If there’s one Google search term that’s become synonymous with The Rational Male it’s the word ‘Hypergamy’. Seriously, Google it.
If you listen to my seminar lecture from the Man in Demand conference from last year (sidebar), you’ll get why I believe that Hypergamy is one of the most important factors driving our feminine-primary social order. I didn’t mention it in the lecture, but when I was writing the outline for that talk I titled my notes ‘Hypergamy; From the Micro to the Macro’. If you consider how women have evolved to be sexual selector or filters for what, on a subconscious level, is really directing the breeding course of the human race it behoves a man to understand the biochemical influences that predispose women to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.
One thing I get asked a lot about with respect to the hormonal nature of Hypergamy (ovulatory shift) is that most hormonal forms of birth control predispose women to the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy because essentially their biochemistry is tricked into thinking it’s already pregnant.
I’ve covered this in the past, but I usually answer this by pointing out that the biological hardware and firmware of a woman still means her sexuality is cyclic while men’s is always-on. It may be that Hypergamy and ovulatory shift are less pronounced in a woman that’s on the pill, and even then women technically go off the pill on their placebo weeks, but the evolved mechanics don’t change. However, it’s no great secret that these mechanics become suppressed in women. This is just the cost of a women’s monopoly on a concealed form of birth control.
Milo Yianopolous generated a predictable outrage with his post Birth Control Makes Women Crazy, but it’s only pushing women’s indignation buttons because all his observations are true.
- Birth control makes women fat
- The hormones in birth control alters women’s voices to a sexually disadvantageous tone, evolutionarily speaking
- Birth control distorts female subcoms that men consider sexy
- It predisposes women to disregard their evolved sexual filtering mechanisms
There are other bullet points Milo covered in this article, however, the most important one I think ought to be considered here is:
Birth Control Makes Women Choose the Wrong Mates
It’s already established that going on the Pill makes you less attractive to men. But it also affects who you’re attracted to as well. Healthy, fertile women seek out men who are genetically different to them. Women on the Pill do the opposite, seeking out men who are closer to their own tribe.
Now, all that considered, when we introduce a variable like Vasalgel to the social mix it is possible that women’s sexual attitudes will progressively shift to a more natural state when and if the presumption of birth control falls mostly on men. Granted, most women who’re aware of Vasalgel at this point are enthusiastic about it. The common refrain is always the default of shaming men and how it’s about time men shoulder the “burden” of birth control , or how relieved they’d be for not having to remember to take a pill once a day and how they hate how it makes them feel.
This response from women is usually followed by, “But you could never trust irresponsible men to be honest about it, so women will still have to take the pill as a fail-safe for stupid and untrusted men.” So, at least initially, I’d have to be a bit skeptical that women’s birth control-influenced sexual habits and the social mandates that follow from them would be significantly impacted.
However, this also brings us to a point where we should consider how men and women in a monogamous or semi-monogamous state will have those relationships altered by a woman trusting a man enough, or confirming he’s on, with Vasalgel to the point that she abandons her own hormonal birth control. Hypothetically, consider this; a woman who was attracted to that man while under the influence of hormonal birth control now has her biochemistry revert back to a natural state.
There are quite a few studies that posit women’s hormonal birth control may be altering the course of human evolution. I’ve always argued that the root of women’s Hypergamous natures, their manifested behaviors, their sexual selection processes and even the rise of a feminine-primary social order can all be traced to women’s menstrual cycle and the extending behaviors inspired by it.
For a more detailed analysis of how women’s menstruation and ovulatory shift influences women’s sexual natures and, more largely, how it influences Hypergamy, have a look at my essays You Friend Menstruation and Estrus respectively. From these posts, you’ll see that the latter half of women’s 28-day cycle is what I call the “Beta Phase” of women’s breeding preference, while the first 12 to 14 days of her ‘up cycle’ (proliferative phase) while she’s on build up to ovulation is the “Alpha Phase”.
Now imagine here that our hypothetical couple met while the woman had been on birth control for the better part of her adolescent and adult life. Her hormonal profile and subsequently her sexual selection predilections would follow along the line for progesterone in this graph. Thus, it would follow that her selecting this man was influenced by the behavioral set that progesterone predisposes her to – more Beta, more comforting, more rapport, more feminized physical features and more feminine (or feminine-identifying) sensibilities.
Once that guy goes on Vasalgel and affords her with the luxury of not needing hormonal birth control her hormonal profile and subsequent behaviors shift back to what evolution had found successful for women’s breeding for millennia. To put this into perspective, imagine the larger social implications of women shifting back to a natural hormone state. To be sure, this shift would be a gradual process, but as it stands now we have to account for the overwhelming degree of social control women are afforded in western(izing) societies today.
I don’t think it is too far a stretch to presume that the social engineering that’s led to the feminization of men today began around the time unilaterally female-controlled birth control became ubiquitous. I covered this in the Adaptation series of posts, but I think it needs to be added that the social power women wield today came as a result of this first shift towards hormonal birth control and the behavioral and psychological changes it’s wrought in women. Furthermore, men have consequently adapted to accommodate for this power shift as a result women’s shift in breeding strategies.
We now live in an age when women are expected to be Strong Independent® providers for themselves (however that’s achieved) and self-sufficient enough to make men’s provisioning relatively unnecessary, yet the characteristics of a hormonal profile of women on HBC (hormonal birth control) theoretically predispose them towards attraction to men who fit the, as Milo puts it, baby-faced ‘provider’ type.
Now consider that women who have been afforded this social power – power ceded to them from generations of feminized men who adapted to women’s hormonally influenced sexual strategies – shift back to the hormonal profile nature intended for them as a result of widespread unilaterally male-controlled BC. You get, at least initially, new generations of women who have the Beta Bucks side of the Hypergamy equation tied up nicely, but now, likely proudly, women shift back towards the extremes that Hypergamy and ovulatory shift predispose them to.
In the long term this might be good news for conventional masculinity on whole. Less Beta pandering, less ‘get in touch with your feminine side’ bullshit, more much needed male assertiveness, more conventionally male sensibilities and dominance.
Harold posted this in last week’s comment thread:
Women expect men to be dominant, problem is, society gives men no room to express it. You can’t be economically dominant because women can make their own money. Me, for example, I only know of one way to be dominant over a woman and that’s to use my god given physical strength. And I don’t say that as a good or bad thing, just pointing out something that is.
You know, I was on YouTube and I came across a Domestic violence video. And in the comments section, many young women left many of the same comments of “I wanted to leave, but it’s hard to do when you are in love”. And it made me think back over the last 20 something odd years of my life
I used to be the nice, beta provider type. And in every case, the same thing happened. Essentially I was used for what I could provide. Money, favors, a car to give rides. But not once did a girl ever fall in love with me because of the nice things I did for her. Yet at the same time, I see women professing their love for men who beat them.
These experiences have killed the nice guy inside of me and made me view women as objects to be used, especially the more I learn about hypergamy. The only exception, as far as I am concerned is a traditional woman who actively suppresses her hypergamous instincts in favor of the good guy. And shows it by her actions.
The sad truth is that the unleashing of female hypergamy is going to produce more ex nice guys who imitate the users and abusers women show that they want by her actions.
Harold’s experience and later disillusionment is a common one for men in the manosphere. However, what needs to be factored into his awakening is that his experience follows the exact scheme we can expect from women’s HBC influenced Hypergamy. For five generations now, feminized men progressively ‘get woke’ to the fact that what they’ve been taught is expected of them in order to be attractive to women are the Beta Phase attributes inspired largely by women’s hormonal imbalances. It’s when they come to realize, hopefully sooner than later, that those feminized characteristic are a detriment to their own sexual imperatives that this condition is exposed.
It’s important to consider the societal ramification that something like Open Hypergamy (even Open Cuckoldry) will mean in an era when women must look to the most Hypergamously desirable men and seek their approval if they are to breed with them after something like Vasagel becomes commonplace. Presuming Red Pill awareness, combined with women’s hubristic attitudes about Open Hypergamy spread as I believe they will, you will eventually come to a generation of highly desirable men with the awareness, power and the choice to deny undesirable women the satisfaction of their long term sexual strategy.
Whether or not the majority of Beta men will exercise this power is speculative, but the the fact remains that women’s Open Hypergamy will become more and more unignoarable to them and they will have a new determinative power women will have to adapt to and compensate for in their relating with men whom they hope to have children with.
In Milo’s article there’s a very damning comparative study that suggests the rise in U.S. divorce rates coincides directly with the advent of HBC for women.
Exactly why there is such a close correlation between the rise of the Pill and the rise of divorce rates we can’t say with total certainty, but the relationship is stark. Possible explanations include: a lack of children leading to fewer reasons for couples to stay together, and… all of the items mentioned on the list above.
Though Milo is reluctant to speculate, I would suggest that this stark parallel isn’t the result of less child births (abortion rates are also commensurate with the invention of HBC), but rather it’s a result of the behavioral shifts HBC has worked in women’s breeding strategies paired with men adapting to them (i.e. mass normalization of men’s feminization). I think Milo is too kind in his suggesting a lack of children would lead to divorce, when the uglier truth is that women’s initiating 70%+ of all divorces today is the result of the Hypergamous control HBC empowers women with.
In chapter four of the book The Red Queen, Matt Ridley details how environmental factors, particularly social and population environments, have an influence on gender determination for humans and other higher order animals. A lots been written about R and K mating selection strategies in the manosphere so I’ll save that discussion for another post, but what was relevant to me (while I was listening to this chapter recently) was how socially created environmental stresses had an effect on what gender a society preferred a child be born to parents.
Contrary to popular belief a preference for boys over girls is not universal. Indeed, there is a close relationship between social status and the degree to which sons are preferred. Laura Betzig of the University of Michigan noticed that, in feudal times, lords favored their sons, but peasants were more likely to leave possessions to daughters. While their feudal superiors killed or neglected daughters or banished them to convents, peasants left them more possessions: Sexism was more a feature of elites than of the unchronicled masses.
[…]Lower down the social scale, daughters are preferred even today: A poor son is often forced to remain single, but a poor daughter can marry a rich man. In modern Kenya, Mukogodo people are more likely to take daughters than sons to clinics for treatment when they are sick, and therefore more daughters than sons survive to the age of four. This is rational of the Mukogodo parents because their daughters can marry into the harems of rich Samburu and Maasai men and thrive, whereas their sons inherit Mukogodo poverty. In the calculus of Trivers-Willard, daughters are better grandchildren-production devices than sons.
Needless to say, this chapter also covered the ‘one child’ policy enforced by China to address overpopulation and how for every 100 girls there are now 122 boys available. Beyond this, however, was the interesting hypothesis that depending on social and cultural stress present, preference for siring boys or girls has historically come in relation to which gender was more likely to make both the child and its parents’ lives easier as well as pass on its genetic legacy. There is even speculation that evolution has accounted for this in how our biochemistry changes to select for a boy or a girl in a given environment.
It’s an interesting aside to consider that until George Bush senior was in office, all prior Presidents had sons. Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama all have daughters. Granted, this is speculative, but also consider how HBC and the resulting feminine-primary social order since it was invented, has directed our culture to normalize empowering women while handicapping men – all in the name of egalitarian equalism of course.
At no time in history has it been more advantageous to be a woman in western(izing) cultures. Hannah Rosin acknowledged the advancement of women at the expense of men in The End of Men as far back as 2010. I add this here because it outlines the degree to which society has opted for the betterment of women, while simultaneously affirming the idea that men become more feminine since the time of the sexual revolution.
Is it mere coincidence that men have been encouraged to “get in touch with their feminine side”, to identify more like women, to alter their ways of communication to be more female-accommodating, and to redefine conventional masculinity as “toxic” while reinforcing a new feminine-correct definition of masculinity for men? Is it coincidence that 95% of all transgender children are boys being encouraged and affirmed by their parents and teachers to switch to being girls?
And is all of this coincidence in an era when the social condition is one that provides benefits and entitlements to girls; one in which teachers presume a feminine-correct bias in their teaching methods?
This of course is all speculative, but these are unignorable observations about our feminine-primary social order. I’m in no way implying that Vasalgel or its like will alter what already is in our social structure, but I will speculate that women’s physical and paradigm shift back from an HBC influenced mating methodology to a naturalistic one will eventually have larger societal implications.
I believe that the Red Pill men of today will be in the perfect position to exploit this, or to inform the next generations of men how to exploit this shift for themselves.