consequences, just look at Bill Cosby. I personally know one of those guys, although he has never heard of that term before and has been born way before that term has been invented. He doesn’t look like a bitter loser to me, so I’d be careful to devalue all MGTOWs across the board.

  4. That doesn’t let Islam off the hook for it being unreformed and revanchist today. I’m not a defender of Islam. But you tried to conflate it with Nazism in your last comment and frankly, that’s just hyperbolic bullshit that isn’t defensible.

    Well a large faction of Islam aligned with the Nazis in WW2. The Mufti of Jerusalem who mentored Arafat who instigated the Palestinian revolt was one. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Hamas is descended from the Muslim Brotherhood and Arafat. Read their charter some time.

    The Muft raised two divisions for Hitler. You can find pictures of him with Adolph.

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

    Have a look at footnote 138. It links to a piece called “The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda”.

    I doubt if I will change your mind but a look at the history of German involvement in Arabia pre and during WW2 might prove interesting.

    ==

    And what was the uniting principle besides the fight against the British?

    The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)

    This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[56]

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism

  5. I’m going to split my recent comment into two pieces because of links:

    That doesn’t let Islam off the hook for it being unreformed and revanchist today. I’m not a defender of Islam. But you tried to conflate it with Nazism in your last comment and frankly, that’s just hyperbolic bullshit that isn’t defensible.

    Well a large faction of Islam aligned with the Nazis in WW2. The Mufti of Jerusalem who mentored Arafat who instigated the Palestinian revolt was one. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Hamas is descended from the Muslim Brotherhood and Arafat. Read their charter some time.

    The Mufti raised two divisions for Hitler. You can find pictures of him with Adolph.

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

    Have a look at footnote 138. It links to a piece called “The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda”.

    I doubt if I will change your mind but a look at the history of German involvement in Arabia pre and during WW2 might prove interesting.

    ==

  6. And what was the uniting principle besides the fight against the British?

    The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Boxthorn tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).Sahih Muslim, 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim, 41:6981, Sahih Muslim, 41:6982, Sahih Muslim, 41:6983, Sahih Muslim, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791,(Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:177)

    This hadith has been quoted countless times, and it has become a part of the charter of Hamas.[56]

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism

  7. Glenn,

    I understand your antipathy to what the Jews have done in Israel. But the fault – if there can be one – is the Arabs desire to drive the Jews out of the area. Not a very libertarian gesture. And the problem for the Arabs is that they keep losing the wars. And as usual with wars territory is “stolen”. A very Alpha principle. Egypt made peace and got the Sinai back. IIRC they declined Gaza. But it may be that it wasn’t on offer. I’d have to look it up. In any case Egypt is currently at war (defacto) with Gaza.

    The Jews – originally very left – are way more adept at politics than the Arabs. And the recent beheadings is not a good public relations gimmick. Originally the left sided with the Jews. And now they side with the Arabs. Given all the jihadi attacks around the world – stupid politics. Very unusual for the left. But quite in keeping with Cultural Marxism. Arabs/Islam and especially Palestinians have been designated as oppressed. The Druze have come to terms with the situation and are even members of the Israeli Army.

    I subscribe to the David Duke newsletter. Just to keep up. And I can’t quite decide where he fits on the left/right spectrum.

    It is all very complicated but in such situations I am following the old rules. Until the people involved decide to bury their differences. And the old rule “If you can hold the territory it is yours.”

  8. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11146

    Here’s how you can find all of the missing secrets about the Muslim Brotherhood — and you can do this, too. I said, “Bob, go to your computer and type in two words into the search part. Type the word “Banna,” B-a-n-n-a. He said, “Yeah.” Type in “Nazi.” Bob typed the two words in, and out came 30 to 40 articles from around the world. He read them and called me back and said, “Oh my gosh, what have we done?”

    [snip]

    The Muslim Brotherhood began to expand in scope and influence during World War II. They even had a Palestinian section headed by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, one of the great bigots of all time. Here, too, was a man — The grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the Muslim Brotherhood representative for Palestine. These were undoubtedly Arab Nazis. The Grand Mufti, for example, went to Germany during the war and helped recruit an international SS division of Arab Nazis. They based it in Croatia and called it the “Handjar” Muslim Division, but it was to become the core of Hitler’s new army of Arab fascists that would conquer the Arab peninsula from then on to Africa — grand dreams.

    At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.

    Instead of prosecuting the Nazis — the Muslim Brotherhood — the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab Armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda By: John Loftus

  9. Gamergate is about the SJW infiltration of games media, because gamers realized that sites such as Kotaku and Polygon are glorified press release centers with a progressive spin on other media pieces. The reaction to that is GamerGate.

  10. Pingback: Two Camps |
  11. All educators three cases, sex with students.
    Two women (hypergamy eligible) one man (not).

    Going to be “interesting” 😉 to see how these play out.

    https://www.heraldextra.com/former-seminary-principal-gets-to-life-in-sexual-abuse-case/article_409f776c-c4e1-11df-bf69-001cc4c002e0.html

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/oklahoma-teacher-arrested-raping-student-day-walkout-article-1.3926705 (This one posted a letter essentially abdicating responsibility and demonstrating solipsism perfectly.)

    http://kfor.com/2018/03/03/former-oklahoma-teacher-facing-rape-charges-pleads-not-guilty/

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: