The Love Experience

experience

Glenn and a few others had a question about last week’s Love Commodity post.:

@Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”

You’ll have to forgive a long explanation, I couldn’t simply drop this into the commentary, a full post was necessary.

The first thing we need to consider is the Male Experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here and this will also cover the Hypergamy is everything thread I noticed the commentary too.

There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores use to “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.

This is easily observable in issues of ethnicity, but it also crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.

From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.

It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ‘society’ that determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.

zdr01dz posted this:

I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.

My second example comes from Women and Sex in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”

This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ’embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”

The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.

Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. As zdr01dz observes, no man has an idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.

I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and understanding the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefitted from it – or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution – but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.

So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order want’s love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.

I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.

I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post, but if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.

So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine because the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.

Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for commodifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.

It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s – while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.

In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.

746 comments

  1. re: “this canard”

    First, a digression. Along the lines you mentioned, giving a woman enough testosterone to reach “low T” man levels will cause her clitoris to irreversibly enlarge enormously, to almost micropenis size. She will also become extremely horny compared to previously, masturbating vigorously daily but not wanting more partnered sex than before. Her vaginal secretions will increase to about double in volume, and her pelvic floor muscles will too, reaching almost male intensity in orgasms.

    She will also experience limerence for the first time.

  2. Continuing about making women into men.

    Up until recently, the vast majority of trans-folk were male-to-female trans. Of these mtf, only (!) about half were gay, about half are partnered, and about half are pros, i.e. in the sex business. The vast majority of mtf express happiness at womanly feelings and the greater sexual attention from men after every degree of transitioning, and most of the partnered stay with their partners. If not the actual surgery, all would recommend at least female hormonal transitioning to anyone.

    Less than 20% (the actual stats may be 10%) were ftm. Of these ftm, almost 100% were lesbian and the vast majority were partnered. But essentially 100% break up with their partners while transitioning because their partners cannot handle the increased sex. And essentially 100% report being extremely gratified with their manly feelings, but so very extremely disappointed by women’s rejections and their complete sexual invisibility that essentially 100% would not recommend becoming a man to anyone.

  3. Continuing. Prior to recently, all of the ftm trans were the butch partners of femmes, like Chaz Bono. Most got facial surgeries to make them look more thuggish to try to get more girls.

    Very recently there has been a large increase in strictly hormonal ftm, but more of the emo or nerd type of boi, rather than thug. These nerd-boi ftms STILL can’t get the girls, but that’s ok with them because they’re channeling their sexual energies into *men*. They were “straight” girls before, and afterwards they became hairy skinny little “gay” bois, having lotz and lotz of secksas.

  4. I wrote an email to Rollo and about thirty minutes later this post came out. Perfect timing.

    I also shared it on my blog (https://dcllive.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/an-open-letter-to-older-red-pillers/) and the AskTRP sub. The two questions I asked were pretty much answered in this post.

    They are…

    Q1. “Why do men look to women for validation, on any scale big or small?”
    and
    Q2. “Is there a way to love women for how and who they are?”

    One response I got from a user named ‘secret_barber’ goes,

    “Why do men look to women for validation, on any scale big or small?”
    People, all people, desire validation because it feels good. The truth is that the validation that feels best comes from within.

    “Is there a way to love women for how and who they are?”
    Yea, sure. Love is an emotion you can feel. It isn’t rational, though. You will have to truly accept their flaws for what they are.

    After reading that response with addition to a quote from this post, “So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences.” I have come to realize some things that I need to do and perhaps others do as well:

    -Cultivate my own validation, give myself credit and understand my own self worth (gained through introspection and self improvement).

    -Understand that maybe I haven’t truly accepted women’s flaws due to a lack of (red pill) experience in a relationship.

    -This unplugging is a lot bigger and longer than I thought. But I’m in it for the long haul.

    So much to think about. -dcl

  5. So far you’ve covered how women love differently than men and how women “experience” love. But, I’m curious to hear what pre-requisites a man needs for a women to fall in love with him. I’m speaking in general, no need for outliers here.

    For the record, before anyone here says it, game doesn’t create love. It merely sustains it to some degree. I’ll post another comment covering this in the morning (I’m off to bed now) but I will say that the initial raw spark for love is Alpha Fucks based (physical). I also understand that a woman’s love can be cyclic (pluralistic strategy)but for the sake of discussion, let’s cover the most robust form (i.e. the “honest” one).

  6. “the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.”

    That gonna be a tweet real soon?

  7. If we look at fetish sex we see that 3% of men are interested in it and 1% of women. This says (assuming Gaussian distribution) that there is about 1/2 standard difference in the sex drives of men and women.

    Low sex drive men can rather easily find a match on that axis. High sex drive men will need several partners to keep up. Generally.

  8. if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings.

    I believe it was Vox Day who said (paraphrasing) that one should mentally preface any such statement made by a woman with “Right now I feel like…”

    “(Right now I feel like) I deeply love my husband / boyfriend.”
    “(Right now I feel like) I will always love my husband / boyfriend.”
    “(Right now I feel like) I can’t live without my husband / boyfriend.”
    etc.

    Because, Briffault’s Law.
    Always Briffault’s Law.

  9. anonymous
    January 5th, 2015 at 1:59 am

    That is easy – find a woman who wants YOU more than she wants or will want any other man she comes into contact with.

    The criteria is easy. The actual finding is quite difficult.

    I used GAME as my search tool. For the most part the women qualified themselves. I had to go through a LOT of those women who qualified who attached herself to me no matter what.

    This was my qualification tool:

    “Sleep with me naked. No sex. I like the body contact.”

    Sleep wit her naked. No sex.

    About 3/4s will come back gagging for it. The other 1/4? You got to sleep with them naked. Also watch their eyes. When they agree to do it they ALL expect to get f*cked. A man with the self control not to do it is a wonder to them. What goes through their minds? “Is there something wrong with me? Is he gay?” The first part gnaws at them.

  10. “…but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will.”

    I’ve been thinking about this since the other post. It could be I had a kind of male Hypergamy experience a very long time ago. When I came to University I was in an LTR with some nice girl for several years already. Back in the day I had an intuitive understanding of women coming from growing up in a family with lots of females around. But my rational thinking was very blue pill probably. That intuitive understanding served me well though and I never experienced wanting sex and not getting it back then. My girlfriend was in her absolute prime and quite good looking. Then I met this girl at University. I turned around in a group of people I just got to know there an there she was standing: A girl so beautiful I couldn’t have imagined such beautiful girls could even exist. As you all can imagine, it became a disaster basically, probably ruining what alpha there was in me then. But I can remember thinking a long time about if I could/should stay with my girlfriend or if I wanted or needed the other women to fulfill my wanting of some kind of perfection in my choice of mate.
    Of course from a red pill perspective it is advised to look for better opportunities all the time to keep the girl in competition. But it’s a whole different matter to do this to have options, for dread or whatever. Because that serves first and foremost the goal to keep the girl around with rational means. What I experienced back then was nothing like that, it was really some emotional need to try to get the “better girl”.

  11. The female opportunism and male ideology spectrum can find a compromise, as this blog has explained. The obstacle this “optimum happiness” incurs is that the former – female opportunism – is born out of fragmentation and short term satisfaction. In other words, a woman grasping onto a man’s provisional facilities will eventually, sooner rather than later, not appreciate it like before.

    Male ideology of love lasts longer, because most men have formed a mentality that derives from blue pill concepts – “the more I give, the more she will love me.” Eventually, what was once a compromise becomes a one-way street.

    But I predict 2015 could be the period that shows the strongest tide of events for many a year. You may not see it straight away, but it will dig the foundations for the building that is seen in future years.

    The below post explains more:

    http://www.vinaywcmd.com/2015/01/fifty-shades-impacting-women-of-2015.html

  12. It wasn’t long ago that the quality of Rollo’s writing was not readily available, it was not easy to find such insights. Men that did not find this stuff were stuck in a nightmare.

    What nightmare?

    Lacking any source of the real truths like the ones found here. That nightmare is over.

    Every day I’m in gratitude for this. If you never comment here but you benefit from what Rollo Tomassi writes, I hope that you’ll comment here even if it’s a sentence or two. You don’t have to use your real name.

    The work Rollo is doing is saving lives around the world. It’s bringing positive changes in the course of world events. That’s why I’m committed to spreading it around. I hope you’ll do the same in 2015.

  13. I also want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to Rollo for all invaluable posts and time spent sharing your knowledge. You’ve had a great impact on my current and future life.

    I also want to encourage many readers here to take action in your lives. Rollo Tomassi and his blog by all means, but this is knowledge meant to better prepare you for upcoming situations. An awareness so to speak. Don’t fall into the trap of just reading, reading and ..reading without doing anything.

    Cheers from Sweden

  14. ” … For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own. … ”

    Is it correct to say that this doesn’t necessarily apply at the level of an individual male-female relationship?

  15. @M Simon

    ‘This was my qualification tool:

    “Sleep with me naked. No sex. I like the body contact.”

    Sleep wit her naked. No sex.

    About 3/4s will come back gagging for it. The other 1/4? You got to sleep with them naked. Also watch their eyes. When they agree to do it they ALL expect to get f*cked. A man with the self control not to do it is a wonder to them. What goes through their minds? “Is there something wrong with me? Is he gay?” The first part gnaws at them.’

    I did that similarly and unknowingly:

    “I was in such a bad state that I didn’t even dominate her like she expected. Wrong time, wrong mindset, wrong desires, and I chose not to sleep with her out of shameful respect.

    Her words: “I didn’t think I was good enough”

    Left me high and dry four years ago.

    My shirtless pictures last week sent her to the gym for hours.”

    I would lay around watching movies intimately kissing and laughing with her. She came back every time expecting sex and never got it. Just the thought of me still drives her insane.

    It has created genuine attraction, but “love” may not be on the other side.

  16. In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.

    They also often project their own form of love/attraction onto men as well, which is pure solipsism and projection.

    So, for example, women will express surprise when a man has an affair with a subordinate who “is less attractive than his wife” (not understanding that men are not hypergamous, and have lower attraction floors than women do, and crave variety above optimization) or say things like “how could any man possibly find that trashy ho attractive?!?” (when directed at an obviously beautiful, yet slutty woman, the kind whom almost every man finds attractive visually/sexually, regardless of what she does for a living, and regardless of not having her in mind for an LTR/GF/wife). There are very different models at play, and women who are clued in understand this, but most women still do suffer under the cultural idea that men should also be hypergamous in their attractions — something which doesn’t reflect reality.

    Women who are clued in will accept (not like … accept) the fact that their husband will find the sexy 17 year old hottie who is babysitting their kids attractive. Women who are clueless and/or bought in to the idea of equalist models of attraction think that their husbands are “above that” or something similarly stupid — as if their husbands were blind or gay or both.

  17. From the OP – “In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.”

    That makes sense as a sort of bait and switch by marketing opportunism as idealism. And I say for survival and success adopting the opportunistic love model under the guise of idealism is best working strategy for men.

    All is fair in love and war.

  18. Male ideology of love lasts longer, because most men have formed a mentality that derives from blue pill concepts – “the more I give, the more she will love me.” Eventually, what was once a compromise becomes a one-way street.

    But the blue pill concepts are derived from a scarcity mentality. Men are not the choosers of the relationship the majority of the time so when a woman chooses them they will feel a stronger need to maintain that ideology of love because they just don’t have or don’t feel they have other options. As I get older I realize EVERYTHING is economics. Everything is just supply and demand and how hypergamous a woman or how desperate a man is all based on this. Beta men leave their older wives all the time acting in a hypergamous manner so I don’t buy that men are somehow above acting this way as well when they have the SMV advantage. I have seen it too many times.

    Humans always want a better deal based on the current economic conditions whether financial or relational.

  19. “However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.”

    While I wholeheartedly agree that men don’t feel the “pull” of hypergamy, don’t we feel a pull of another kind? Matt Ridley made the observation in his book “The Red Queen” (backed up by the some of the work of David Buss) that women are primarily attracted to status and wealth while men are attracted to beauty and youth. In this context female hypergamy makes perfect sense, women will seek the highest status male she can find. But what about men? What middle aged man wouldn’t (should the opportunity be presented) leave a similarly aged woman for a girl in her early twentys? While I would definitely agree that men are generally quicker to fall in love than women and that we love idealistically, are we really less opportunistic, or do we simply look for different opportunities?

    As a “for example” see @lh’s comment above.

  20. @lh re: “I never experienced wanting sex and not getting it back then”

    I think you’ve stumbled upon the foundation of hypergamy.

  21. @nots re: “While I would definitely agree that men are generally quicker to fall in love than women and that we love idealistically, are we really less opportunistic”?

    Yes, we are far less opportunistic when in love. Empirically, when in love a male perceives other females as more repulsed by him.

  22. @Bango Tango re: ” the blue pill concepts are derived from a scarcity mentality”

    I’m smelling a theme. bluepill = scarcity = antihypergyny

  23. @M Simon re: “The criteria is easy. The actual finding is quite difficult.”

    Yep. Like “buy low, sell high”, it’s easy peasy in theory.

  24. @vinay3543 re: 50 shades + “most certainly to the greatest extent, women will be asking themselves the question to what they are really on this planet for.”

    Really? You don’t think instead that women will simply be more dissatisfied, continuing to be dissatisfied, reveling in dissatisfaction?

  25. @jf12 “Yes, we are far less opportunistic when in love. Empirically, when in love a male perceives other females as more repulsed by him.”

    Really? Based on my own personal experience, when in a close relationship, I perceive other women as being MORE attracted to me. This is especially true if the woman I’m in a relationship with is particularly attractive. Or did you mean to say that a man in love is repulsed by other women?

  26. @nots4253 re: “Really?”

    Yes, really. It’s probably the single most important recent discovery of the pair-bonding function of oxytocin in the male brain: it blasts away his polygynous impulses by making it seem, to him, that other women are repulsed by him. If I remember to, I’ll try to find several references.

  27. Hypergamy isn’t upgrading. Often misunderstood as such.

    Hypergamy means “only attracted to those who are more attractive than I am” — only attracted upwards, in other words. That is all it means. o s

    It’s different from optimization. Everyone always tries to optimize everything. Everyone. In all phases of life. Everyone prefers better. That isn’t hypergamy. The difference between hypergamy and optimization is that hypergamy is not attracted to individuals below itself (and in most cases, individuals below self+1), while optimization prefers self+X, but is still attracted to self+0 and self-1 and even in some cases self-2. Women are never, ever, attracted to self-1 or self-2, and only in certain circumstances attracted to self+0. That’s the difference.

    Both men and women will try to optimize based on what they are looking for. For sex, that means hottest, period, because it’s just sex. For LTRs/marriages, it means hottest with the rest of what I want/need on the list, which typically means compromising to some degree on hotness. The trouble women uniquely face, due to hypergamy, is that most of them can’t marry men they are attracted to — there aren’t enough self+1, self+2 men available to meet the demand, and those who are in such demand will likely not need to opt for a self-1 or self-2 woman. So many women find themselves married to self+0 at best, and in many cases self-1, and are relatively unattracted to their husbands. That is due to hypergamy. And men don’t have that problem because either (1) their self-1 wife which they compromised for due to other qualities is still quite attractive to them or (2) they are the beneficiciary party in marriage which is self+0 or self-1 from the female perspective, meaning they are with a woman who is as attractive or moreso — more on the optimal side. (Keep in mind, this discussion is about “total SMV” and “total MMV”, and what that means, differentially, for each sex — not just comparisons based on relative physical attractiveness, although that is a key component).

    So, yes, everyone is tempted to upgrade, if they can pull it off, but, no, that doesn’t mean men are hypergamous. Men are just as likely to have an affair with a sidegrade or a slight downgrade provided she’s above his attraction floor, whereas women don’t do this — they have affairs with upgrades, only, because they are not attracted to sidegrades and downgrades.

  28. Rollo- excellent

    Novaseeker- likewise excellent. Women settle on mens shitty looks for access to resources wgen their own (womens looks) begin to fade in their 30’s. Women cash out for mens cash not mens looks.

  29. “It could be I had a kind of male Hypergamy experience a very long time ago.”

    H/T Novaseeker for this.

    You’re not describing a “male Hypergamy experience”; you’re describing what men do when they seek women, which is optimization. They look similar at first glance but they’re really not. What differentiates them is where each sex’s attraction floor is.

    Women are hypergamous, meaning they want to “marry up” or get better men than they are. This applies not only to marriage, but to sex as well. They want sex with better men than they are. Most women just aren’t sexually attracted to men who are at or beneath their own SMVs. So a female 6 just can’t be attracted to a male 6 or below. Her attraction floor is at Male 7. She has to have a male at SMV 7 or attraction just won’t be there at any time.

    Men aren’t like that. They don’t have such rigorous requirements. A man can be attracted to women above him AND below him in SMV, but not below his “attraction floor”. So a male 6 can be attracted to female 8s and 9s, certainly. A man at that level might even be able to briefly date a point or two above his level but he will continually find himself unable to keep such women who are above him in SMV. But he’ll also be attracted to female 6s, 5s and a few 4s. His attraction floor is probably at 4, so he will not pursue any women below that 4 floor, even if she is very attracted to him. He’ll refuse anything with that woman, even very easy sex.

    Same with a male 8 0r 9. He can be attracted to his female counterparts who are also 8s and 9s. And he’s attracted to female 10s. He’ll also be attracted to as low as female 5s, where his attraction floor is.

    A male 6, given a choice between a female 8 and a female 5 will of course prefer the 8. He won’t be able to keep her, but he’ll be “more” attracted to her for sex and investment. But when he proves unable to keep the 8 he can be content, even happy, with the 5 who loves him and wants him.

    But a female 6, given a choice between a male 8 and a male 5, will not only prefer, but will have to have, the male 8. If she cannot have the 8 she’ll walk away from the 5. She cannot be content with a 5 who will love her and want her, because he’s beneath her in SMV.

    The difference is in where the attraction floors are. The male 6 has an attraction floor at 4; the female’s is at 7. So what women do is hypergamy; what men do is optimizing.

  30. re: The Oxytocin Experience. Oxytocin make for oneitis in men. Essentially the oxytocin experience IS the oneitis experience. In men. Not women.

    Oxytocin makes men less able to stray..
    Scheele et al. 2012. Oxytocin modulates social distance between males and females. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(46), 16074-16079.
    http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/46/16074

    Oxytocin makes wife goggles.
    Scheele et al. 2013. Oxytocin enhances brain reward system responses in men viewing the face of their female partner. PNAS, 110(50), 20308-20313
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20308.abstract

  31. Downsizing to one link for posting.
    re: The Oxytocin Experience. Oxytocin make for oneitis in men. Essentially the oxytocin experience IS the oneitis experience. In men. Not women.

    Oxytocin makes men less able to stray..
    Scheele et al. 2012. Oxytocin modulates social distance between males and females. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(46), 16074-16079.

    http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/46/16074

  32. In contrast, in women the oxytocin pair-bonding experience IS brain-identical with the mother-child bond, as all men have always claimed and all women have always vehemently denied (thus proving its truth). Moreover it is the initial surge of in-love oxytocin that starts the clock on women’s honeymoon period, i.e. the countdown to bond doom.

  33. Maybe most counter-intuitively to men, orgasmic oxytocin causes *extremely* temporary trust feelings in women, which by the next day already recede into distrust.

  34. Mrs. Gamer said the other night that (Right now she felt like) she was in love with me. Coming from a place where she despised having sex with me–that is a miracle. One word: Dread. About three weeks ago I created Nuclear Dread and have been doing Dread every week for almost a year. Going out clubbing solo. Based on my Relationship Game, I flirt with Mrs. Gamer whenever we’re out together and at home. That helps to alleviate some of the drama.

  35. Most women, when asked, will say that they want an equal partner. And they will believe it when they say it – it sounds right, and believing it makes them feel like they are better people. And they will tell men that men “should” also want equal partners rather than complimentary partners. Men wanting equal partners would make men better people too.

    The problem comes in what women mean when they use the word ‘equality’. They view equality optimistically on the up-slope and pessimistically on the down-slope. A woman with a BA would not feel un-equal to a man with an MA (or PhD, or MD, etc). She would feel that she makes up for the education disparity in other ways. But a woman who has an MA (or PhD, or MD, etc) would definitely NOT feel that a man with a BA is her equal, regardless of the other ways he may make up the difference.

    A woman who makes $30K per year would not feel un-equal to a man who makes $300K. She would feel that she makes up the difference in income in other ways. But a woman who makes $300K would definitely NOT feel that a man who makes $30K is her equal, regardless of the other ways he may make up the difference.

    Women view “equality” optimistically on the up-slope, and pessimistically on the down-slope. Of course, this is really just another way of saying that women don’t want equals, but rather men who are better – better specifically in the traits and qualities that women most admire in themselves, or qualities they wished they had. Equality is the MINIMUM they will accept before consciously viewing the partnership as having “settled.”

    This casts the whole concept of an “equality partnership” in a new light. A woman looking for an “equal” is really looking for a better. Thus, women’s advice to men to look for an equal is ridiculous! If men were hypergamous (hyperandrous?) and only desired women who were better at the qualities they most admire in themselves, no one would ever partner up! That would create a situation where everyone was looking for someone better, and the only way to attain one’s biological imperative would be for the other person’s imperative to fail (as Rollo loves to say). The only way for both partners’ imperatives to have a chance at success is if men partner for complimentarity and women pair hypergamously.

    Do men and women love differently? YES. I totally agree with Rollo in this – men and women are both capable of love, yet the pathways that they take to love are different, and the things that keep them in love are different. To say that we love the same way is to say that we want the same things in a partner – and we obviously don’t.

  36. In a very real sense, the more pair-bonded trust a woman has in her man, the more likely she is to cheat. Seriously.

    Women on oxytocin find everybody more attractive.
    Hoge et al. 2014. Gender moderates the effect of oxytocin on social judgments. Human Psychopharmacology, 29(3), 299-304.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24911580

    Women on oxytocin are more likely to approach strange males.
    Preckel et al. 2014. Oxytocin facilitates social approach behavior in women. Front Behav Neurosci., 8, 191.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24904342

  37. I think most women chafe at the use of the word “opportunistically”, not that it is inaccurate. A perhaps more palatable way to say it is, “Women love with a hypergamy-influenced pragmatism.”

    The weaker species will always be the more pragmatic, always. Just compare the unending drone of human trivialities with the daily activities of a field mouse to get an example. Humans concern themselves, to cancer-causing-degrees with the flippant utterings of people half a world away. A field mouse eats whatever it finds that won’t kill it.

    Women are the more vulnerable portion of the human species. They are the ones who have the most reproductive value in the most vulnerable of the adult human forms. Hence, one can expect women to be the most motivated by the realities of their own existence, particularly when it comes to men since men are one of the species they are vulnerable to.

    Since this is all they know, one can expect them to attribute their own behaviors w.r.t. love to whatever men write about their own love ( Thank you Shakespeare), also presuming that men’s experience is equal to their own. They have, in essence, taken the male version of love (the one originally written about all those years ago when it was typical of bourgeois men to read/write, but not so typical of the women) and believed the lie that their own love is the same.

    Romeo and Juliet is a particularly galling example of a male-written romance. There is absolutely no acknowledgement of Juliet’s inherent attraction triggers. She literally just loves Romeo, it’s a presumed condition for the story. Romeo’s love, however has all the trappings of normal male attraction triggers.

    Most fiction since has been colored by exactly that kind of presumption of love. Female love often just “happens”, it is a condition of the story in many cases. Why it happens is almost never explored, and in the fiction that it is explored, it is often attacked, BY WOMEN. Just look at the James Bond franchise. First, there was Sean Connery, essentially the ‘Man’s Man’ of the group, who famously got himself into trouble with the FI. Admittedly, the female characters in Connery’s bond films were horrendously shallow, literally decoration. That was the actual point though, since the story was about Bond and a random bad guy and nothing else. Now, right after Connery was done, you have “On her majesty’s Secret Service.” If you haven’t watched that before I recommend checking it out. The very existence of that film puts FI/hypergamy into perspective. That franchise was nearly destroyed by that film, because the FI deemed the male message of Connery’s films too close to reality, so a “women’s-lib” version of Bond was constructed by Lazenby. At one point, Lazenby’s Bond walks into a room filled with young attractive women, wearing a kilt, sits down on a couch, smooth’s out his kilt underneath his ass as he sits down like a woman would with her skirt, and crosses his legs at the knees. Seriously, go watch that now, it’s actually vomit-inducing to see. It should come as no surprise that at the end of that movie, James Bond gets MARRIED.

    I’ve rambled here, but the point I was trying to make is that women chafe at Rollo’s words on this subject almost purely from a false perception of their own motivations to love, and that perception springs from their own belief that they experience love just as men do, so therefore reading the great romantics writers of the world (mostly men) must tell them all about themselves.

    It doesn’t. Female love of a man is a separate and distinct process from how a man loves a woman, but no less important to survival.

  38. @Novaseeker, @thedeti: Are you sure regarding your own SMV? What if what you call your “attraction floor” is really your own SMV? Don’t answer here, my point is not to question your SMV (I don’t care for that), but to question your theory.

    @jf12: “I think you’ve stumbled upon the foundation of hypergamy.”
    I think so too. Hypergamy lives where you cannot even imagine the risk of being without love/sex. Given the development of SMV with age, probably all the better looking women we are actually interested in might live in that state until well into their ’30s.

  39. Sorry for double linking. Separating here.
    In a very real sense, the more pair-bonded trust a woman has in her man, the more likely she is to cheat. Seriously.

    Women on oxytocin find everybody more attractive.
    Hoge et al. 2014. Gender moderates the effect of oxytocin on social judgments. Human Psychopharmacology, 29(3), 299-304.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24911580

  40. First, apologies for not having commented on the previous post. I’ve been on a weekend snowmobiling trip and wasn’t really able to keep up with the thread which blew up well past what I expected. Sometimes you just gotta climb a mountain.

    @Nova, Deti, Jeremy, et. al., I’ve written before that Hypergamy does not seek it’s own level:
    https://therationalmale.com/2013/06/20/smv-ratios-attachment/

    You guys have summed this up very succinctly, however I would add that when women get into “equal-partnership”, comparable SMV pairing – they say they want – these are invariably marked by a perpetual condition of “working on the relationship”, or women settling for these men with the belief that they have the “potential” to become ‘better men’ for them.

    These are the “fix him” men women complain about. It’s really a hope and an effort that his SMV will at some point develop into being +1 or +2 than her own (due to his personal improvement efforts rather than her own support), but as a woman ages and her comparative SMV decays below his a for of passive dread develops.

    It’s at this time she’ll attempt to limit his ‘progress’ towards an SMV that puts her into a position where his imperatives outstrip her own. There are countless social conventions that facilitate this for her at an age where his SMV is peaking and hers declines. She’s essentially getting exactly what she’d previously wished for, a “co-equal” partner who still hypergamously exceeds her real SMV. Only now (hopefully) his SMV is +2, maybe even +4 if she really ‘gets comfortable’ and obese, and he’s got to be brought down to her level via sociological and psychological means.

    So, in light of this, it’s important to bear in mind that hypergamous optimization changes as a woman’s conditions and maturity changes. What she opportunistically prioritizes at 22 is different from 32, and 42.

  41. A summary so far. The romantic Love Experience of men is oneitis induced by oxytocin. This latching is a scam biologically perpetrated on men, and only men, in order to trick them into staying put to help raise a baby into a toddler. In contrast, the “romantic” Love Experience of women is vestigial at best, principally presents as a mothering impulse and secondarily as a trusting feeling that makes the woman feel she doesn’t have to cater to the man’s needs.

  42. Jeremy – “I think most women chafe at the use of the word “opportunistically”, not that it is inaccurate. A perhaps more palatable way to say it is, ‘Women love with a hypergamy-influenced pragmatism.'”

    Why does it need to be said in a “more palatable” way? Why can’t objective accuracy be good enough?

  43. So, yes, everyone is tempted to upgrade, if they can pull it off, but, no, that doesn’t mean men are hypergamous. Men are just as likely to have an affair with a sidegrade or a slight downgrade provided she’s above his attraction floor, whereas women don’t do this — they have affairs with upgrades, only, because they are not attracted to sidegrades and downgrades.

    @Nova. Very true when you are talking specifically about sex. But from a woman’s perspective because men are the gatekeepers of commitment which is where the female is at a disadvantage (unless they fulfill men’s hypergamy requirements by looking pretty and/or giving lots of hot sex) this could be rightly thought of as the same. Because a man’s requirement for commitment is based on getting the best looking female possible and a woman’s requirement for sex is based on getting the best looking/highest status male possible. They seem to be two sides of the same coin. In my mind upgrading to a better sexual partner or upgrading to a more committed partner can both be considered hypergamy based on the gender’s priority and scarcity.

  44. Are you sure regarding your own SMV? What if what you call your “attraction floor” is really your own SMV?

    There is an “absolute floor” in male attraction, regardless of what the man’s SMV is. Let’s say it’s around a “2” on the female scale. What that means is that a guy who is a 2 is screwed, because he is not attracted to women who are self+0 or self-1, and only to self+1 and higher. That can arise where the man’s SMV is itself quite low.

    Otherwise, no, there’s a difference between men’s floors and their own SMV. This is why the male 8s can (and do) spin female 7s and 6s as plates. The male 8s SMV is 8, not 7 or 6. But 7s and 6s are still attractive to him. That’s the idea, and it’s what happens in reality all the time prior to the time when women move into “settling” mode for looking around to marry. There would be no cock carousel otherwise, because the cock carousel isn’t women sleeping with SMV peer men, it’s women sleeping with self+1-2 men, and becoming their plates. That is due to female hypergamy — she wouldn’t consent to being a date, let alone a plate, for a self+0 or self-1 man unless she was compromising in the context of looking for other things in a longer term mate. She will consent to being a plate, if even a discreet one, to a man who is self+1-2, however, because she finds him sexy, fun, attractive and she isn’t looking for other things in a relationship at the time. The whole reason this dynamic works is because the men involved are attracted to the women who are self-1 and self-2, provided they are above the floor (which in the case of the guys whose cocks are ridden on the carousel, is always the case, because these guys are male 7-8 and higher, meaning self-1 and self-2 are female 5s-7s, which most men find scale between somewhat and very attractive).

    So, no, not the case that men’s SMV is equal to their attraction floor. Men have a broader attraction than women do, and a lower attraction floor, and this in itself feeds the phenomenon of the cock carousel (and why you see the Governator cheating with the woman he did and so on).

  45. So, no, not the case that men’s SMV is equal to their attraction floor. Men have a broader attraction than women do, and a lower attraction floor, and this in itself feeds the phenomenon of the cock carousel (and why you see the Governator cheating with the woman he did and so on).

    I agree with you that women have the overall advantage and that would have to be the case once again because of supply and demand. Eggs and child birth time finite vs. Sperm nearly infinite.

  46. @Badpainter

    Why does it need to be said in a “more palatable” way? Why can’t objective accuracy be good enough?

    It doesn’t, and that wasn’t my point. The rest of the comment explains my point. Female’s chafing at Rollo’s words on this point should be ignored as the wailings of the willfully self-ignorant.

  47. But from a woman’s perspective because men are the gatekeepers of commitment which is where the female is at a disadvantage (unless they fulfill men’s hypergamy requirements by looking pretty and/or giving lots of hot sex) this could be rightly thought of as the same.

    It isn’t the same because the key question is this: “is the person attracted to someone who is somewhat less attractive than they are themselves?”. If the answer is “no”, then that’s hypergamy. If the answer is “yes”, then it’s optimization, because whether someone is hypergamous or not, they will always seek to optimize.

    So while it’s true that women are the buyers of men’s commitment, just as women are the sellers of sex, that doesn’t mean that a man trying to optimize among his choices by leveraging his commitment advantage is engaging in hypergamy. He’s engaging in optimization. Why? Again, because he is also attracted to women who are somewhat less attracted to him — although he will try to optimize for a women who is as attractive as he can get who has the other qualities he wants in a wife, he will compromise on that in the light of the other qualities, and we see this quite often in practice as well. These marriages (man has somewhat higher, not drastically higher, but 1-2 points higher, SMV than wife) tend to work quite well if the woman has other good qualities, because the man is hypergamously attractive to the wife, and the wife is still above the attraction floor of the man (meaning he finds her attractive), and has the other qualities he wants and values for a wife. The converse — a woman married to a man of lower SMV because of his other qualities — also happens, because women run out of other options, and settle, but these tend not to work nearly as well as the other type, precisely because they run contra to the woman’s natural hypergamy.

    So, yes, a man can leverage his commitment to get a better woman than he otherwise could get, but that’s an optimization/leverage strategy. Like everyone in life in every sphere of life, he’s trying to optimize. The difference between that and hypergamy is where the “no sale” line lies, and in men in lies lower than their own SMV, while in women it is higher than their own SMV. Both of the sexes try to optimize within those parameters to the extent that they can pull it off due to their own value and their leverage. As a result, men generally don’t marry women to whom they are not attracted, even if the women are somewhat less attractive than they are — but this is not really an issue for most men, because most men are attracted to women who are self-1 and self-2, and will be happy to marry one of these if she has the other qualities they want (after all, they still find her attractive). Women, however, do fairly often marry men to whom they are not attracted, or at least to whom they are not nearly as attracted as they were to lovers prior to deciding to scale down and settle for marriage, because of the numbers game when it comes to men who are self+1 and self+2, and those men being unavailable to them for marriage.

    Because a man’s requirement for commitment is based on getting the best looking female possible

    Which isn’t true. What is true is that he will try to get the best looking given everything else he wants. It isn’t just looks based for men who are seriously hunting a wife. So he will try to optimize for her appearance while still making sure that she has the other qualities he wants/needs in a wife, and it isn’t uncommon that he opts for a woman who is self+0, self-1 or self-2 if she has the rest of the list, over a divorced single mom who is self+2 who wants him. Some guys opt for the latter, of course, but that usually doesn’t end well, as we know.

  48. @Rollo
    I have observed what you describe, but I don’t think it is due to passive dread. Have you ever read any books by Deborah Tannen? She has done research into the ways that men and women communicate, and the reasons behind their methods of communication.

    One thing she describes is that men “report-speak” in order to advance their place in a social hierarchy. Thus, a man will attempt to exert his dominance by virtue of his speaking – his preferred place is that of being “one-up”. He will accept equality. He will HATE being “one-down”, and will use his language to avoid that situation – hence men hating to ask for directions, hating to apologize – hating anything that lowers their standing in the eyes of others.

    Women, on the other hand, “rapport-speak” in order to establish equality and comfort. No one should be one-up, and no one should be one-down. Thus, women won’t hesitate to ask for directions or to apologize – they believe that doing so will help establish equilibrium/social balance.

    This is why women prefer to be friends with their social equals. A woman is able to be friends with someone who is one-down from her (perhaps not as good-looking, wealthy, lower relationship status, lacking children, etc), but that other woman would not be comfortable being friends with her. Women prefer equality. They will accept being one-up, but they abhor being one-down and will fight it tooth and nail. In that situation, the lower-status woman will almost always be the one to leave the friendship.

    The difference between friendship and a sexual relationship, though, is HYPERGAMY. After all, hypergamy is the concept that women are most attracted to men who are better than them, specifically at the qualities they most admire in themselves (or wish they had). Thus, women are attracted to men who are specifically one-up, and this makes women’s default position one-down. But once they grow comfortable in that relationship, they realize they are one-down and begin to fight to re-assert equilibrium.

    A woman may have been attracted to a man based on his income (in fact, his higher income than hers). But she will do her best to marry him and make that income hers (ie. to eliminate his one-up status). A woman may have been attracted to a man for his power (in fact, his greater power than hers), but would be furious if he ever tried to exert his power over her. She may have been attracted to his intelligence (his greater intelligence than hers), but would be furious with him for thinking he is smarter. Women in relationships will do everything they can to eliminate their one-down status and establish equilibrium – marriage, shit tests, nagging – these things are all about equilibrium.

    Problem is, once equilibrium is established, women lose attraction. Because in spite of their hatred of being one-down, women are HYPERGAMOUS. They need that sense that their man is one-up in order to maintain attraction, yet they will do whatever they can to increase their own power/decrease his to avoid being one-down. It is only in losing that battle that women can maintain their attraction to husbands in the long-term….and most do not lose that battle, because men believe that establishing equality (men lowering their power and giving it to their wives) is specifically what women WANT, and the best pathway toward attraction.

  49. “ Are you sure regarding your own SMV? What if what you call your “attraction floor” is really your own SMV?”

    Just to add to Nova’s comments about the absolute attraction floor.

    My personal experience of the floor is like US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart describing obscenity: “ I know it when I see it.” Women below “the floor” are women you would reject sexually even when they serve themselves up on a platter. They are women who you would not have sex with under any then-existing circumstances.

    Example: I was in college at a house party, putting on a good buzz, when a homely, butterface redhead with short hair (common hairstyle for the time) was getting quite sexually aggressive with me. Even in the alcohol haze I could see she wasn’t physically appealing to me at all. I would not have pursued anything with her regardless of thirst or desperation. She was one of the few women I’ve met who was below the floor. And where the floor is for one man is different than it might be for another. There were – and are—a lot more women at or above the floor than below it. She might have been below my floor, but chances are there was some man somewhere for whom she was at least at the floor.

  50. I’m on board with the behavioral observations here, but I’m seeing something that I do not grok in this:

    “The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
    For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

    The above rule sounds very zero-sum to me, and that somehow is not aligning well with . . . something . . .

    The zero-sum frame here maybe part of the/my problem? My (very broadly read) sense of the evolution of the planet is that it is toward something, something more, which – I think – implies the ability of consciousness to create something that was not there before.

    I agree that Feminists seem to view intergender relations as a zero sum game, but framing the game that way from the start itself seems like the root of the problem. Not being rhetorical, what am I missing?

  51. @Novaseeker

    “Hypergamy isn’t upgrading. Often misunderstood as such.”

    +

    “Hypergamy means “only attracted to those who are more attractive than I am” — only attracted upwards, in other words. That is all it means. o s”

    I’m one who subscribes to hypergamy = upgrading.

    I’m also open to having my mind changed or swayed but I can’t quite understand where you’ve made the distinction between upgrading and optimization.

    “…only attracted upwards…”

    Upwards/Upgrading. Aren’t they the same? What am I missing?

    Genuinely interested.

  52. @ Rollo Tomassi
    It’s at this time she’ll attempt to limit his ‘progress’ towards an SMV that puts her into a position where his imperatives outstrip her own. There are countless social conventions that facilitate this for her at an age where his SMV is peaking and hers declines. She’s essentially getting exactly what she’d previously wished for, a “co-equal” partner who still hypergamously exceeds her real SMV. Only now (hopefully) his SMV is +2, maybe even +4 if she really ‘gets comfortable’ and obese, and he’s got to be brought down to her level via sociological and psychological means.

    This predicts that men who work hard to move up in the world should marry attractive women with high self esteem. In theory women that retain high SMV should be less likely to feel insecure as their husband’s career improves.

    Case in point: Susanna Hoffs is 52 years old in this video. She is one of the best looking older women I’ve ever seen. She has been married for over 20 years and maybe I’m projecting but I doubt she is working against her movie producer husband’s interests. The fact that he is kind of a nerd might play in their favor as far as relationship dynamics are concerned. She brings the beauty and he brings the brains. She wants him to win.

  53. BreakingBenjamin
    January 5th, 2015 at 8:29 am

    In my experience love is never on the other side. The best you can hope for is that in her mind she can’t do better. I had children in mind (not initially) and that is what you need to keep it together for them.

    Nice story BTW. And yes. They do go insane with desire if they think they have given it up and you don’t act interested. “My c*nt is so precious. I have given it up to you and you don’t want it? What is a matter with you? What is a matter with me?”

  54. @dcllcd

    “Hypergamy isn’t upgrading. Often misunderstood as such.”…

    I’m one who subscribes to hypergamy = upgrading.

    As men, who do not experience hypergamy from an internal perspective, we should be cautious what definitions we attempt to throw at it. Best to simply describe behavioral patterns that are explained by it than try to fully define what we ourselves do not experience.

    I would call it a set of baseline behavioral tendencies suited towards the maximized potential of female sexual success.

  55. I agree.

    But why does she want him to win? Is her interest in his success because she has an altruistic streak and just idealistically wants what’s best for him because she loves who he is?

    Or is it due to an associative need to see him succeed because what he is serves her imperative better as a relatively attractive woman who’s an obvious outlier for her age?

    I know far too many men whose wive treat them like the abject Beta-children mules they are in private, but would scratch any woman’s eyes out for pointing out that their husbands are essentially their doormats. There’s an evolved psychological schema that predisposes women to believe that their Hypergamy has been optimized in a public sphere even when their hindbrains know their husband simply doesn’t match her self-perceived SMV.

  56. I would not argue that women love opportunistically. Take away the safety and comforts of modern life and it becomes clear, women NEED men (and on an individual level the best man they can secure via idealistic love) to survive. Men don’t really “need” women, except to reproduce. But they don’t need them to survive, except maybe before the age of five or whenever a boy can survive on his own without a mother. If it weren’t for idealistic love, why would a man do anything more than mate with a woman, hope he’s passed on his genes, and move on? Maybe that makes sense, maybe not. Trying to wrap my mind around it. It’s certainly not “romantic” in the traditional sense, maybe that’s why men and women both resist the idea that they might love differently, it’s the way it works, and it’s not going to change, so it’s not “good or bad” it simply is what it is. But both genders will not only fool each other *but also themselves* into thinking the other loves the way they do, and somehow that satisfies both sides pretty well. He thinks she loves him idealistically, she thinks he loves her because she’s “the very best.”

  57. Men and women fight over the definition of love because love is not a shared experience, only mutually experienced one.

    In fact, just going by even biological differences in touch sensitivity, pain tolerance, eye sensitivity to color, taste, smell, etc… It’s difficult to believe any individual human experience can be called a shared experience. At some point, in coming up with a structured society, you have to draw lines, but really those lines are always arbitrary.

    Most that has been written about love has been written by men. Keep in mind, that that body of literature is written and read by an entirely solipsistic humanity. Each person writes and reads literature from the position of individuated bias. This means that most women incorrectly interpret their own ability to love from men’s descriptions of how they learn to love. It also means that most men read/experience the dominant fiction in society and expect women to love as is described in humanity’s body of literary work. Both sides are deceived, and it’s hard to determine who gets the worse end of the deception. However, it does leave men more vulnerable, because female love, such as it is, is never really explored in either it’s vices or virtues.

  58. “It’s important to remember that SMV is contextual for women.”

    The question is if then SMV is the best model to understand Hypergamy. From my experience with women, they don’t have a any clue about some objective value of a man. And this is indeed very difficult to asses since value is derived from values which are subjective as they are your idealisms. Women take their assessment of a man almost completely from how the man sees himself or how she interprets his actions towards her in this regard. Which is frame & game.

  59. OP: “I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post…

    So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.”

    Rollo, I think you are wrong. Women cannot love. How can you call opportunistic love, love? Opportunistic love is just a made up term for not loving. Women do not call you on the carpet for your posts on love because they know, deep down, men are just a tool (no pun intended). For women men have various functions. It may be security, it may be status, it may be genes, if may be the way a man makes them feel, but at the end of the day the man doesn’t matter. It’s how he facilitates her life. How can you call that love? Contrast that with men. The biggest thing a man wants from his wife is frequent, outstanding sex. Yet when he doesn’t get it, does he stop loving the land whale? If he did more divorces would be initiated by men. If a woman had a man’s sex drive and wasn’t getting sex, would she hang in there for love?

    Hypergamy as biology is only part of the story. The other part is their status in the hive mind heirarchy. Women don’t care what men think about them; only what other women think. How many women are madly “in love” until the guy loses his job? Six months on the unemployment rolls and the wife and kids are out the door. How many men are madly “in love” until their wife gains fifty pounds and he’s out the door? A lot less. Which on is love?

    If 50% of marriages end in divorce, and 70% of divorces are initiated by women (90% if divorces filed by men at the women’s behest) how can you say women love? They don’t. I would venture that if you failed to perform, even your marriage would end.

    Just like the red pill can be difficult to swallow, men just have to accept that women do not love; they use, and call their usery love.

  60. @ Rollo Tomassi
    But why does she want him to win? Is her interest in his success because she has an altruistic streak and just idealistically wants what’s best for him because she loves who he is?

    I think it comes back to biological firmware. I might be wrong but women appear to be excited when they see men score touchdowns in life. I remember the time I made my first big sale. When I came home my wife ran up and gave me a huge, passionate kiss. It wasn’t a congratulations kiss. it was a “you’re hot and I want sex right now” kiss. It genuinely excited her that I scored. In a weird way I think when men succeed it is an instant turn-on to women.

    That’s not to say that hypergamy isn’t in full play at the same time. Our status is their status and our success publicly validates their decisions and everything else.

    I know far too many men whose wive treat them like the abject Beta-children mules they are in private, but would scratch any woman’s eyes out for pointing out that their husbands are essentially their doormats. There’s an evolved psychological schema that predisposes women to believe that their Hypergamy has been optimized in a public sphere even when their hindbrains know their husband simply doesn’t match her self-perceived SMV.

    That precisely describes my “beta to the core” brother’s relationship with his now ex-wife. She defended him to the death in public, berated him in private and eventually divorced him.

  61. jf12
    January 5th, 2015 at 9:46 am

    When I still believed in love and let myself “fall in” I’d lose all interest in other women. I’d still recognize sexy and beauty. But I wasn’t interested. To get that reaction from me she would have to stay surrendered for a month or so.

    I no longer let myself fall in. It has no advantage. As soon as you fall in you want to be nice to her and she doesn’t like that. She will stop surrendering while telling you how much she craves the benefits of her former surrender.

    What I have found is that it is a constant dance. If only she could see the advantages of being totally submissive. Fat chance. She has seen them and doesn’t care to maintain the attitude that gives her the rewards she craves.

    What I have managed is to extend the periods of submission from a few minutes to a few weeks. On the other side of that the average is only a little better. But at least I get more enjoyment out of it.

  62. Upwards/Upgrading. Aren’t they the same? What am I missing?

    Genuinely interested.

    Hmm. Not sure how I can explain it any differently than I have.

    Everyone seeks to optimize. The best car. The best house. The best job. The best etc. And to upgrade them over the course of life, if they can. That’s optimization. And men and women both seek to optimize their mate choices.

    The difference between men and women is where the “floor line” is. That is, even though we know everyone is trying to optimize, the issue is where is the floor below which they won’t go if they cannot optimize. Not everyone can optimize — due either to their own SMV level, supply and demand issues and so on. In that case, men will sometimes choose “less than optimal but still attractive” women who are self+0 or self-1, while women never will unless they are doing it in the context of a marriage/LTR where they are sacrificing attraction for other things they want (kids, stability, commitment). Both sides can compromise, therefore, but for one side, it is a compromise which leaves him with less than optimal yet still attractive, but for the other it is a compromise which leaves her with not only sub-optimal but unattractive *because* sub-optimal. Hypergamy is where sub-optimal options are per se unattractive, in other words. It has to optimize, because sub-optimal is not attractive (or it has to compromise attraction altogether). The man may choose to sub-optimize and still find the woman attractive. That’s the key difference.

    In terms of upgrading, everyone wants to upgrade. That’s optimization. So, if a man can upgrade his wife to a hotter/younger/tighter, he will be tempted to do so (he may choose not to, today, in order to avoid divorce rape, but he will be tempted if he can pull it). But a man may also choose to sidegrade or even downgrade when it comes to an affair or a mistress (and sometimes even a wife) if she is still attractive to him and has other things he wants (like lots of enthusiastic and passionate sex he isn’t getting from his bored wife). Probably if a man wants to have an affair and can pull off the upgrade affair, he will try to do so, but if not and he really wants sex on the side, he will sidegrade or even downgrade. That’s optimization, with the ability to choose sub-optimal choices that are still above a lower floor and be satisfied. A woman of course will also seek to upgrade as the natural human tendency to optimization demands. But if she isn’t successful in attracting hypergamously, she’s faced with the same conundrum she was faced with when she was deciding to marry — she has to either go without, or sacrifice attraction (note: not sacrifice degree of attraction, but sacrifice attraction *altogether*) to get commitment, because only men below her attraction floor are offering commitment or sex or whatever she is looking for at that time. This is also why women don’t understand, as I pointed out above, why men have affairs with downgrades — they couldn’t, themselves, have an affair with a man who is a downgrade to their husband in terms of visceral attraction from the woman’s point of view, so they don’t understand how a man can do that — because men are not hypergamous, meaning that while they also try to upgrade, they are also attracted to sub-optimals above a certain floor.

    Put as simply as I can -=- the distinctive is not trying to optimize, or trying to upgrade. Both sexes want that. The distinctive is what happens if/when you can’t optimize or upgrade. That’s the difference, and why men optimizing can be confused with female hypergamy, because at first blush it looks like both are trying to optimize, just in different ways. That’s true enough, but the difference is in what happens when optimal isn’t on the table — that’s the difference. Are you even attracted to non-optimal? Is it possible to be attracted to a sub-optimal mate? That’s the difference.

    In a sense you could say that hypergamy is a kind of rigid, forced optimization, but if you say it that way, you have to say in the same breath how it differs from the male attempts to optimize (because men also do try to optimize and upgrade), and I think the best way to explain the difference is to look at what happens when optimal isn’t available.

  63. @ Novaseeker, before divorce was widely accepted, women could not upwords/upsize without social ramification. That’s what kept it in check.

    @ Rollo re: big love, maybe that’s projection — women “could” overlook a man’s weight if his collective SMV warranted it? So they mistakenly think men calculate SMV the same way, rather than knowingly mislead their big gal pal? Unless, of course, they want the same guy as the big gal, then they’d probably take her to lunch at the all you can eat buffet everyday, too. So maybe on a macro level the “he should love you just the way you are” advice is female to female sabotage. Hummm…

  64. Novaseeker said: “

    The converse — a woman married to a man of lower SMV because of his other qualities — also happens, because women run out of other options, and settle, but these tend not to work nearly as well as the other type, precisely because they run contra to the woman’s natural hypergamy.

    “Women, however, do fairly often marry men to whom they are not attracted, or at least to whom they are not nearly as attracted as they were to lovers prior to deciding to scale down and settle for marriage, because of the numbers game when it comes to men who are self+1 and self+2, and those men being unavailable to them for marriage.”

    These two paragraphs right here explain the prevailing problem in most marriages today. It’s primarily because before she married you, she slept with men who were more attractive than you, or she was more attracted to them then than she is to you now. Basically, she’s settling for you. There are men she’d rather have been with, men she’d rather be with, but she couldn’t or didn’t or can’t for whatever reason.

    A lot of women when shifting from AF to BB fool themselves into thinking that the “sex part” of the relationship is less important to them. They are looking less for sexy and more for provider stability. So, they project this onto the men they are “interested” in, and conclude that the sex part will just take care of itself, or will take on declining importance as they both age. It doesn’t work out that way, though, as a lot of frivorced husbands find out 10 years and 1 or 2 kids later. The husband’s lack of sexiness or lack of alpha traits continues to be a problem into the relationship, as she bristles against the constant “you can do better, you have had better” alarms her hypergamous nature continues sounding. She wants a sexy man who is her SMV superior, and years of stuffing her hypergamous nature finally come exploding out in a cacophonous “I’m not haaaappy” and “I love you but I’m not in love with you” cascade.

  65. @ Novaseeker additionally when open hypergamy was restrained and a woman had to “stand by her man” because society demanded it, her only route to upwards/upsize was to (gasp!) support the guy she picked, be the woman behind the man! That was how hypergamy played out before, my 2 cent theory…

  66. @ redpillgirlnotes

    But when women no longer NEED men to survive the cost earning what you’re calling women’s “idealistic love” rises to the point where it’s no longer worth the price, especially when price is unstable, unknowable, and the benefits are unclear.

    The NEED, that no longer exists, once mitigated against the rampant opportunism (a sort of emotional profiteering) we see today.

  67. Female hypergamy is rooted in identity. I’m going to talk about a single part of that, the identity we get from our family. You could easily call this social class.

    After she reaches adulthood a woman’s identity, her value, is derived from the man she gets to marry her. Before that her value derived from her father and his extended family.

    Once a man reaches adulthood he begins to build his value, his identity, on his own, independent of his father. A man is a lifelong building project. He can improve his value almost until the day he dies.

    Any woman is only coming along for the ride. A woman is a mirror of the man she is with.

    It’s why women are hard wired for hypergamy. They can’t improve their place in society, their social class, any other way.

  68. @Atticus,
    How would you respond to pauli12?

    I was married for 29 years to a man who got hurt before we got married and couldn’t work again. I stuck by his side, he made the decisions and I worked every day teaching kindergarten.

    All I asked was that when I got home for him to just smile at me and treat me well.
    Mostly he started in on something negative as soon as I walked through the door.

    He was passive aggressive to me and finally after 29 years my love for him took a nose dive and I couldn’t take it any more.
    Just wondering…. does this fit in the mode of what I am hearing on this post?

    I don’t feel at all like the woman who are talked about here.

  69. @ Novaseeker and when casual sex was not seen as “empowering” but socially damaging, a woman who ran around with the alphas she couldn’t catch because of her tingles paid that price with her greatly diminished SMV. That constraint is also (at least women believe, and blue pill men may also accept) lifted.

  70. @Rollo: “I was married for 29 years to a man who got hurt before we got married and couldn’t work again. I stuck by his side, he made the decisions and I worked every day teaching kindergarten.
    All I asked was that when I got home for him to just smile at me and treat me well.”

    Perhaps an outlier? Look at the Beta-of-the -Year on CH. The guy defending his wife’s one-way trip to Mars. Would she be going to Mars if she had 2 babies? Does she love that guy?

    You’ve always said that men and women are different; complementary, but different. Go back to first principles and assume that one of these differences is that men can love and women cannot. Why would that be wrong?

    On an evolutionary biological level, would not the female being incapable of love be useful to the survival of the species? Men died hunting and fighting and the women move on. A women pining away for a lost love is not looking to make more babies.

    It’s hard to swallow and goes against all we’re taught and mountains of romantic literature. But what if it’s true?

  71. @ redpillgirlnotes

    Bloom, and I’m going to refer to you as that because it’s easier to type, speaking only for myself I hope I never again experience “being in love.” There is nothing beneficial in having those feelings. I neither want nor need “love” and I no longer seek it. I will however love as opportunistically as any woman, with a clear understanding that nothing is forever, and I’ll invest and commit in accordance with that knowledge.

  72. And now thinking about this is becoming too disturbing so I will leave it at this…the kicker is I don’t think most women themselves understand their own hypergamy or how the social changes they have demanded in order to (they thought) better maximize it, have destroyed the very yin/yang balance their very hypergamy nature depended on.

    To men it may seem like women are making a calculated/conscious choice, but it is anything but. Women still do not collectively see this “better” isn’t better for them, at all. And I cringe to think what that will take. It’s woman’s nature gone wild.

    OMG, ok now I feel like it is totally hopeless. The herd is stampeding right for the cliff, and they don’t even know it. WAKE UP LADIES!!! (Dishes fly, global meltdown, angst and gnashing of teeth!)

    I feel for men, I really do. You guys deserve a lot more. I would change it if I could. I do try, I will continue to cry into the wilderness, maybe some will hear if a woman says it…maybe some will only see as they take that last step before plummeting over the edge of their own making w/o any return. They may still blame men, but they really have nobody to blame but themselves.

  73. That constraint is also (at least women believe, and blue pill men may also accept) lifted.

    @Bloom —

    Correct, the constraints were lifted — both social/sexual mores and financial need. That’s true. I was just trying to explain what hypergamy is, and how it differs from the kind of optimization that both sexes engage in.

  74. @donwory

    The above rule sounds very zero-sum to me, and that somehow is not aligning well with . . . something . . .

    To the individual it is a zero sum game, even if society eventually gains. Any gains society makes can be realized after your lifetime.

    In the current SMV, betas are expected to lose out on lustful sex with young, attractive women so that those women can optimize their hypergamy. Individual men lose out, individual women gain, society as a whole ostensibly gains in the long run through a mechanism put in place by natural selection over hundreds of millions of years.

    However, should the circumstances of modern human existence change too much the traits women have selected for could become a loss for society. Either way, it doesn’t change that for individual women to “win” individual men had to “lose” by waiting to become the Beta Bux for her bastard children.

  75. @ Atticus

    You make a great point. Perhaps ” opportunistic love” is the psychological compensation for the risk of losing the man. Perhaps it’s the next evolutionary step for men as well. A man abandoned because he is not actually needed will have to adapt his psychology to dismiss, forget, and rewrite emotions to survive, and try again.

  76. @ bp you can call me Bloom, good to see you again! I miss seeing all of you at J4G. Glad to see you all here.

    @ atticus you may be onto something. Beyond widowhood, women also had to deal with other forced changes in days gone by, like being conquered, captured, traded, or sold. Maybe women can’t afford to love? At least not idealistically? Hummm…

    OK, OMG I have to stop thinking about this. Brain tilt. Carry on. 🙂

  77. @Bloom, re: “He thinks she loves him idealistically, she thinks he loves her because she’s “the very best.””

    Great observation! Men are always befuddled by women’s disappointment that the men don’t require the women to be best.

  78. Both sides can compromise, therefore, but for one side, it is a compromise which leaves him with less than optimal yet still attractive, but for the other it is a compromise which leaves her with not only sub-optimal but unattractive *because* sub-optimal. Hypergamy is where sub-optimal options are per se unattractive, in other words. It has to optimize, because sub-optimal is not attractive (or it has to compromise attraction altogether). The man may choose to sub-optimize and still find the woman attractive. That’s the key difference.

    @ Nova. Women will not be attracted to sub-optimal when it comes to sex. But the man might still be attractive enough (woman desperate enough) to want to maintain a relationship. I could argue that men are willing to settle for sub-optimal because they are still attracted to sex but are not attracted to maintaining the relationship in the same way that women are not interested in doling out sex to a man she feels is sub-optimal. I still don’t really see the difference.

  79. Hi jf12! And it wraps back around again to game (or dropping out) as the defense/solution/counterpoint, doesn’t it… I somehow sorta feel better, even if I wish it weren’t so. Well men, game on then! Civilization depends on you (as it always has, not that women will admit it!) Good to see you again!

  80. deti makes an irrefutable blanket statement about women. “They are looking less for sexy and more for provider stability. So, they project this onto the men they are “interested” in, and conclude that the sex part will just take care of itself, or will take on declining importance as they both age. It doesn’t work out that way, though”

    The primary social obstacle to removing this projective log from our sisters’ eyes is that the social engineers have decreed by policy that it is just a peck.

  81. “@ Rollo re: big love, maybe that’s projection — women “could” overlook a man’s weight if his collective SMV warranted it? So they mistakenly think men calculate SMV the same way, rather than knowingly mislead their big gal pal? Unless, of course, they want the same guy as the big gal, then they’d probably take her to lunch at the all you can eat buffet everyday, too. So maybe on a macro level the “he should love you just the way you are” advice is female to female sabotage. Hummm”

    Bloom: This kind of gets to what I think you’re saying.

    The difference is in what men and women find attractive. When it comes to sexual attraction, a man is a lot less likely to overlook an obese woman’s weight. For sexual attraction, physical appearance is all, literally all.

    At the same time, when it comes to sexual attraction, a woman is more likely to overlook an obese man’s weight IF he has other attractive qualities like confidence, dominance, and material wealth.

    Women’s sexual attraction is a cocktail with confidence and looks being way, way up there. Using Donalgraeme’s “PSALM” formulation of Power, Status, Athleticism, Looks and Money, a fat guy can make up for lack of A and L with a good bit of P and S (and a whole shitload of M). M is not going to bring sexual attraction. But P and S can, if the fat guy plays his cards right. Example? Jack Nicholson. He lacks looks and athleticism but makes up for it with confidence and dominance. (The problem is that there’s only one Jack Nicholson, so expecting to replicate his results is silly. Better to lose weight and get in shape, really.)

    A fat guy with Game can get slightly better results than a fat guy with no Game or poor Game. All that said, today, where women are looking to optimize and have the added burden of hypergamy, a guy improves his chances by getting into shape.

  82. @lh, re: lack of objective SMV value of men.

    I wholeheartedly agree. A very succinct explanation of Game’s success.

  83. @Atticus

    On an evolutionary biological level, would not the female being incapable of love be useful to the survival of the species? Men died hunting and fighting and the women move on. A women pining away for a lost love is not looking to make more babies.

    Not just useful… necessary. But be careful, we’re talking about masculine love, the love that men grow to have and express to women.

    Consider early human life. It was brutish, short, and much more constant fear of the next predator. In this environment, it was the men who were tasked with self-sacrifice. If women completely lost their shit, went into an emotional funk, right as the winter was setting in because their husband died to a bear, I can see the human race literally dying out.

    Men were sacrificed, hence men became sacrificial.

    This sacrificial nature codified itself in the female psyche. When humans became capable of tribes and tribal warfare… what was the result of a tribal conquest? Any men past a certain age, not killed in fighting were slaughtered as mere conquered drones. The women were kept. The women in that situation had a choice, either be loyal to their man, do not procreate with the captors, or go have a nice time with their new situation.

    I have to say, if I were in that situation, a “conquered” vagina so-to-speak, I would do whatever it took to abuse myself of the notion that my slaughtered husband was coming back and try to make the best of things. Women did this, it was practical, it saved their lives. It gave them a chance at having a new generation. It probably helped save humanity by ensuring that early warfare did not completely destroy procreative capabilities of the species.

    All of this has worked to essentially code-in a natural coldness in women w.r.t. any individual man should the situation change (i.e., her hypergamy being unleashed). Hence, women are the part of the species less capable of remaining “loyal” to their love. It was a practical consideration, probably at this point codified into the species after eons of successful reproduction. But again, loyalty, in love, is a masculine trait, it’s how men learn to love. It just so happens that parental love shares that virtue. That does not make it “more moral”.

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