False Equivalencies


One of the more persistent questions I get asked about Hypergamy is if there’s a parallel to it in men. I’ve answered this in several comment threads both here and in other forums, but I’ve never really addressed it in a post. When I was considering this I remembered a couple of comments from manosphere luminaries Deti and Novaseeker who I thought summed up this (often deliberate) misconception. Deti was kind enough to provide me with his own observations which I’m quoting and riffing on here:

It’s often said that men and women are both hypergamous.  This isn’t true.  Both men and women optimize.  But only women are hypergamous.

Hypergamy has become a term of art in the manosphere.  It has a very specific meaning which differs from the meaning social scientists ascribe to it.  In social science it refers specifically and only to marriage relationships.   The term is used to refer to women marrying men who are perceived to be wealthier or of a higher social/economic standing or caste, usually observed in Hindu cultures on the Indian subcontinent but also observed in early American society.  In the United States it’s often referred to as women “marrying up”.  


 F. Roger Devlin, himself having a social science background, appropriated the term in his essay entitled Sexual Utopia in Power when referring to his observation that young single women always seemed to be looking for the best man they can get at any one time, seeking the most attractive man or men for sex.  Devlin observed modern Western women’s propensity to discard one man in favor of a better man, in serial fashion, always doing their best to “move up” and get  a more attractive, better man with each successive discard and pairing.  

Expanding on this, manosphere writers and bloggers noticed that hypergamy operates at a low hum, like a background operating system, in every woman.   It is “satisfied” while she’s with a man of sufficiently high value. But if a man of perceived higher value or greater attractiveness  shows interest, and/or her current man’s value is faltering, that low hum becomes a loud alarm. This can cause her, at the very least, to have feelings of attraction for the new man and feelings of dis-attraction for the current man. This can in many cases cause her to leave the current man for the new higher value, more attractive man. This doesn’t always happen, but it can happen. Hypergamy can operate in any combination – more attractive man showing interest; current man’s attractiveness waning or falling, and anywhere in between. Thus, the manosphere’s use of the term “hypergamy” came into being, to refer to a core aspect of female sexual nature which is unique to women. 

If you do a Google search for the term ‘Hypergamy’ you’ll find The Rational Male and the topic category link for all the posts I’ve ever done on it is the second return you’ll get below the Wikipedia entry for the term. At the risk of a humble-brag, I’m not sure anyone in the ‘sphere has written more extensively on the subject than myself and I think Deti sums up the conflict in definition that both critics and the uninitiated have with their understanding why there is a need for a broader definition of Hypergamy.

I made an effort to address this in The Hypergamy Conspiracy, but this was some time ago. ‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the Feminine Imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate, because the manosphere appropriated the term. Thus, we’ll see feminine-primary society embrace the larger ideas of Hypergamy (as in the embrace of Open Hypergamy) so long as it’s flattering to, and benefits most, women. Once it gets ugly, then it conveniently denies the legitimacy of the broad definition and it’s strictly about the “women having a tendency to marry up” sociology term.

People confuse “optimization” with “hypergamy“. Both men and women optimize; meaning they want the best they can get, of anything and everything. Men and women optimize everything:  jobs, cars, houses, furniture, friends, even churches. Men and women optimize with each other. But men and women optimize with the opposite sex in different ways, and that’s where the confusion comes in.

Hypergamy in its current iteration in the manosphere means essentially “is attracted only to people who are more attractive than I am”.  Women will be sexually attracted to men who they perceive as “above” them in attractiveness.  They will be somewhat attracted to men who are at their rough SMV level, but that man must bring other things to the table, usually provisioning and commitment, before she will have sex with him. And women are never ever sexually attracted to men who are perceived to be beneath their own SMV level.  

Example:   A woman with SMV = 7 will be sexually attracted to males with SMV of 8 and up.   She will pair with a male 7, if and only if he brings “other things” to the table. She will never be sexually attracted to male 6s on down.  And she will be able to easily get sex with men above her in SMV.  She can occasionally get relationships with male 8s.  She can easily get relationships and sex with male 7s.  Male 6s on down are her orbiters, with whom she’ll never have sex.   

Female critics of the broader definition of Hypergamy often have a (contrived) problem with the distinction between optimization and Hypergamy. And, as Deti explains, a lot of this comes from the fact that women’s sense of their own sexual market value is largely overinflated. Women rate 80 percent of men below average in attractiveness. When you contrast, even loose, statistics like this against the broader idea of Hypergamy you start to see why women would want there to be some analogous kind of Hypergamy for men. Hypergamy in women is founded on three bedrock truths:

    • Persistent doubt that a woman has adequately ‘optimized’ on Hypergamy with any man she has, or will potentially have, consolidated on a long term relationship with.
    • Hypergamy never seeks its own level. Women are always looking for a better-than-equal pairing with men in respect to their own SMV compared to his. When 80% of men are (loosely) agreed to be below average in attractiveness to women, we must consider that this assessment is measured in relation to what women’s Hypergamous doubt might be optimized with in a man.
  • Women’s Hypergamy is based in, and the source of, women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The manosphere euphemism for this is Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. This shorthand refers to Hypergamy seeking optimization in both short-term-sex breeding potential and (ideally) long-term parental investment, protection and provisioning security potential.

It’s important to review these principles of Hypergamy because, for all the protestations of women wanting an equal comparison, there are no parallels of Hypergamy for men’s sexual strategy.

Deti continues:

Men do not operate like this at all.  And that’s the difference.   Men are not attracted only to women who are above them in SMV. A man can be, and often is, attracted to women above him in SMV, and to women at his SMV level and also to women below him in SMV. What is also different is the level of women he can get and how well his relationships will work out, based on his and her SMV.   

A man will be unable to continue a relationship with a woman above his SMV. He is very sexually attracted to them, and occasionally lucks out and gets sex with one or two; but he can’t sustain a relationship with them. He can get sex from women at his SMV level but only if he goes all in and offers commitment. He can most easily get sex with women below him in SMV, many times no strings attached sex. 

Example: A male 6 will rarely get sex with a 7 but can’t keep anything with her going. He’s not even on the radar of female 8s on up. He can get sex with a female 6 only if he offers commitment and provisioning. He can most easily get sex with female 5s on down. 

And here’s the grand difference: A man is OK with having sex with women at and below his own SMV. In fact, he’ll be happiest in his relationships with women beneath his own SMV – a woman is “meh” about sex with men at her SMV, and she is positively repulsed and sickened at having sex with men below her own SMV. She’ll be happiest in a relationship with a man above her own SMV and she can tolerate a man at her SMV. And she’ll be miserable at best with a man beneath her SMV and will tend to blow up those relationships. 

Men and women both have attraction floors. Men’s attraction floor is below their own SMV.   Women’s attraction floor is either above her own SMV and sometimes at her own SMV, but never beneath it.

I explore the fundamentals of intimate attachments and how SMV status influences it here. That article might be worth reviewing because in it is a lesson about Hypergamy. Again, compare the idea that the most secure attachments between couples are ones where the dominant, man’s, SMV status is roughly 1-2 points above that of the woman’s and contrast that against the fact that women rate 80% of men’s attractiveness as ‘below average’.

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

The other, minor difference is that men are polygamous, not hypergamous. A man’s imperative is not (necessarily) to get the best woman. It’s to get as many women as possible with as little investment and commitment as possible. If he can do it, he would love to get as many women as possible at and a little below his own SMV, and have sex with as many of them as possible for as long as possible, without committing to or investing in any of them.   That’s spinning plates. Most men don’t do this, because they can’t, because they’re not attractive enough, but that’s a different post.  

A woman’s imperative is to get the best one man she can get for sex and for provisioning.     That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. Instead of trying to collect plates, they just change out the plates, one for another, when a bigger, better one comes along.  

This is why the best long term relationship is one in which the man outranks his woman in SMV. He should be at least +1 and preferably +2 in SMV.  This makes both of them happiest in the long run.

On many an occasion I’ve fielded the question, “Well Rollo, if there’s a Feminine Imperative, there must be a Masculine Imperative.” People don’t usually like the answer, but from a strictly evolutionary and biological perspective, the Masculine (or male) Imperative is Unlimited Access to Unlimited Sexuality.

Deti summed this up adequately here, but the more high-minded of my critics will often think the ‘male imperative’ is setting the bar too low for men, but usually this comes from a want of something more than the visceral truth of what motivates us. And I’d agree with this for the most part, if men are to become something more than their base natures would have of them. But using the same reproductive metric I use in describing women’s Hypergamy I’ve also got to recognize that men’s drive for sex has been the incentive for our greatest achievements and our worst proclivities. If we are to be ethical in our judgements we must be amoral in our assessments. Sometimes those assessments will be unflattering for men and women.

The objective issue here is that men’s imperative is not analogous to women’s imperative. When we look at men’s approach to gratifying this imperative we see the stark contrast between women’s Hypergamy and men’s sexual strategy.

False Equivalencies

One of the most predictable responses I expect to hear from women when they chafe at various Red Pill truths is always the first presumption of false equivalencies between the sexes. Whenever I, or any Red Pill man relates some unflattering truth about the nature of women, without fail, the first reflexive response is “well, men do this too, and it’s worse,…” or there’s some other unflattering presumption about the nature of men that’s supposed to provide some counterbalance to the ugly truth about women that’s being related. Feminized men and White Knights will also adopt this tact in order to defend the honor of the Sisterhood so as to have there be no doubt that they ‘aren’t like typical men’ in their identifying with women.

This is to be expected though. The first impulse is to defend against anyone acknowledging that truth by distraction. “Ooh, ooh, men do it too!” is a distraction meant to refocus the intent of objectively (amorally) assessing what is otherwise an unflattering aspect of female nature, behavior and/or the motivators that prompt it. In order to do so we are expected to first presume a co-equal state between men and women, as well as a co-equal state of mutual goals. Thus, for women’s distraction to be effective there must be a presumed state of equivalency between men and women.

As such, we are, by default, expected to accept that if there is a female Hypergamy there must also be a male form of Hypergamy. This is a very useful illustration of the false equivalency principle women rely upon. Deductively it should make sense, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but only in a mindset and a social order based on egalitarian-equalism is that reaction presumed to be the binary opposite of the original action.

If, as equalism would have us accept, men and women are functional equals, then it follows that there must be a male Hypergamy that is the reaction to women’s (often unflattering) Hypergamy. Women’s innate solipsism only reinforces this presumption because only an action that impacts a woman (positively or negatively) is deemed a legitimate truth to that mindset. I would argue that this is exactly why women’s first reflexive defense (to anything challenging her gender-defined ego-investments) will always be to presume some gender-opposite reaction for men. The belief is that while she can’t deny the proposed truth, at least (she) women aren’t as bad as men. From there the objective is to distract from that uncomfortable truth by indicting (functionally equal) men’s natures.

All of this presumption only functions in a social order that’s based on the idea of egalitarian-equalism between the sexes. When we look at things from a gender-complementarity perspective, and we accept that there are fundamental differences in the innate natures and motivators of men and women, those distractions become less effective. Just as Deti explains for us here, once we accept that men are not co-equal agents with women, we don’t even expect that there would be an equivalent to women’s Hypergamy in men.

The genders are different. We both have strategies for sex and life and fulfillment that are often not analogous to one another. Women only expect that there would be analogies because they presume that a female experience, female goals and contexts that benefit the Feminine Imperative will necessarily be what men mutually agree upon as what’s best for themselves. Only in a state of equalism, ignorant and intolerant of anything not agreed upon by ‘feminine correctness’, is there a presumption that men must have some parallel to the motivators and behaviors that prompt women. Only in a state of solipsism is this the subconscious assumption.

This is something to keep in mind the next time a woman bemoans how unfair double standards are for women. Men are not women, women are not men. Our strategies are often incompatible, or at the very least require a degree of compromise or total acquiescence to coexist in an ostensibly symbiotic relationship between men and women. It is only women (and feminized men) who default to supposing men are their functional equals.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

245 comments on “False Equivalencies

  1. I’d forgotten about the 80% of men being considered below average. Combined with the rest of the article, my mental shorthand for the effect is as follows:

    Hypergamy: apex fallacy as a lifestyle.

  2. actually, these are mostly Novaseeker’s observations which I’ve paraphrased. He is the one who first articulated it in terms of SMV levels, and the difference between optimization and hypergamy, from what I’ve read.

  3. “Women rate 80 percent of men below average in attractiveness.”

    And then they are shocked and indignant when they divorce and find out that their estimate of their own attractiveness and their ex-husband’s attractiveness are both wildly off the mark.

  4. The male equivalent of open hypergamy is having an one way open relationship. Which you can do, despite what any haters say. And women will accept it once you’re value is high enough and your game good enough.

    I think this is the main reason women do this hypergamy equivalency. To distract men from what the male version really is. As big of a harem as you can make.

  5. I would assume that men and women make relative, subjective assessments of both their own SMV and that of a potential mate. There are certain factors such as age, social status, wealth, and physical health that would seem to unilaterally increase SMV. I find that other factors, like confidence in the case of men, having a more subjective component where the value added to SMV is not obvious. Could you elaborate more, Rollo, on the nature of the subjectivity involved the estimation of one’s SMV?

  6. @Ca$h

    He shouldn’t if he’s red-pill aware. But there are many Blue-Pill alphas who do as they’ve been taught, and are ALSO the tallest, brightest, richest, and part of the dominant social group in a given region.

    Shit like him is what assassins are for.

  7. That being said, anyone with the ability can do as they please. The best anyone can do is adapt and wait for their opportunity. Or make it.

  8. Seriously: perhaps I’m misremembering I’m not aware of many serious psych-types using the word “hypergamy” except to say Red Pillers use the word which makes them seximist, un-intersectional connoisseurs of fine whines. To be fair there are one or two slightly aware articles on the idea from time to time in Psychout-Today.

    My point being most HuffPo-type bloggers and such may write pieces that illustrate open hypergamy to a T without ever using the word or acknowledging it as a concept. Just as a lifestyle choice.

    And to be fair when I try to introduce these ideas gently to someone I will avoid the word myself, so as not to alarm or baffle. Most folks don’t and can’t be bothered to know the word.
    And I never use Red Pill terms other than to say “this is evo-psych, it’s science, it’s locked into the species all over the world, across all cultures.” Which allows me to administer a placebo painkiller: the behavior you might think is immoral or hypocritical or maddening is in fact simply our hardwired programming, nothing “good” or “bad” about it, it just IS.

    But maybe as explained here, using the juxtaposition of men’s innate polygamy as the male analog to women’s hypergamy is a way to expound on the idea a bit more deeply, and be an effective rebuttal to the shaming tactic of “men do it too” – no they don’t, they’re wired differently, and it just IS.

  9. “Shit like him is what assassins are for.”
    “That being said, anyone with the ability can do as they please.”

    I’ll just let the irony of that one hang in the air.
    For fuck’s sake.

  10. Very interesting piece. For me, the question for any Red Pill man is can you face hypergamy and be with it? Can you get that this is just how it is?

    HB9 can’t stay way, he he. We’ll see. But what I’ve done is not have her hypergamy trigger an ego defense from me. I maintained my frame and didn’t let my disappointment feed an egoic sense of failure and regret. Instead, I looked at it head on and acted in my own interests. It may be a giant shit test, who knows, but my plan remains the same.

    Turns out the new guy isn’t like this, he he…She feels like she’s cheating on him with me already, and hates herself for it.

    I’m at the point where I sympathize with women. The aspect of hypergamy that I think is hardest on them is reconciling both their needs. I’ve watched it happen, they tire of the self-centered alpha and will crave the comfort and care and love and affection of another man. They are so conflicted.

    Couple this with an adaptive ability to get over a man and move on very quickly, which Rollo covers very well in his War Brides essay. This is all back of the brain shit for women, guys, they aren’t “choosing” this. It’s limbic level shit which happens in a picosecond and boom, that’s just how it is. It’s really rough on a woman psychologically and emotionally too, and feeds the inherent instability of women. Men have no equivalent conflict within themselves.

    My sexual imperative is as much sex with as many partners as possible, just as Rollo states. Without marriage, or even traditional society restraining me? I’m running around with my dick out, sticking it every where I can. But that’s not all I’m doing, and I think a lot of guys miss this. Being sexually empowered and really owning my appetites doesn’t mean other aspects of relationships aren’t available to me.

    It was nice really getting in deep with the HB9 emotionally. Felt love the first time in a long time and it didn’t overtake me. That kind of scared me in some ways, like I wonder if I’ve just become a total prick, lol. And then I realize that’s the Blue Pill/Beta in me. Who wants to keep me in line. At times the longing for the whole romantic story sneaks in without me knowing and this was a test for sure. I passed with flying colors. I love her and moved on, without more than a day or two of lament. Normal, not horrific and actually sweet. I love her, of course there is a bit of hurt. But that’s it. And I’m in the plate biz now, this is how it is.

    Platinum rule, baby. I get to be and have what I want, on my terms if I can manage to manifest it. Letting a woman’s biology/neurology drive me batty is just weak. I’m past it. Hope the rest of you are too. Hypergamy doesn’t care about you – it’s got bigger fish to fry.

  11. >Seriously: perhaps I’m misremembering I’m not aware of many serious psych-types using the word “hypergamy” except to say Red Pillers use the word

    The first time I remember hearing the word was in a sociology class in college. But it explained a concept my parents had told me about, which was “marrying up”.

    Devlin’s first use of the term in that paper was probably his effort to give a name to something that didn’t have a name, something he observed which appears unique to this time and place – an unregulated sexual marketplace in which women are free to do whatever they want, whenever, wherever and with whomever they want. Nothing in recent memory had ever happened like this before. And most women didn’t act like this, at least not sexually, until they were freed up to have sex with whomever they wanted. Hypergamy, the modern woman’s trading up and changing out plates when the better one comes alone, was constrained, restricted, and regulated through a network of social institutions, incentives and pressures that all operated to tell women:

    “You have a limited time to make your choice. You need to choose one, and only one, and you need to do so within a limited time frame. You need to preserve what value you have and don’t just give it away to anyone. Pick the best one you can and go all in.”

    Women did not like that, at all, because it meant that:

    –if you waited too long you didn’t get a good pick.

    –if you were plain or chubby, you didn’t get a good pick.

    –if you messed up your choice, well, too bad. If he lied or he turned out to be a jerk, or stupid, or a layabout, or likes partying now and again, or had a small dick, or wasn’t all that good at sex, or not all that nice to you, you’re stuck. If he’s cheating on you, beating on you, abandoning you or won’t support you, or he’s drunk every night and is beating you, then we’ll talk. But if none of those things are happening, tough rocks, babe. Suck. It. Up. Buttercup. (And that’s what her mom and dad would tell her.)

    Now, after feminism and the sex rev, women are told:

    “You have all the time in the world. There are no rules. Do whatever you want, whenever and wherever you want, with whomever you want. There are no consequences. If there are any consequences, we’ll alleviate them as much as possible. You will be sexually valuable until you’re 50. And if you fuck up your choice, you get as many do-overs as you need until you find the right one(s).”

  12. I agree with this article. Seems like looking exclusively for someone with a higher SMV mirrors seeking validation. Where as alphas consistently find contentment in who he is & his choices.

    My initial reaction is to criticize female nature for continuously looking for higher SMV. It has the appearnce of (she will never be content) which reflects the phrase hypergamy doesn’t care. Without the proper guidance thay can present as a fear or tool control a man… Make him function as a beta. Thinking and making choices with fear of… The motivation.

    This is why we don’t believe in oneitis, and we don’t stay in relationships based on fear of her leaving. If there was nothing else I’ve learned, that statement embodies freedom in such a pure form. Some women will SMV themselves right out if a great situation. Some are smart enough to stay. None of which affects my frame, my approach and my choices.

  13. “https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2560070/british-man-20-will-be-the-first-to-give-birth-to-a-baby-thanks-to-sperm-donor-he-found-on-facebook/”

    If we’re picking candidates for assassination (only after “his” “confinement” of course).
    Why not THIS one?

  14. @ Yollo Comanche

    “tallest, brightest, richest, and part of the dominant social group in a given region.”

    Don’t taze me bro!

  15. This is one of Rollo’s better essays and Deti’s comments were first rate. I would add a few things to the SMV discussion though. I think you have to start with a baseline looks based SMV analysis. You operate within a five year age differential and start there. So a 20 yo 7 girl and 24 yo 7 guy would be in the same age range. You could get into socio-economic status but I won’t complicate it. Then you throw in other factors like wealth, social status and Game. That last would be the combination of emotional health, psychological strength, personality and charisma combined with sexual and social savvy. Today, with all the PUA knowledge out there a guy can really improve his game to where he can punch way above his weight. The last thing to note is that there are two major sexual markets: long and short term or “lover” and “provider” or “good genes” and “good dads”.

    So use a guy like Krauser. He’s 41 years old about 5’9″ tall and of average looks. Now he has maximized his style through fashion but he’s a middle aged 6 in terms of looks based SMV at best. But he’s found a niche with his Eastern European “Euro-Jaunts” and has become a top level DayGame PUA. So his personality and charisma are at the level of a 10. This allows him to “punch way above his weight” and get “younger, hotter, tighter”. Deepak Wayne, a 39 yo Indian guy, is another example. Now they can argue all day long about which system is better but they are both doing the same thing. They are displaying extremely attractive male personalities packaged in a stylish, well traveled, middle aged man that can offer women they type of maturity and sexual experience no beta in her age range can. Also, any alpha in her age range is likely to be far less mature. So they can get sexual access to women in the short term sexual market that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to. This is hypergamy in the short term sexual market. I don’t think either of these two could keep these girls they sleep with for any serious long term relationship because for that they would need money that they don’t have. But still, its a nice skill set. Men like Trump, Stallone, Willis, Hefner, etc are examples of men getting “younger, hotter, tighter” in the long term sexual market. Money and status are involved for that. In the case of Melania Trump, well she has captured the highest apex alpha in the entire world.

    Ideally, it would nice to be tall, handsome, built, young, successful, high status, rich, well connected, well traveled, well cultured, and have PUA instructor level game. But as YaReally used to say, “there are only so many hours in a day”.

  16. ” Men like Trump, Stallone, Willis, Hefner, etc are examples of men getting “younger, hotter, tighter” in the long term sexual market. Money and status are involved for that. In the case of Melania Trump, well she has captured the highest apex alpha in the entire world. ”

    All divorced at some point.

    ” In the case of Melania Trump, well she has captured the highest apex alpha in the entire world. ”

    Lol. Donald Trump is not any manner of apex alpha. Maybe now, being the prez, but he’s never been what most guys would consider apex alpha.

    Money and all of that shit is nice, if you ignore the whole fiat currency thing, but all of the guys mentioned above should’ve been more wary of the gold-digger thing. Money is a sucker’s way to pseudo alpha-hood.

    Ltr’s take something….more. Hotter, younger, tighter is a revolving door that empties one’s bank account a little more with each turn, if a man is lacking in that something more.

    Men need to strive to be the absolute best that they can be. This will occupy a metric ton of one’s time and will leave less time to fret over bitches. lol. The chicks will come in time. In the meantime, it’s cool to take a few shortcuts, but life cannot be built around shortcuts.

    Be better.

    For you.

  17. @EhIntellect

    Even if it’d make me happy to do it, it’d ruin my life. I used to have sympathy for those less fortunate than me.

    Do you know how many times I’ve been suppressed by people I meant no ill will towards?

    You think I shouldn’t take that personally?

    It’s just not your turn yet, “bro”.

  18. ” . . . if you ignore the whole fiat currency thing . . .”

    That’s why I like to keep hard money. 695 US quarters are actually worth 25 cents.

  19. “@anon
    Doesn’t count.”

    Doesn’t count? No unleashing weapons of ass destruction?
    Oh wait, wrong kind of tranny…

  20. My wife married me for two main reasons (we have talked about it).

    1. Alpha – she didn’t want no wimpy beta
    2. Brains

    Of course I had some other attributes she liked. Tall 186.69 cm. Big ass (she likes). The guys she was checking out when she was deciding were (besides Alpha) all tall. I was the brainiest.

  21. Ca$h

    Why would an attractive man ever commit to any woman,regardless of SMV?

    Because he wants to. This may be a frame of personal agency you are unable to comprehend, given the question.

  22. Women use the “men do it too” defense for two reasons.

    One, because few women will ever admit to practicing hypergamy. They’ll give all kinds of reasons for why they’re dating or marrying a guy except the key reason – they’re dating or marrying above their SMV.

    Two, because women almost never take responsibility for their actions. The “men do it too” defense is as good a way as any to divert attention away from their actions or motives.

    When I was single, I remember meeting a nurse at one place I went to for work. She was single. But the other nurses told me she had income requirements for men she dated (something like $55,000 or $60,000, this was the early ’90s). I wasn’t making that kind of dough then, so of course I thought she was a bitch. But in retrospect, she was refreshingly honest, as she had at least named her price.

  23. “Pick the best one you can and go all in.”

    My mother did that. It was not taught to the generations that followed (she was born in 1919).

  24. Men rationalise this almost as much as women. A friend of mine’s gf bolted on him after he started talking marriage. I mentioned it to other guys that he was feeling down. “He’s no angel either” a few mentioned back.

    A guy I know said the same to me when I was pissed that plate was running around.

    Men rationalizing this seems Blue Pill and smacks of acceptonrg the feminine imperative.

    When my friend told me his story I empathised with him I didn’t throw it back in his face.

    The big problem sadly is guys don’t support each other. There’s always some thirsty orbiter ready to capitalise on my break ups.

    It’s a reason I. I longer have many guy friends I trust. How many times have I been out and a friend starts gaming a girl I was gaming or who gave me ioi’s. I now rarely talk to guys about women or who I’m seeing.

    Women tend to be more supportive of each other in general terms…

  25. What keeps the OL in line? What has kept her in line (no divorce)?

    Every now and then when we are out some cute 20 something will go nuts in my presence. I always tell her, “I sure would miss you but I do have options. Remember that 20 something giving me IOIs last month?”

  26. “Women tend to be more supportive of each other in general terms…”

    Except when they have an interest in the same guy. Then it is war.

  27. rugby11
    February 28, 2017 at 6:09 pm

    The girl had PTSD. The guy had no clue about how that works. Generally people afflicted with PTSD go with others with the same problem. If the guy understands the science of it – even better.

  28. @rugby11

    How unfortunate. I have a feeling that buddy was the furthest thing from her mind at that moment. The best laid plans…..And when the thing you want to make it ok that you’re still breathing is something you can’t directly control you are pretty far removed from coping skills.

    Too bad he had to go through that. Too bad she couldn’t find a reason to keep going. Too bad society isn’t allowed to talk about why people do this type of shit, or else everything GOES to shit.

  29. @walawala

    I like to think there’s a dive bar FILLED with late 20’s early 30’s NOBODIES that use eachother and back-bite and grit their stupid teeth and take photos together.

    And then someone just throws a grenade and the whole thing just gets destroyed, everyone dies and then they rebuild the property and open up another dive bar.

  30. @walawala

    If you want a friend, be a friend.

    But I have a feeling that whenever guys ever banded together, there’s always been some mouthy bitch who talked about those men as if they were gay.

    Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter.

    Most guys are smurfs and when they hear that smurfette thinks they might be gay they make their little smurf sound and it alerts any men or women out there that they lose their composure and results in a re-ordering of the stroking ladder.

    That’s ONE way to enforce the Feminine Imperative.

  31. Comparission
    “There are 8 SEAL teams in the NSW (Naval Special Warfare) and they are split into 2 groups. Group ONE is made up of all the odd-numbered teams while Group TWO contains all the even numbers. The teams range from 1 to 10, but teams 6 and 9 are not acknowledged by the government.
    The Navy SEALs has its counterparts in the Army as the Green Berets, Night Stalkers, and Army Rangers. The special ops force of the Air Force is the Delta Force. And the Marine Corps has RECON and MARSOC. Each group of troops is specially trained above and beyond the training of other troops.”

    False Equivalencies

    Heath and play

  32. The thing about women seeing 80% of men as below average in attractiveness is only proof positive of the madness of women-think.

    I wonder is that percentage speaking strictly of visual attractiveness? It almost doesn’t matter what level of initial attractiveness a random skirt attributes to a random dude, because that can be changed right inside her head.

    I have witnessed gigantic fat assed chicks turning their noses up at a man’s height, or ( lack of )wealth, or the car he drives ( or doesn’t ), or his manner of dress or haircut…. how can anyone assign a true level of seriousness to this insane bullshit? Laugh. My. Ass. Off.

    I hear consistently in the sphere, guys tying wealth or muscles to a higher smv. So why then are so many ” average ” guys getting laid so much? I mean, maybe it is dependent on the area one lives in, but plain old regular dudes that I observe aren’t having problems getting sex. So what gives? they aren’t all over 6 feet tall with hundreds falling out of their pockets. Hmmmmm, what are they doing I wonder?

    The most important thing in all of this smv/hypergamy talk is what does a guy think of himself . Who does he believe himself to be. And as the Departed YaReally would say, ” how are his subcomms ?”.

    Of course women will always be on the lookout for ” better “. So what? Lol. I’ll let ya in on a secret – ” better ” is not always linked to money or height or muscles or a Lamborghini. Think farther outside of the material box. Is it really a great thing for women to be attracted to you because you happen to earn high 6 figures, or because you have animal magnetism, for lack of a better descriptor?

    Hindbrains are important.

    One of the purposes of the Red Pill is to understand how these chicks think and act under circumstances. A man can bypass all of that tasty understanding and bank on his 34 foot Bayliner, and that’s cool if he’s always wanted a nice boat, but dudes that go for the trappings are half stepping.

    Besides, the majority of males in the US will never sniff 6 figure salaries in their lifetimes. So, are they fucked because hypergamy? I say nope. Not by a longshot. *sigh* This is why I was saddened by the PUA contingent happily shitting on the deep conversion ( I know, shitty name ) discussion in favor of the short term understanding. Wasted opportunity.

    So will hypergamy enable every swinging dick with a nice car, clothes and cash to steal your girl? It’s possible by degree, depending on the girl. I have known quite a few money hungry hoes in my lifetime, but by no means did they ever make up a majority.

    Look, hypergamy indeed runs silently in the background. We all agree on this. You can consistently short circuit it and drown it out without massive finances or material possessions. Depends on who you are. So who are you? Are you an important person to the one that matters, namely yourself? Are you maximizing your happiness and comfort within your own life? Are you cultivating the ability to not give a single fuck what ” other ” people are doing?

    Fellas these are some of the intangibles that many women can sniff out. It’s part of the reason chicks fuck the masseuse or the pool boy. Material shit is not enough….unless you have a bonified gold digger that even possesses a Union card.

    high HB chicks are great and all, but don’t be a thirsty motherfucker. they ain’t speshul. Because the thirst drives men to obscene lengths to ” bang a high HB ” is one of the reasons things are so fucking out of whack. Control yourself and work on you. It’s all about you. These chicks are just along for the ride. They have to work for it. Remember that shit always.

  33. @Yollo

    Do you know how many times I’ve been suppressed by people I meant no ill will towards?

    Ain’t we all…if you’re awesome, people are just gonna envy…happens to me all the time…gotta tell ’em, “I’m just really lucky.” Gotta find something to compliment them about to defuse the resentment

  34. @theasdgamer

    “‘gotta tell ’em, “I’m just really lucky.”

    I’ll be an expert at this skill this summer. What’s the point of being unafraid of people if I end up being afraid of what they might do to fuck up my shit? That’s a load off my mind. Thanks.

  35. Amen Blaximus.

    Do I worry about the tax on my masculine performance?

    About as much as I worry about the tax on my huge suburban home and my wildlife habitat farm and my huge income working 2 1/2 days a week.

    No. Hypergamy as a tax on the masculine guy’s performance is treated as an indifferent based annoyance.

  36. @Yollo. I expect crap from girls….im more disappointed in guys.

    In another case an ex who I hard nexted tried everything to get my attention and by getting my attention I mean she was sweet nasty and provocative. I have ignored for 2 years now. The last attempt was a blatant attempt to throw herself at a friend of mine in front of me.

    I explained to him that this was her acting out. He realized the drama he was stepping into a blew her off.

    My respect for him grew. He stood by me instead of falling for the sirens song.

    My other two friends are smurfs. They think its about them.

    It pisses me off but I think it’s better to move on and cut contact.

    Also brings up the idea that you cannot explain the Red Pill to guys who don’t want to know about it.

  37. “This is why I was saddened by the PUA contingent happily shitting on the deep conversion ( I know, shitty name ) discussion in favor of the short term understanding. Wasted opportunity.”

    If you run mystery method and do the comfort stages correctly you would be at the deep conversion stage (lol deep conversion(loooooool call it what you will) ). Most pua’s are focused on setting up fuckbuddys instead of the long term relationship so it’s avoided

  38. “If you run mystery method and do the comfort stages correctly you would be at the deep conversion stage..”

    Notwithstanding, Erik Von Mark’s real life experience. And YaReally’s take the ball and go home routine after trying to have his kids and eat his pussy too.

    Game is universal. It is fungible across all relationship platforms.

    I LoL at YaReally’s drunken rants about how anything other than poly relationships were shit, while developing a grand plan to have descendants (otherwise known as children) in a grand plan to carpe diem.

    Dictate to other men how they shall do and you are a fool.

    No wonder, Rollo has the wisdom to not be prescriptive unless to advance the cause of The Red Pill Brand.

    My bias against Mersonia and YaReally is that they aren’t well balanced in masculine real life. V.S. Just Game. I think the “Just Game” fuck real masculine shit has been well expressed by their comments. Deny “hobbies” as a masculine way. Fuck purpose and “a way for a man”. Purpose and Passion are a way of man.

    Just get laid. Don’t worry about your wealth or 401K. Explain books like a five year old mentality. Don’t do masculine self improvement. Just Game. WTF?

    Mystery Method is great for PUA and for Game. It never led to him having great relationship game.

    Heh, you can choose PUA game and LTR game, they share elements. And good luck with your choices.

    Give me a fucking break on the false equivalences.

  39. Man, i’m 51 tomorrow, fit & healthy, good looking, never married & no kids. I’ve always played the field and done well with the ladies, usually much younger ones. I’m a music producer who lives in a remote part of Australia on my own property, so i do as i please and have an enviable lifestyle. I’ve been reading TRM for some time & have full respect for Rollo’s insightful writings & many of my brothers here. It’s just all so true about the true nature of women and the twisted feminist construct we live in. When i was a teenager my dad gave me this sage advice: “Listen to what women say, nod your head and say, ‘Yes dear’, then go and do what you want to do, not what she wants you to do.” I didn’t realise until many years, decades really, later, how good this advice was. It’s now so much fun playing with my current lover using all of TRP teachings and always keeping things in my frame, which she loves deep down and rewards my “manliness” as she says, in the bedroom with very naughty sex, including wearing her daughter’s school dress for “Daddy”…

  40. Men and women are complementary.

    The complement of women looking higher is men that looking lower.

    The many women that want the few and the few that want the many women.

    Hypergamy vs polygamy.

    Of course many men can control their polygamous desires while others simply don’t want to fuck it up with the 6 that accepted them by fucking a bunch of fat 4’s and getting caught.

    And some women overcome the societal antigravity that sends their hypergamous tastes soaring, either as wise or lucky outliers or chastened by one too many romantic rushes revealed in the grey morning light as just a furtive fuck and lustful interlude for him, never to be seen again.

  41. “I LoL at YaReally’s drunken rants about how anything other than poly relationships were shit, while developing a grand plan to have descendants (otherwise known as children) in a grand plan to carpe diem.

    Make sure to breathe. Humans got to the moon afterall

    “My bias against Mersonia and YaReally is that they aren’t well balanced in masculine real life. V.S. Just Game. I think the “Just Game” fuck real masculine shit has been well expressed by their comments. Deny “hobbies” as a masculine way. Fuck purpose and “a way for a man”. Purpose and Passion are a way of man.”

    I don’t need to tell men or give men advice on their hobbies and dictate whats masculine

    They’re men…they’ll figure it out bby.

    “Just get laid. Don’t worry about your wealth or 401K. Explain books like a five year old mentality. Don’t do masculine self improvement. Just Game. WTF?”

    Cavemen want get laid ….. Getting Laid good fa da health….getting laid is good for da soul.

    Learning game (well improving social skills) is masculine self improvement bby.

    “Mystery Method is great for PUA and for Game. It never led to him having great relationship game.”

    We all fall short of the glory of god

    “Heh, you can choose PUA game and LTR game, they share elements. And good luck with your choices.”

    Game is game bby there’s no difference just calibration bby.

  42. @Glider

    Sage advice from your dad.

    Mine was the opposite and what I’ve learned merely through discovering TRM and simply observing in the last 2 years is worth more than any education I’ve received in my life.

    I’m in Aust. too and thinking of suggesting to the Education Dept that they make this part of NAPLAN for boys.

    I’m sure they’ll go for it!

    Single now and the sense of freedom is cleansing.

  43. Mersonia is such a retard he does not even realize that Mystery could not do Mystery Method correct enough to deeply convert the mother of his child.

    Tremendously stupid poster.

  44. @Blaximus
    Control yourself and work on you. It’s all about you. These chicks are just along for the ride. They have to work for it. Remember that shit always.

    Wise words. This resonates with me. I keep forgetting this principle.

  45. @Yollo Commanche

    What’s the point of being unafraid of people if I end up being afraid of what they might do to fuck up my shit? That’s a load off my mind. Thanks.

    You’re welcome, buddy. I got this from Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power.

    Law #46: “Never appear too perfect”. It provokes envy.

  46. Mersonia is such a retard he does not even realize that Mystery could not do Mystery Method correct enough to deeply convert the mother of his child.
    Tremendously stupid poster.

    I remember Fred Astaire’s old movie, Daddy Longlegs. In that movie, Pendleton dances with a woman who was backleading and there is some patter about it between the two of them. Pendleton doesn’t directly address the issue, but he enforces his boundaries with humor, while making his point.

    I am recalling the dialogue from memory and paraphrasing it.

    Backleader: I enjoyed dancing with you so much!

    Pendleton: Yes, it was almost as much fun as a wrestling match. (chuckles once)

    Backleader: Oh, was I leading?

    Pendleton: I think it was a tie. (grin turns to mild grimace)

    It’s not usually necessary to bruise someone’s ego when correcting them. Humor adds sweetness which helps the medicine go down.

    Robert Greene’s Laws of Power, #24, “Play the perfect courtier.”

  47. @ yollo @ asdgamer

    Yeah, I should have invoked Poe’s law. 😉

    At any rate, IMO many good natured BP success stories are adding to FI rot by convention, not Machiavellian scheming. They’re being dragged by the current too. I’m not denying the upper echelon HR, cultural hatred toward RP thought and minimizing the justified anger. Most people think they’re doing good for the right reasons.

    Fortunately, I do experience serious RP progress every day under my roof, in my marriage and hence my rah-rah! ebullience, crappy jokes.

    The discomfort, violence is understandable. It’s painful swimming against the current, always on edge, watching others, people we care about, being washed away. I was dragged up to HR just recently re: this stuff, but they couldn’t put a clear indictment down. Quite a challenge, but worth it.

    If we didn’t care about others, we’d not even take the time to forcefully raise our digital voices, cleverly unplug others, if only piecemeal fashion.

    As always, great discussion and well wishes.

  48. I think it’s important to note that women rarely ever date down financially speaking. They’re more likely to date down in the looks department than in the resources department. I’ve seen far more woman chasing after fat rich men, than chasing after fit good looking broke men. I think there are racial differences that come into play here though. For instance, black women are more likely than white women to look past a man being poor if he is physically fit.

  49. @ASD:

    I had a nostalgic fit of watching Astaire clips the other day. Some observations:

    Leslie Caron was a lovely little dancer. She was right about the studio hair styles as well, but the studios were right that she should never have been allowed near a pair of scissors.

    Vera Ellen was just lovely and could flow like butter melting.

    Fred and Ginger might have had movie chemistry, but Cyd was Fred’s best dance partner and I’ll go with Rita as number two.

    And down a side spur, Eleanor Powell’s little turn with Gracie Allen was kinda sweet.

  50. Rollo,

    The Male Imperative doesn’t make sense to me from an evolutionary perspective. If pump&dump is the MI how does it account for monogamy throughout known successful human experience.

    While I can perhaps understand marriage as a female construct, I don’t agree but I understand the argument. It doesn’t follow that monogamy is in the females best interest of Hypergamy. We know that infanticide tendency is in all primates. its theorized that monogamy arose as an answer to combat infanticide for those with long reproduction cycles. The other strategy is for females to mate with many many men, and let sperm have its war. Humans fall somewhere in the middle, leaning towards monogamy. So why does infanticide disappear when discussing Humans? In my opinion, it shouldn’t at least until you drag the State into the equation where it gets muted.

    We know that societies that didn’t adopt monogamy, didn’t last or weren’t successful, there could be many reasons. But when taken as a whole serial monogamy wins against other cultures with different mating strategies. IMO it satisfies a large majority of males imperative, males have some long term input to raise “their” progeny with a greater percentage of paternal certainty. Males spend less time fighting peer to peer (local dominance), for mates, and wasting time on mating rituals, and more time building machines of war, industry raising their status for future mating possibilities via tribe vs tribe (global dominance).

    My view is that monogamy is a Nash Equilibrium, TheCardinalRuleofSexualStrategies is a zero sum. In monogamy, the female is pausing her hypergamic search, and the male pausing pump&dump. Monogamy is effectively a mate & infant guarding reproduction strategy. Both sexes have developed, through evolution biological tactics to deceive the other during these times of monogamy. But up until modern society each side has developed counter tactics of keeping monogamy going as an evolutionary/hereditary imperative.

    Another way of putting it no tactic has over ridden the evolutionary/hereditary tendency towards a monogamy bias. The fending off rivals from the attention, and possibly death to his offspring. The male providing resources that the mother needs to raise, what he think is his progeny.

    From what I can see, the female imperative; she will take provisions from any male (beta orbiters), but only procreate/have sex, with those = or > in SMV. The male imperative is he will attempt to procreate with any female but only provide/defend for those with his progeny or potential progent if = or > SMV. I derived this mostly from the above post in the description of how the matching for the male works out.

    What I see in the manosphere is currently an AMOG fest; HowToBeAWarrior; AlwaysBeAlpha; ISeeNoReasonForMarriage et al. My most basic question is, isn’t arguing for better treatment of men in monogamy a better answer for all men and children. If we give up on monogamy/marriage we give up, big picture the male strategy of TheCardinalRuleOfSexualStrategies. LadderTheory will be played out, and our future looks much like the Vikings. Lesser males creating societal disturbances to find mates, and secure provisioning.

    Thanks again for all your insights, I have followed you for many years, your insights have made my life more understandable. In someways this is a critique, but they are nagging questions about incongruencies I perceive, that perhaps haven’t been explained via a big picture where does this lead, what is the future if we destroy along with feminists, the idea of monogamy within our society. Going back to, what I see is a female controlling sexual dominate strategy. I don’t see it as benefiting ALL men, just the upper tier SMV males.

    Thanks for your time…

    1. @Paul, I presume you’re the same Boxer Paul from Dalrock’s comments? I had you bring your questions here because I don’t do 140 character TL;DR very well.

      If pump&dump is the MI how does it account for monogamy throughout known successful human experience

      This is kind of a binary misunderstanding you’re having. P&D is only a recent social contingency men have adapted for in response to women’s Hypergamy being unfettered since the Sexual Revolution. It is however the deductive response for the MI – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. There are other contingencies as well; ubiquitous, free, pornography is one, homosexuality is another. We can argue whether gay sex is biological or behavioral, but in a same sex environment where men’s sexuality can only be expressed as such (prison for example), even heterosexual men will shift to gay and back again. P&D, PUA, online porn, Tinder, forced sexual fluidity, hell even Beta Game are all methodologies to fulfill the MI. Monogamy is only one more methodology, but what it appears you’re doing is conflating the MI with being a methodology.

      I get that question a lot; if men are all about the lay then how is it that monogamy is responsible for the rise of human civilization? I usually get this from women (whose interests it serves that men limit themselves fewer women) and/or guys with a religious bent to their beliefs about intersexual dynamics.

      Deti answered this adequately, but as I mention here, monogamy is only a methodology. Polygamy was also a methodology for the men with affluence and status enough to sustain it. Even in some modern religions and cultures a man taking 2-3 wives is the norm. Maybe that still qualifies as monogamy when compared to P&D, but it doesn’t discount the idea that the MI is rooted in quantity of sexual experience over quality.

      While I can perhaps understand marriage as a female construct, I don’t agree but I understand the argument. It doesn’t follow that monogamy is in the females best interest of Hypergamy.

      Marriage is not a female construct. From a social context it was about forming tribal bonds and alliances. From an intersexual dynamics context monogamous marriage had the latent purpose of being a buffer against Hypergamy and served as an (presumed) insurance for the average man in restricting the uglier side of the Feminine Imperative. In the age of unfettered Hypergamy and the increasing legislation that men comply in optimizing it for women, we now see the consequences and reason for the need to restrict Hypergamy with marriage and other social institutions that have been discarded now.

      You are correct; institutionalized monogamy is not in the best interests of Hypergamy, but that’s because it removes women’s control of optimizing it.

      So why does infanticide disappear when discussing Humans?

      The responsibility for infanticide has shifted to women after the Sexual Revolution. Preventing a birth via hormonal birth control and legalized abortion is now an extension of women’s unfettered control of Hypergamy. The logic behind men killing the children of a previous rival is the popular rationale for why women evolved socially and psychologically to create intrasexual support networks among women. Thus, we get the Sisterhood of today and they get to feel good about the idea of having to band together for protection from violent men bent on killing the children of their prior lovers. This plays to the victimhood narrative as well.

      In an age when paternity could never be certified, monogamy served to control for long term security and cuckoldry served to control for breeding into the best genetics. Men’s (or male primates’) adaptation was to control for paternity in the only way they had direct control and certainty for – killing the children of rivals. This was a control for Hypergamy. From this, social control of various methodologies followed – polygamy, monogamy, marriage, alimony, child support, etc. – but again, all of these institutions were implemented as a failsafe for one thing, which sex would control the genetic direction, legacy, sexual selection of our species.

      In the post-sex rev age, women are the ones who either preemptively or reactively have the most direct control. Legal abortion and HBC are the controls that replace male-initiated infanticide. The fact that women have unilateral control over what they do with their bodies in this regard, and how we as a society take this as ‘common sense’ is a reflection of women’s optimizing Hypergamy becoming the law of our social order. This is why rape and all of the vaugeries about its definition are so onerous to us. In a feminine-primary social order rape is more grave a crime than murder because it directly removes women from the control of Hypergamy and puts that unilateral control in the hands of men. Kill a man for even the suspicion that he might be a rapist and your crime is excusable.

  51. “The Male Imperative doesn’t make sense to me from an evolutionary perspective. If pump&dump is the MI how does it account for monogamy throughout known successful human experience.”

    Men have a sexual imperative and a social imperative. The sexual imperative was discussed above. The social imperative is to compete and win. To defeat, conquer and subjugate other individual men and take their women, money and stuff. And to get into a tribe of like minded men with the same interests; defeat, conquer and subjugate other tribes; and take their women, money and stuff.

    Monogamy exists in men simply because most men are not sexually attractive enough to get no strings attached, pure procreation sex, with lots of women. Most men have to “sweeten the pot” by offering things to a woman IN EXCHANGE for sex. And yes, from a societal standpoint, monogamy works much better than polygamy or polyandry. Those latter two quickly break societies down. We know that just from observing the West’s current condition.

    The female imperative has three parts:

    1) Secure genes from the best, most physically attractive, strongest, fittest men for procreation and birthing strong, attractive children who will grow into strong, attractive adults.

    2) Secure provisioning from the man (men) best able to provide it (the man or men who provision her need not necessarily be the same man who provides the genes for procreation, and many times they are not the same man).

    3) If the woman fails in directives 1 and 2 for any reason, secure provisioning for herself by any means necessary.

  52. “So why does infanticide disappear when discussing Humans?”

    This is not the usual sort of place. We have gone as far as bringing up filial cannibalism here.

    ” . . . .isn’t arguing for better treatment of men in monogamy a better answer for all men and children.”

    It is better for civilization, but here the main subject is zoology, not poli-sci.

    “I don’t see it as benefiting ALL men, just the upper tier SMV males.”

    Appeal to undesirable consequences. Such appeals have their place in poli-sci, so long as outright fallacy is avoided, but they have no place in zoology.

  53. @SJF

    I’m not sure YaReally ever discounted the hobbies or mascunline self-improvement. He just noted that on most levels, it’s just a catalyst for a type of behavior you can learn how to accurately fake.

    Throw on top of that the fact that there’s a ton of people trying it and you have validation-driven subculture that just happens to consolidate itself primarily through access to nookie.

    Many men resent self-improvement because of not only Hypergamy itself, but because Open and Far Less Restrained Hypergamy make their efforts feel like throwing money down a hole.

    It’s not true. Or is it? I remember the 90’s type of feminist that rabidly cut apart all male sexuality and demonized it all while looking down a cigarette at me and taking a drag.

    I was 5.

    Men forget the shitty experiences Feminism put them through in early childhood, but can’t put their finger on why they feel so intimidated by women, and get so frustrated when women can’t/don’t give them emotions you don’t beat/fuck/game out of them.

    This is something older guys don’t get about game because they didn’t have the experience of mommy bringing all her stupid gullible friends coming over and playing “pin the Subpoena on the donkey.” And Daddy just watching with his balls in his hands.

    Sisters embracing being stupid cunts and fucking half the baseball team and then bawling their eyes out at you and you magically having all the right consoling words to prop them right back up and send them out again and again, only for them to come home and beat the shit out of you and Mommy turning a blind eye.

    This is war. Being a well-rounded individual has nothing to do with it. What are women doing anyway? When they feel confident and full of shit and noise, they look for a good guy and then they fuck him, they don’t suck his dick and they say, hey why not try an open relationship? When they KNOW you don’t have anyone else in your Rolodex.

    I feel sorry for the new waves of chicks who don’t understand why guys are learning game. Even guys don’t understand why they’re learning game.

    This is far too convenient for the instagram social media culture of today that shifts blame and never talks about anything else but themselves unless it’s to protect it’s own worthless money.

  54. “Being a well-rounded individual has nothing to do with it.”

    Don’t knock what you haven’t tried.

    “I feel sorry for the new waves of chicks who don’t understand why guys are learning game. Even guys don’t understand why they’re learning game.”

    It’s babies all the way down. I keep pointing it out because people keep getting themselves wrapped up in other issues and losing sight of it.

    It’s not your job. It’s not the car you drive. It’s not the contents of your wallet. It’s not your fucking khakis. It’s babies.


  55. @kfg

    I’m not knocking it. Just noting that anyone bringing babies into this shit are going to have to explain why it is the way it is. That’s nobodies job?

  56. (Hypergamy) + (Overvalued self-SMV) = chronic bepissment.

    Rather explains the persistent mental state of today’s ‘strong independent liberated’ woman.

  57. ” . . . explain why it is the way it is. That’s nobodies job?”

    That is one of the traditional functions of tribal elders. That’s why tribal elders have to be stuffed down the memory hole by anyone embarking on a program of social engineering.

  58. @kfg

    Meanwhile in Oklahoma…….

    A judge passed a law that says women need men’s consent to abort a child they decided to expose themselves to the chance of having.

    ……it’s a start.

  59. @kfg @yollo

    If you like counter-cultural long ball, raising RP kids in a BP world is all reward, minimal risk…and a lot of fun.

    Per kfg: Don’t knock it til you try it.

  60. @Paul

    There is not just one overarching Masculine or Feminine Imperative that applies in the same way across all conditions.

    Polygamy is the alpha male’s Masculine Imperative (MI) reproductively but enforcing monogamy can become the enlighted alpha male’s MI when he wants to rally an army of beta males to serve in his army and build his empire economically. Monogamy is the beta male’s Masculine Imperative since he usually can’t compete in a purely SMV-based “free market” (enforced by either conditions of scarcity or danger where the woman needs a man that will actually stay with her, or by cultural shaming of slutty women). The SMV-based “free market” operates when immediate survival is less of an issue. Think of a warm and lush region with plenty of food (provider/protector male not needed as much) vs a cold and food-poor or dangerous environment (provider/protector male greatly needed).

    The Feminine Imperative is hypergamy in prosperous/safe situations where a woman doesn’t need one man to stick by her for her and children to survive. But the FI is monogamy when more stark conditions are in play.

  61. @Paul

    Also, in prosperous and safe conditions then the male who spreads his seed will have many surviving offspring since his providing/protecting isn’t needed. And women can acquire “better” genes for their children by hypergamously fucking upwards, even though the man won’t stay around.

    However, in poor and dangerous conditions the promiscuous down-fucking man and the hypergamous women would not have any/many of their children survive and so there it’s often more advantageous to shift more towards monogamy and make sure that a smaller number of kids (say 4 with one women vs 40 with 40 women) survive.

  62. This -2 SMV thing doesn’t ring quite true. I mean isn’t the whole PUA community about learning to go after and get women who would previously have been out of your league?

    Speaking from my own experience of four LTRs, the unhappiest by far was the one where my gf was a -2. She absolutely adored me, but I just wasn’t that into her, and was always checking out other women. She picked up on this, became increasingly jealous and possessive, and before I knew it my life was utter hell. It got to the point where she was certain I was cheating on her (I wasn’t), and faked cheating on me to get me to fess up – that was the final straw and I dumped her ass, and it was the best thing I ever did.

    My best LTR was with a girl with a 6 face who turned into a slender, supple 9 when she took her baggy clothing off. In her own mind she might have been a 5, but we were probably equal SMV. We had five years of outstanding sex before things ended.

    TLDR Women that feel like they are below my SMV just don’t feel all that attractive to me, and when I get into LTRs with them I spend my time checking out hotter women and wanting out.

  63. @Black Pill

    Women have compromises of their OWN to make in their approach to US.

    It’s still about getting your parking space at the club. Most men don’t HAVE one of those. Too much emotional baggage.

  64. @kfg

    Cyd Charisse was born Tula Ellice Finklea on March 8, 1921 in Amarillo, Texas. And had one of the extraordinary female forms of our time.

    Amarillo. Huh. You just never know.

  65. @Paul

    I agree with your take on societies trending towards monogamy (or quasi monogamy) in order to survive and compete against others. Things can move away from that for a time when prosperous/safe conditions exist but that will usually sow the seeds that destroy the prosperity/safety.

    The enormous technology-plus-cheap-energy fueled rise in global prosperity and safety (as evidenced by the huge growth in population; and yes, even in places like Africa where medicine keeps babies from dying so that their population has exploded) over the last 100 or more years is far greater than ever experienced and raises the question of whether this time “it’s different” (I’m not saying it is) or whether the diminished need of the beta provider/protector male on the individual female level will cause so many of the beta males to check out that society will regress and give rise to harsher conditions that make the beta males more needed by individual women again.

    Another speculative possibility is that robots and machines and AI will become so advanced that human labor and even thought will become far less needed and the hypergamous party can continue…but if that happens the need for women to bare life may become obsolete as well and women are turned into egg donors just as men are sperm donors in a society where provider/protector is not needed. And it raises the question of what the future of humanity will be when neither men nor women are needed for much of anything. What do people do when the roles they’ve been genetically programmed to seek and desire and need to find fulfillment are made obsolete?

  66. @ M Simon

    “because women almost never take responsibility for their actions”

    I am an ACOA Adult child of an Alcoholic there’s more but just to keep it on one page. She, my mother refuses to acknowledge the damage she has inflicted on me. Even when presented with physical evidence to the contrary cannot acknowledge what she has done.

    Refuses outright to think her behaviour is anything but right and can and does when confronted use my father for blaming and shaming and generally deflects. When cornered can only use tears and poor rationales. Cannot engage in any analysis of her own behaviour.

    It’s actually fucking scary. Too second this my ex-girlfriend I found out has had an abortion and can see zero moral implications to this only, wasn’t right time for a baby(too busy partying) just throw it away like a pair of shoes. Actually can’t get her head around the fact that some people might object to this. Completely vindicated of everything. What about my feels?

    I can never ever commit to a woman in anyway knowing that she can throw me under the bus at any time. Five years of therapy and still lots of bad dynamics to unravel.

    I honestly feel like I can’t talk to anyone about this as they can’t see it the way I can. I know abused children’s neural pathways are changed but fuck me this sucks. Im trying to rebuild myself but its like a hollow endeavour pun intended.

  67. Choc Doc
    March 1, 2017 at 9:55 am

    @ Blaximus
    February 28, 2017 at 7:20 pm

    Your Post was on P O I N T !!!!!


    Blaximus keeps everybody on target. Relax about the girls, work on/for yourself, they’ll come along.

  68. @Black Pill

    Yeah, most men don’t feel attracted enough to a woman -2 relative to them.

    Women have a bell curve of men they could be attracted to (physically + personality + status, etc.) that is centered to the right (or higher) than their own relationship value but with a leftwards tail that is at their own value. If she’s a 6 then there will only be a small sliver of male 6’s that actually push her buttons enough for her to want to LTR him.

    And men have a bell curve of women that will be attracted to them that is to the left of their own relationship value. The male 6 will have many female 4’s that will want to LTR him, some 5’s and a very few 6’s and no 7’s (usually). Men have to be very patient and up their value to find those few women that he’ll be attracted enough to and that will be attracted to him.

    Modern society has driven these two bell curves farther apart and made it less likely for happy relationships to form (though they still do happen, just not as easily as 100 years ago).

  69. @Lost Patrol

    Blaximus keeps everybody on target. Relax about the girls, work on/for yourself, they’ll come along.

    If you have anti-Game, this really doesn’t work. Work on your social skills, minimum.

  70. Isn’t another false equivalence the SMV scale for men compared to women?

    Let me try and explain what i mean. The scale is highly subjective in the first place, and the criteria for each sex is different. For women her SMV is based almost entirely on physical appearance, whereas for men its a combination attributes. The scale makes good sense generally except for the margins.. It could be argued that for every girl no matter her SMV, there will always be a man who is higher on that scale? The obvious example is a female 10. For every HB10 there is a man who she herself and other women must view as 1-2 points above her?

    BTW, long time lurker, 1st time to post. Thanks Rollo for all the work you do, you have helped me a great deal.

    1. SMV rating of oneself and what their SMV might be evaluated as socially are individually subjective.

      The common presumption is that the more hot a girl is the more insecure she tends to be. I don’t think this is a truism by any stretch, but it serves to point out that self-evaluation isn’t always social evaluation. The same conversely holds true for the the overweight HB 4 who’s fed a constant diet of Fempowerment and rates herself 2-3 points higher than social evaluation would ever consider her.

      Somewhere in between is a mean average, but even the HB 10 believes there’s a man at or above her own SMV .

  71. @theasdgamer

    Blaximus keeps everybody on target. Relax about the girls, work on/for yourself, they’ll come along.

    If you have anti-Game, this really doesn’t work. Work on your social skills, minimum.

    Anti-game does sound like a significant handicap, but isn’t working on/for yourself the antidote to anti-game (e.g. “work on your social skills”)?

  72. “Men have to be very patient and up their value to find those few women that he’ll be attracted enough to and that will be attracted to him.”

    agree about being patient.

    it’s hard enough finding decent ONS girls, let alone one I would consider bringing home. would love to see some data about hypergamy when choosing a third. we’re basically looking for a clone of my wife. does that mean women really just want to fuck themselves? lol.

    campus is full of braindead progressive fatties, the bars are full of boring career slut fatties and the clubs are full of single mother ghetto fatties. the girls at the gun range are fat. strippers are fat. girls at the gym are fat. and the few that aren’t each have like four huge orbiters helping them train.

    it’s sad to admit, but the one place where women actually have good bodies is a club for 40+ in the uppity part of the city. rich dudes and old fucktoys. you can smell the fucking stds in the air. nyc and la are probably the last places to find real hotties. but who wants to live in those feminist shitholes.

    what’s a guy to do when he wants untrained young, but young is useless fat tattooed brainwashed trash?

    I never knew what hitting bottom would look like. I think dumpster diving for used up hard body milfs might be it.

    maybe the problem isn’t unrestrained hypergamy post sexual revolution. maybe the real problem is all the girls getting fat, so that the few hotties that are left have so fucking much male attention that it’s a full time job gaming them.

    the reward is the same, but the investment of time and effort has skyrocketed because the supply has decreased so much and the demand for hotties is as high as ever.

    shitty market. if all these girls would just stop eating garbage things would balance out. but nobody wants to cook for one.

    they’re single because they can’t cook and they can’t cook because they’re single. hilarious.

  73. @fleezer, Maybe if there was such a thing as male hypergamy we wouldnt have a female obesity epidemic? Imagine a world where no men would have sex with much less get in a relationship with a fat woman. I guarantee we would have a LOT less obese women than we do today.

  74. I had a proud Papa moment today!

    I asked my Son, “What is the best thing to do if your wife wants you to get a vasectomy?”

    My Son answered, “Get a new woman.”


    This is, what I would later understand to be, red pill wisdom that I shared with him when he was about twelve years old. I made a game out of it and would quiz him from time to time. The original answer was get a new wife, but perhaps his new answer is better.

    This red pill thought was triggered when my wife ran into an acquaintance she knows from her work. She was with her husband, and my wife knew that normally he would be working. He sheepishly told her that he had taken the day off to have a vasectomy. They have two children—girls, and I guess this ends the debate about them having more.

    Some guys will advocate for this form of birth control. After reading comments on the dontfixit.org website, I think you would have to be nuts (pun intended) to choose this surgical solution. There can be terrible and permanent after-effects from this “simple” surgery. But, that’s not the basis of my disagreement.

    There are two dynamics going on here. There is a “false equivalence”—not exactly what Rollo is talking about. Here is how the woman’s argument goes.

    A man should have a vasectomy, it’s the only fair thing to do, because:

    1. She had pregnancy, morning sickness, stretch marks, labor pains, episiotomy, breastfeeding…
    2. She ruined her body due to your selfish desire for offspring.
    3. She suffered under hormonal birth control.
    4. Tubal Ligation is major surgery, but vasectomy is a simple, in and out “no-sweat, you’re such a baby” surgery.
    5. She’s quitting hormonal birth control and you will be responsible for any accidental pregnancies.
    6. You will have to start wearing a condom.
    7. You owe it to her for all that she has done for you as wife and mother of your children.
    8. It’s your turn to sacrifice.

    There is another dynamic, a darker one. Basically, she has decided to de-facto castrate you. This is done to:

    1. Eliminate the possibility for you to sire more children with another woman (without a successful reversal or artificial insemination).
    2. She can’t or doesn’t want to have children; so, it’s only fair that you commit to not having any additional children—it deepens your bond.
    3. She knows your SMV and MMV drops in the eyes of any possible new partners that want to have children.

    I read an article discussing this second dynamic so this is not my insight. Also, Rollo has probably written about this and my search bar skills are still underdeveloped.

    Here is the TL/DR story that is the source of my awakening.

    We had a neighbor, The “S” family– husband, wife, boy, two girls. My son used to play with their son. We weren’t close, but my wife would look after their children from time-to-time.

    They made the vasectomy decision, or should I say, Mrs. S made this decision for him. As fate would have it, the day after he had the surgery, there was a huge snowstorm that dropped about 3 feet of snow. In spite of doctor’s orders to relax and take it easy, he had to shovel his walk and driveway. I’m told that he and his son had an impromptu snowball fight. The son made a lucky shot that put him out cold for several minutes from the pain.

    The next day, with everything in full shutdown mode, Mrs. S invited my wife to their house for tea. When she arrived, Mr. S was taken by surprise and embarrassed. He was sitting in an easy chair wearing a bathrobe, t-shirt and boxer shorts with an ice pack in his lap. When my wife suggested that maybe she should leave, Mrs. S said that maybe he should get up and stop acting like a baby.

    A year later, she moved her (their) family to be closer to her parents which made him leave a promising job. She also remarked to my wife that she had changed her mind about not wanting additional children, but now Mr. S couldn’t (as he was no longer a man–my commentary, she never verbalized this).

    The thought of this woman turns my blood cold. She was nothing special to look at maybe an HB 5.5 on her best day, but with dead shark eyes like Jennifer Conally (sorry JC fans) and a bleached orange mustache instead of waxing it. I guess I should be grateful that she made him move as she was the incarnate of evil, he was a “last rites” stupid fuck, and her son was unstable and later attempted suicide.

    My wife is distant facebook friends with her, and sees the envy shots of their fantastic vacations. I remind her that for us to be them she would have to be a total soulless bitch, I would have to be a clueless drone, and our son would have to be suicidal.

    I used to tell this joke when speaking to other men about his situation. It went like this—He was a married man with 3 kids. He should have bought a box of 12 condoms and called it a day. That probably would have lasted him through menopause.

    I asked the wife if she might be invited to another vasectomy victory party. She didn’t think so.

  75. “The term is used to refer to women marrying men who are perceived to be wealthier or of a higher social/economic standing or caste, usually observed in Hindu cultures on the Indian subcontinent..”

    That may be the funniest thing I’ve read all year.

    The whole point of the caste system [which really comes from the Edda based aryan religions, Hinduism and Norse being the closest, their holy books written in almost the same language, being close variations of each other and called (v)Edda in both cases]..the whole point is women CANNOT MARRY UP past a caste boundary. (however much they may so desire).

    The instances where princely castes married a common caste were few and far between. And the commoner almost always was portrayed as having a hidden history of being from a higher caste anyway.

    This wasn’t just the Aryan religion(s). Seldom in Europe, even after Christianization, did a higher blue blood ever marry a commoner. Arranged marriages, also very common in Europe for most of its history (2000 BC to about 19th century), were never between classes, always within classes.

  76. The column is absolutely correct for the most popular reason that people ask if there is male version of hypergamy. I think the less often, people ask this question genuinely looking for perspective, though.

    A girl might ask “Why are men so shallow? Why does having a few extra pounds make a girl undatable? A woman can see past a few physical flaws if an overweight guy has other good qualities. Why can’t men?” The response to that is to ask how many guys she has dated who are shorter than her. For men of quality, being fat is a deal-breaker. A woman has trouble grasping that unless you present the female equivalent. Being short is a deal-breaker for many women.

    So if the motivation in asking about the male version of hypergamy is tit-for-tat struggling for equality, then the correct answer is Rollo’s column in its entirety.

    If the reason for asking is to reframe in a perspective that a woman can use to relate the question to her experience, than there is a male counterpart.

    The disruptive hum of hypergamy can destroy a woman’s chances of being happy in a long term relationship. In the column, you briefly mention polygamy as a male imperative that might be on par with hypergamy. This is also a disruptive hum that can push men in the same way.

    So if a girl asks “Why do men hate hypergamy. Doesn’t everybody seek to optimize?” then understanding polygamy as a male counterpart, you can ask “Why do women hate a cheating man? Doesn’t everybody like variety?” If a woman doesn’t have to recognize her own hypergamous behavior and deal with it, why ask men to be faithful?

  77. Pardon me if I didn’t get it right, but after careful reading both your books and this post, I think there’s a problem.
    Women are hypergamical while men Polygamical. That means, according to the post, that they seek the best Male available, even discarding the old one.
    Isn’t this principle in frank contradiction with alpha fucks/beta bucks, which is a pokygamical directive?

  78. @ Rollo

    I am not loving the reverse comment order. I like to scroll down. This feels like my email inbox where I have to read the newest emails first to know which older emails I can ignore.

    But you know me. I never complain. I remember some asshole complained about the like button. But you know, like, if I can remember his name I’ll report him for being a troublemaker so we can have him banned.

  79. @ If I Fell

    Mission accomplished re: your son rejecting vasectomy. Kudos.

    The procedure was emancipating for a divorced friend, financially stable, children grown, many plates.

    The procedure was severely betatizing for a successful colleague. Divorced, then married post wall dream girl. He collapsed to her hypergamous desires, had reservations the day prior to the snip. I prompted him subtly to trust his intuition. Nope, his began arguing for the FI and its benefits to everyone, him, his wife, their future, aka his BB servitude. I don’t dare confirm my suspicions how it affected his married man sex life.

    The procedure confirmed why another friend left his wife. She demanded it, he declined, hated her for even bringing it up. After 15 years, 4 kids, that was the final intolerable straw on the beta haystack he’d made for himself to lay in. OOH, he’s not much less beta. OTOH, he’s whole, free, semi-MGTOW.

    Women routinely iterate, “Oh, I’d would have liked to have more but well…

    Never do I hear: “I wish I’d never married and had so many kids. Just think where I’d be now without little Timmy, Tommy, Kimmy.”

    As anything, when men serve others primarily, they underserve themselves and others too, ironically.

    When women serve themselves primarily, the FI fueled hypergamy, they underserve all.


  80. Another thing to point out are differences between men and women in how hypergamy and optimization play out with the role of sexual attractiveness in relationship formation.

    Women will have sex with a man she’s kinda sorta sexually attracted to, if that man brings “other things” to the table. SHe might not really WANT to fuck the guy; but she’ll be WILLING to fuck him. She will not want to fuck, nor will she be willing to fuck, men who are below her in SMV. For women, there’s want to fuck, willing to fuck, and won’t fuck. Hypergamy demands this kind of hierarchy in women’s minds.

    Men will have nothing to do with women they’re not sexually attracted to. Men don’t have sex with, date, or have any kind of relationships with women they don’t want to fuck. For him to offer a woman anything, anything at all, even the slightest bit of attention, he has to be sexually attracted. Sexual attraction is paramount, it comes first and foremost, it absolutely HAS to be there, or nothing will happen, ever. For men, “want to fuck” and “willing to fuck” are the same thing. There is only want to fuck and won’t fuck.

    Optimization does go for the best, but it also recognizes the attraction floor, below which a man absolutely will not go in order to secure sex. At some point, wherever his attraction floor is, he will go without sex and relationships rather than have sex with unappealing, unattractive women. Women, on the other hand, WILL have sex with unappealing, unattractive men, IF the man compensates enough for the lack of sexual attraction with “other things” (usually provisioning).

    This trichotomy women have, of want to fuck, willing to fuck and won’t fuck, can be dangerous for men. You’ll know if a woman won’t fuck you. It’s harder for most plugged in men to distinguish between “willing to fuck” and “want to fuck”.

    It’s dangerous because a man should never ever commit to a woman who’s only “willing” to fuck him. The best way to tell this is the level of investment she requires before she’ll fuck you. If she’s making you wait when she didn’t with other men, or she expects more of a time investment, or she demands exclusivity before sex happens, or she demands evidence of provisioning ability, or she demands monetary investment in the form of expensive dates or gifts, then she’s only “willing” to fuck you.

    Another way to tell if a woman is willing to fuck you and doesn’t really want to, is the position you occupy in her life. It’s where you stand with her in relation to everything else in her life. If she’s too busy, if she’s got a lot of other things going on, if she’s breaking dates and doesn’t have time to spend with you, if she carves out time for you only when she feels like it, then she’s only willing to fuck you, probably headed to “wont fuck”.

  81. @ thedeti

    Nice comment. Very concise and clear points and very solid, and made me have some quick realizations.

    “Men will have nothing to do with women they’re not sexually attracted to. Men don’t have sex with, date, or have any kind of relationships with women they don’t want to fuck. For him to offer a woman anything, anything at all, even the slightest bit of attention, he has to be sexually attracted. Sexual attraction is paramount, it comes first and foremost, it absolutely HAS to be there, or nothing will happen, ever. For men, “want to fuck” and “willing to fuck” are the same thing. There is only want to fuck and won’t fuck.”

    Ain’t that the truth.

    I feel like this has to do with men’s craving for VARIETY, which goes with “unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.” See: the Coolidge Effect.

    There is only want to fuck and won’t fuck. In my mind, no matter how hot I think a girl is, I know I’ll get tired of fucking her eventually and will want to fuck other women. It’s just how men are wired.

    I’m simply more tuned into the reality of those desires since I dropped religion and also bullshitting myself, and unplugging. My sexual desires were ALWAYS for unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. I just had a ton of psychological buffers preventing me from being honest with myself about that.

    Even in my worst Blue Pill days of wanting my “Dream Girl,” I’d fantasize about one after another. It was very easy for me to shift fantasies to another, different girl, and the ultimate reason is because deep down I just wanted to fuck all of them.

    “There is only want to fuck and won’t fuck.”

    Very true. And very different from women’s imperative. Again, great comment.

    And great article, Rollo, as always. This is a particularly good post and really helps clarify how different men and women are. Good to keep in mind when women are trying to suck you into their frame and hold THEIR imperative as the Gold Standard.

    Men need to get used to thinking: “What about me?”

  82. @fleezer

    Re: the nationwide obesity shit test

    Obese women ’round here only just have been more bratty, expectant about the perception of their body image.

    Are they self hating bitchy because they’re fat or are they fat bexause theyre self hating bitchy…and dudes aviod them? Chicken-egg.

    Related: colleague returns recently from cancun trip. He states the vacationing kids, young adults are fatter, sloth-y. The parents are the fit, energetic types. Apparently motivation isn’t necessarily inherited.

    Related: this is my colleague’s second marriage after 3 kids, wildly expensive lifestyle. After the divorce he told me the total cost of the marriage, divorce. I helpfully noted he’d been better off buying a $500 hooker biweekly and be much better off financially, sexually.

    Well, he married the gold-hearted single mother with 3 kids. This simple girl next door is now unrecognizable: the heavy makeup, ladies groups, fine wines, expensive tile, move mansions within town to accomodate angry, frustrated son under the impression switching schools will help the poor kid, when all he needs is a diet of RP, consistent parenting.

    Per kfg: It isn’t the money, house, job.

    Oh God no. Broke and happy is where it’s at.

  83. @Ag

    You misunderstood hypergamy and polygyny.

    Men, being polygynous, will keep multiple women around. “Spin plates” in sphere parlance. He’ll have them in a heirarchy with his favorite(s) given priority, but he generally doesn’t discard a girl just because a new one comes along.

    Women on the other hand “branch swing”, normally discarding the previous (now unsatisfying) man for what she perceives as more hypergamously optimal.

    There are – as with all rules in this world – exceptions to both general rules. However they’re just that: exceptions.

  84. I know guys who made the vasectomy round trip. Snip. Unsnip. Snip again.

    My wife raised vasectomy at one point, a friend of hers said it made things much less stressful and spontaneous. I told her my next wife may want kids… lolz.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: