Women Behaving Badly

This week Black Poison Soul has decided that Hypergamy is less about the well established, biologically sound  and well-studied aspects of feminine Hypergamy and all about women behaving badly. For the most part this essay is so scattered, angst-ridden and poorly reasoned it hardly bears responding to – the author is obviously unfamiliar with the well documented biological, neurological and hormonal influences of ovulatory shift – however he does provide an excellent illustration of how sociological dynamics have also evolved to compensate for women’s inherent mating strategy:

Let’s look at it from a different angle. Let’s say that these characteristics attributed to hypergamy are simply learned bad behavior – or a lack of learned good behavior. Let’s say that these characteristics are becoming more commonly-noted because society has gotten a lot easier on women simply because they’re women (aka we give them the pussy pass).

Take a dog. It develops bad habits. Do you leave it with those bad habits? Shit no! You train it. Positive and negative reinforcement, depending upon what’s appropriate. Eventually you end up with a well-trained and well-behaved dog.

In the old days they had ways of controlling (training) their women. Punishments. Social ostracism which was a force that actually meant something. They were married young before they started messing around, then it became the new husband’s job to train and deal with her appropriately. Even boot her out if she was far too obstroperous, the children (if any) going to him because he had the income and could afford to raise them.

Hypergamy is an evolved sexual strategy that’s worked for women for millennia. The behaviors associated with women’s sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) is a deductive manifestation of Hypergamy. On a societal level, the very fact that men would need to effect social control of Hypergamy validates the inherency of Hypergamy in women.

In the past polygamy, arranged marriages, courting rituals, petitioning a father for permission to marry his daughter and many other traditions that are now characterized as oppressive and antiquated were direct contingencies for men’s ambient awareness of women’s innate predilection for Hypergamy. It’s interesting that BPS should analogize women as untrained dogs without considering a dog is still going to do what a dog’s going to do. The operative condition being that a dog is going to be motivated by what’s been coded into its instinctual firmware as a result of what’s been evolutionarily beneficial to the survival of the canine species. The operant conditioning is training that dog to perform desired behaviors counter to that instinct.

But, I get it, there’s a real want for men frustrated by women’s Hypergamously motivated behavior to effect control by appealing to notions of personal responsibility. BPS makes the common error of (indirectly) appealing to women’s reason, as the rationally independent agents, who should logically want to be personally responsible for their bad behavior, or need some extrinsic correcting of them. A lifelong conditioning of egalitarian equalism has taught them that women should be as equitably deductive as men.

Men shouldn’t need to train women to act in both sexes’ best interests; as rational agents they should want to do this of their own accord.

It just doesn’t make sense that women would publically express a logical interest in, and desire for the comfort, dependability, provisioning and nurturing of a devoted Beta, yet overtly behave counter to that sentiment during the proliferative phase of her ovulatory cycle by directly inviting the sexual attentions of the most Alpha men her attractiveness can afford her.

What BPS has inadvertently illustrated here is the base conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:

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

For the better part of human history, by violence or by social convention, men controlled, and instinctually understood, women’s Hypergamous natures. By rape, religion or resources men effectively made women compromise their sexual strategy. In fact to be a man was to understand one’s social station as being above, and responsible for, directing that of women’s.

Prior to the advent of courtly love, bastardized chivalry and romanticism being promoted to the highest ideal of love, Hypergamy was very pragmatically controlled by men. Dalrock has published some very convincing material on how romantic love has dethroned this old-order practical model.

What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage.  Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.  This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

Lifetime marriage, with separate defined roles for husband and wife and true commitment is what makes sex and romantic love moral in the biblical view.  In our new view, romantic love makes sex moral, and the purpose of marriage is to publicly declare that you are experiencing the highest form of romantic love.  Thus people now commonly refer to a wedding as “making our love official”.

The gradations we now apply to romantic love are symptomatic of the problem.  We take great care to distinguish between “pure love” or “true love” and mere “infatuation” or “puppy love”.

[…] Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love.  Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”

When you remove the moral connotations, what Dal describes here is an excellent parallel to the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. On a meta-societal scale, contemporary men have abdicated any claim to directing the process of how or with whom their genetic legacy will be preserved. And while the Feminine Imperative will expend great efforts to convince men, socially and legalistically, that their involvement in that decision making process isn’t important, on a societal level the fact remains – men must be made to (sometimes forcibly) abandon their sexual strategy and their genetic interests in favor of feminine Hypergamy.

One reason a father would symbolically ‘give’ his daughter away to her husband as part of the marriage ritual was a tacit acknowledgment of his approval of this man’s quality and direction of his genetic potential. Similarly, a suitor asking a father’s permission to marry his daughter was part of the qualification. In both instances, there is a presumption of a male-directed process of directing a woman’s Hypergamy and prospectively directing his involvement with that new family. The presumption was one that men would directly influence feminine Hypergamy.

As human society evolved a precedence for romantic, feminine-controlled Hypergamy gradually supplanted this male-directed Hypergamy. I’ve written in the past of how courtly love’s bastardization of the original intent of chivalry was indirectly designed to be the feminism of the middle ages. By co-opting men’s sense of chivalric honor with feminine social importance, (if not primacy) the Feminine Imperative gradually established the social conventions that would lead to a feminine-primary direction of Hypergamy.

Romantic, feminine-defined love progressively delegitimized the old-order, male-directed definition of love. Marriage ceased to be the condition in which romantic love could be experienced and was supplanted by the prerequisite of a romantic love condition in order for a marriage to be legitimized. In so doing the meta-social dynamic of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies shifted to feminine control.

At this point, I should note that the socially legitimized definition of love is not the same as each sex’s concept of love which is mirrored in either sex’s evolved sexual strategies. It’s important to remember the latent purpose of ensuring control over Hypergamy is the motive of forcing the romantic definition on a larger social order to the benefit of the feminine sexual strategy.

For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon its own. In the old-order, men controlled  and directed Hypergamy to a large extent and women had to compromise their strategy. In a post-sexual revolution social order, where women have effected a socially mandated, unilateral control over the direction of Hypergamy, a majority of men are forced to abandon their sexual strategy, and even the elite minority must eventually compromise their own. Legally, socially and psychologically men are expected to relinquish any claim to directing their own sexual strategy while deferring to women’s Hypergamy. Today, women qualify men for their Hypergamy with a right swipe on a Tinder profile.

The frustration BPS is writing about stems from the Old Set of Books expectation that women are predisposed to the functional, equitable equivalents of men’s rational based decision-making. The evolutionary nature of Hypergamy makes any notion of equalitarianism a recipe for men’s frustration. Hypergamy isn’t just a label, it’s a useful term for the very real dynamic of women’s sexual strategy.

BPS isn’t the first guy in the manosphere to blame men for their complicity in women behaving badly in their hypergamic interests. He’s lamenting a lack of men’s control over Hypergamy by making appeals to how it was in the good ole days and how men need to put their foot down and demand women to shape up or else they’ll stop playing their game. It’s bad men who permit women to behave badly and raise the next generation of yet more boys and girls who’ll behave even worse.

This then leads to the very appealing concept of personal responsibility – men are responsible for women’s irresponsibility, and exploring the nature of Hypergamy seems to only amount to a “the devil biology made her do it” excusability for that irresponsibility.

 

The Devil Biology Made Me Do It

A large part of the red pill perspective leans on evolutionary psychology. Of course evo-psych isn’t the only factor in red pill awareness, but for the vast majority of Game deniers (people unaware of the origins of their conditions) this poses a problem of convenience. When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.

[…]Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is.  So in the interests of perpetuating the best interests of one sex (and by extension the entire species) social and cultural norms fluidly evolve around it to accommodate what’s really an uncomfortable aspect of our humanity. Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures. I know of precious few men who’ve blamed their infidelity or sexual impulsivity solely upon their biological makeup. With the exception of the more natural Alphas, more often than not it was a carefully calculated (Game) and coordinated event.