Hypergamy

October 11, 2012 § 74 Comments

“Hypergamy” is a term used in the manosphere to refer to the fact that women tend to be attracted to high status men. The hypergamy theory posits that social status in men is, for women, what physical attractiveness in women is for men. A man losing social status is like a woman getting fat. Men without social status become invisible as attractive men, although they can still fill other roles in a woman’s life.

The female zone of attraction is to men they perceive as being in the pink zone. The population of characteristics of actual men is the green gradient. (It is a gradient, denser toward the bottom and less dense toward the top, like the air in the Earth’s atmosphere). Notice that in this model, the great majority of men are invisible (in the pertinent sense) to women. Women have a tendency to be offended at the thought of men outside their own zone of attraction even considering the possibility of a love connection. Invisible men however can be in the “friend zone”, not pictured: in this case the woman finds his “beta orbiter” doting validating but he remains outside of her zone of serious prospects. The pertinent acronym is LJBF, “lets just be friends”.

As sexual mores have collapsed this has resulted in a situation where the great majority of men get little or no female attention as anything other than “Beta orbiter”, while the great majority of women spend their time in the “soft harems” of a relatively few “Alpha” men.

The premise of “Game” is that our modern feminist society trains men to live their lives on the bottom half of the model, and that there are specific steps a man can take to move himself into the top half, and especially the top right.

§ 74 Responses to Hypergamy

  • johnmcg says:

    If we think in terms of incentives, it’s easy to see why this mechanism would be advantageous to women. Collectively encourage men (particularly already married men) to live in the green zone, where they will be invisible to possible rivals, and, with the bonds of marriage being less than they are, this is the only way to lock them in to a committed relationship — they have no choice. It’s a converse of the Madonna-whore dichotomy.

    Of course, I think the answer is for us not to behave as homo economus, blindly following our incentives. This is why I don’t always find these models convincing, as well as this one from the other side, which, while I’m sympathetic to its conclusions, also leaves me a bit cold.

    It seems to me the answer is “Repent and believe in the Gospel.” But the problem I think is that, those who do, both men and women, who approach dating and marriage as loving commitments rather than economic transactions, are the ones most exposed to getting hurt.

  • Collectively encourage men (particularly already married men) to live in the green zone …

    Yes, they call that “policing the hierarchy”, which I view as closely related to or even coextensive with “fitness testing”. The bottom of the attraction region forms a kind of LJBF wall or threshold with a number of implications.

    I’ve got several other background posts in mind before I take a look at “Game” as a set of prescriptions specifically (and as I mentioned in another comment I am not sure myself how it is going to go). I need to touch on the behaviours of women (including fitness testing/policing), evo-psych determinism and moral agency, and a few other background matters. Then at the end I hope to offer my critique/take on the whole shebang. We’ll see how it goes.

  • johnmcg says:

    Yes, we’ve all heard things like, “There’s nothing sexier than a man washing dishes.” Which I think a lot of “betas” have found not to be strictly the case. Rather, it’s probably more like “There’s nothing sexier than an “alpha” man washing dishes.”

    It is tempting to mouth platitudes like “Simply love fully and without expectations and God will help things work out. Carry your Cross.” but it doesn’t seem like that is always the case. Original Sin is with us. I don’t think we best serve God by letting ourselves be trampled, and letting the trampler be the primary influence on our children’s lives.

  • Rather, it’s probably more like “There’s nothing sexier than an “alpha” man washing dishes.”

    Hah, yeah, or a Victoria Secret model doing dishes for a guy. Like the dishes have anything to do with anything, other than that she wants them done but doesn’t want to do them herself.

  • Martian Bachelor says:

    Two words: paper plates.

    (yes, I know, they’re mostly plastic now)

    I’m part of the generation of men who grew up hearing (20 yrs ago now) women proudly say “I wouldn’t date Bill Gates if he was worth a billion dollars”, so I’m skeptical of the “women are hypergamous” mantra, especially when it’s held up as being some universal and unalterable law of nature, like gravity.

    One of the ironies of the “Game” crowd is that while they preach this alleged truth about women, their main sales pitch *to men* is for an easy “HB10” — which I guess is the new, super-duper version of what we used to just call a “10”.

    Well, 95% of feminism is nothing but projection, and one of many ways “Game” is just like feminism is by projecting male tendencies onto women. Something(s) to consider.

  • Martin Bachelor:
    …women proudly say “I wouldn’t date Bill Gates if he was worth a billion dollars”, so I’m skeptical of the “women are hypergamous” mantra…

    Well, I’m certainly skeptical of the kind of evo-psych determinism that seems prevalent in Dalrock’s comboxes, though he obviously doesn’t subscribe to it himself since he often hammers on the fact that women are moral agents responsible for their choices. But I think there may be as much to the concept of hypergamy as there is to the proposition that men are generally attracted to physical archetypes like Monica Bellucci.

    As for the Bill Gates thing, being rich doesn’t make a man Alpha: Alpha as I understand it isn’t a matter of what I would term formal social status. It is a function of de facto social status, as I mentioned here: the factor of being “cool” and envied, etc. Men don’t get this because we are much more in tune to the formal hierarchy; but there is a parallel de-facto social hierarchy that (many) women see vividly and we miss.

    When I was a startup CEO I was – because of practical realities – vividly aware of the difference between formal status and de facto status. Once you have to unholster the gun of formal authority you have already lost and are just doing damage control.

  • johnmcg says:

    I think men are at least subconsciously aware of these informal hierarchies. Take 10 men, divide them into two teams of five, put them on a basketball court, toss them a ball, and a hierarchy on each side will quickly emerge, and not solely based on basketball ability. One of the biggest sources of tension is when the formal hierarchy conflicts with the informal hierarchy. Take a group of (yes, likely mostly male) programmers, add in a (possibly female) “project manager” who has never programmed, but now has authority over the programmers, and watch what happens.

    Where I think we’ve gone wrong in the past 20 years is that we’ve assumed that men’s natural instincts are antisocial and must be actively resisted, but that women’s natural instincts are aligned with the common good and should be indulged. This has not proven to be the case.

    Pointing out that these instincts don’t always lead in a positive direction isn’t to say women are bad, any more than noting that men tend be attracted to young, physically fit women is to say that men are bad, because tendency is not destiny. We all need to check our instincts for the good of society.

    The difference is, men have been told this for generations, and men with an interest in getting married know this. For the most part, this is news for women.

  • johnmcg says:

    I would classify the “wouldn’t date Bill Gates” comments along with the “sexy dish washer” comments. Not to be conspiratorial, but it’s effect is to drive the men around them toward “beta” activities (e.g. dishwashing) rather than “alpha” activities (making lots of money) that would make them more attractive to rival women.

    To put it another way, I don’t believe that these women ever decline to date Bill Gates, given a chance. But they would prefer that their own partners not try to be Bill Gates.

    Insert the usual caveats that I’m not speaking about all women.

  • johnmcg says:

    In light of the update, I’ll clarify.

    Although we refer to people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs or even Paul Ryan as “nerds,” they aren’t really nerds in the same sense that the smartest guy in your high school who went on to be an engineer at a big company is a nerd. They founded dominant companies and wield tremendous power both formally and informally. They are leaders, and have lots of people who follow and execute their vision.

  • johnmcg says:

    In other words, IMO, the woman proudly declaring that she would never marry Bill Gates was not signaling an aversion to “nerdiness” per se but (somewhat falsely, IMO) that they’re not all about money.

    It would be similar to a man seeing a beautiful woman on TV who talked in an annoying voice and declaring (for an audience) that he would never date/marry her.

  • I think you might be using the term “attraction” too broadly, John. I’m sure lots of women like the money and power of the nerd-kings; just like men appreciate a clean house and a nice meal. But that isn’t the sort of attraction “Game” attempts to exploit. We are talking about the kind of attraction that makes her weak in the knees and want to have your baby; the kind of attraction that makes her feel like she would throw herself in front of a bus just for the chance to touch you; the kind of attraction that makes married women obligated to do whatever their equivalent of “custody of the eyes” is for married men.

    As much as women – especially older women looking to settle down with a Beta provider – may appreciate the money and power of the nerd kings, it isn’t the sort of thing that makes her body respond primally and involuntarily.

  • Jehu says:

    Zippy,
    I’ve written a fair bit on this subject that you might find useful, from the perspective of either a design frame of an evolutionary one. Either frame gets you to approximately the same conclusions and which one you adopt is almost entirely a matter of one’s ‘priors’.
    http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2012/05/credit-where-credit-is-due-elegant.html

  • Gian says:

    I wish to get the definitions right.
    Hypergamy is defined as the preference of women for high-status men.
    One errornous definition I have often seen is calling it the preference of women for men having higher status than them.
    This is errornous since status for a man and a woman can not be directly compared. However, the status of the man’s family can be compared to the status of the woman’s family. This is how it works in a traditional society.

    Now you define status as a kind of cool and what is something envied.
    Then, it depends upon the enviers.
    So is the status of a man determined by women or by other men?
    Or perhaps it is by women (alike to sexual selection) and then men realize what women prefer and envy a man that possesses the said traits.

    Now. a man is supposed to be the head of his household. It won’t hurt him to show some dominance traits. Logically, of course, being head and being dominant are different and there should be no correlation. A wife should be submissive even to a submissive husband.
    Again this is some scope for ambiguty here: are we talking about a man being dominant to other men or to women?

  • Gian says:

    “Notice that in this model, the great majority of men are invisible (in the pertinent sense) to women. ”

    I do not see how it follows. Your green zone is only slightly larger than pink zone. It is perhaps an additional empirical observation that today a great majority of men are submissive towards women?

  • Gian:
    The green area is a gradient, denser at the bottom and less dense at the top; much like the way the air in the atmosphere gets less dense with altitude. So most of the men are concentrated in the bottom half.

  • Gian:
    So is the status of a man determined by women or by other men?

    I think for my purposes it is sufficient to acknowledge that it is vague, but that it is socially determined and related to dominance, risk taking, independence, and similar qualities as expressed socially. It may be that I’ll have to refine my understanding some more though.

    Jehu:
    Thanks, I’ll have a look.

  • I added a parenthetical to the post to clarify Gian’s question about the green zone.

  • Gian says:

    The evol-psy is littered with many basic misconceptions that I wonder how can anybody take it seriously.
    Eg. That men want to have sex with as many women as they can is virtually an evol-psy dogma. This is supposed to be supported by the fact of homosexual promiscuity. As if the only difference in the sex drive of homosexuals and heterosexuals was in the object of desire!.

    How can it be seriously entertained that men want to maximize their sexual experiences? That only social stigma or lack of willing women or other negative consequences hold them back?.
    Can’t these persons introspect?. Are they maximizing the number of women they bed?.
    Can’t a man be bound by himself?. Can’t he be in love with a particular woman?.

  • Gian:
    I agree that the evo-psych determinism many of the Game types have bought into is just nonsense. That’s part of why I have re-framed it as more like Meyers-Briggs or four-quadrant models. I try to get at the valid points people are making the best I can. Dalrock’s critique of the current situation is trenchant, so I don’t have to rescue it from itself. But if there is anything true in the prescriptions of Game it has to be rescued from its more ardent supporters.

  • @Jehu:
    I read your post. It strikes me as a reasonable attempt to get at how women make the status evaluation more specifically, as a subconscious synthesis of her own judgement, his behaviour, and the judgement of her peers. The point that she doesn’t have to outrun the bear in some cosmic sense, she just has to outrun her peers, also seems reasonable.

    … from the perspective of either a design frame [or] an evolutionary one.

    Or, I would suggest, from neither: we don’t have to have a specific origin fable in order to analyze how something contemporary functions. It isn’t something I focus on much anymore, but one of my old posts gives an outline of how I still see things. One year I took some grad school courses in molecular/cellular biology, bioinformatics/computational biology, and biophysics including protein folding and other subjects — I was interested in it as an investment area, among other things – and tried to chase down the evidence of evolution that is supposedly pervasive. I found no evidence of that evidence. Instead I found a great deal of epistemic and metaphysical confusion mixed in with some very interesting science about contemporary mechanisms in genetics, how protein structure and function is analyzed using current (at least at the time) techniques, etc.

    That doesn’t make me an “ID” proponent, per se: but modern technocracy is loath to ever admit that it just doesn’t really know what the heck it is doing, and this often has terrible practical consequences.

  • Jehu says:

    Zippy,
    By Design I am of course referring to a very specific Designer. ID as such is just a useful club with which to beat evolutionists who aren’t quite as smart as they envision themselves with—I prefer my Creationism straight. Pretty much everyone also agrees that there have been at least 300 generations of human beings also, which is a lot of time for animal husbandry or microevolution (once again, take your pick of frame) to operate. All of us are descendants of human beings who managed to reproduce successfully, often under rather adverse conditions.

    Pretty much all evolutionary psychology is doing, from my frame, is putting a sciency spin on things the Old Testament, and especially Shakespeare, knew about human beings for a very long time while filling off the serial numbers. Because society is presently in profound denial about these things, even, perhaps especially the Church, it serves a useful function.

    With regard to ancient shit tests, I’ll submit that women have ALWAYS done this kind of crap, even when the social mores are that doing so often results in a beating. Shades of Genesis and women striving to rule over their men but being terribly unhappy if they ever actually succeed? One might surmise that there have been enough massive die-off/kill-off events in human history that women with a genetic prediliction to test their mates for strength and ‘hand’ have increased their genetic frequency.

  • Gian says:

    And is it really true that “the great majority of men are invisible (in the pertinent sense) to women.”?

    Is a typical American man not able to find an attractive woman?

    Perhaps it is at best true only a wrecked section of big cities?

  • Good question, Gian, and it gets right at the foundation of the whole “Game” enterprise. I’m not really taking a position as much as describing, at this point.

    I should reiterate that I am using Game to refer to a set of prescriptive tools based on this social/psychological description; I haven’t yet even gotten to the point of describing Game per se. I have no doubt whatsoever in the veracity of the critique of the state of marriage which forms the great bulk of Dalrock’s posts, however. I wouldn’t call that critique “Game”.

    I don’t have any direct recent experience myself that is pertinent to your question, though it somewhat rings true as an extrapolation from decades-old experience, as well as some more recent knowledge by proxy. I’m not sure how we would put the question to the test in any semi-rigorous way, frankly.

  • Gian says:

    Have you read Evelyn Waugh’s A Handful of Dust where a squire’s wife has an affair with a rather spiritless London man (with no Game whatsoever) and divorces the squire.

    The point is that the female desire could be entirely delusive. It may correspond to nothing objective like a ‘status’ or ‘cool’

    By the way, if most American men are unattractive to most American women, then it would be the first time in human history that such a phenomenon has happened.
    It does not bode anything good.

  • @Gian
    One hypothesis is that the whole Game phenomenon really only applies to promiscuous women with loose morals, and perhaps to those who are only a half decade of boredom and drudgery away from becoming a promiscuous woman with loose morals. The problem is that that describes the majority of the US female population right now; that those who aren’t that way at the moment are relentlessly inundated with divorce porn and other slut-positive culture; and that the whole legal and social apparatus (including the sympathy and support coming pervasively from Christian enablers or “white knights”) is designed to reward slutty behaviour. Add in how fat and spoiled we are, how subject to First World Problems, and that puts us into the world of Game:

    The more that self control and morals break down the more the theory of hypergamy applies (is the hypothesis: again I’m mostly trying to describe a range of theories rather than to assert the truth of a particular theory). Thus the pervasive phenomenon of “serial monogamy,” the preferred female form of promiscuity: a culture that does everything it can to produce slutty women will likely succeed, and ours has done so.

    I’ve seen a similar phenomenon described among men: that the pervasiveness of pornography, including its milder forms, has made ordinary women unattractive to men. One difference is that men are a lot more obvious and easy to figure out than women, and we don’t generally notice all the porn-for-girls because it – the drama, the divorce porn, etc – just isn’t the sort of thing we associate with sex at all. I also wonder if good women don’t notice the porn-for-girls because as well formed women it just doesn’t really affect them personally.

  • Mike T says:

    By the way, if most American men are unattractive to most American women, then it would be the first time in human history that such a phenomenon has happened.

    It would also be the first time in human history that a society set about to consciously undermine natural masculinity.

    Now. a man is supposed to be the head of his household. It won’t hurt him to show some dominance traits. Logically, of course, being head and being dominant are different and there should be no correlation.

    I don’t think this logically follows at all. A man who is naturally submissive is genuinely less of a man. No attempts to weasel out of this by citing his alleged moral character will change the fact that a weak, submissive man is simply less of a man than one who is not. Furthermore, naturally submissive men do in fact tend to be weaker in character as their natural submissiveness tends to make them incapable of standing up to bad conduct by others.

    There are certain things which are inherent to leaders, and being able to stand up strong and make tough choices is one of them. Submissive men are not really capable of doing that.

    A wife should be submissive even to a submissive husband.

    Yes, she should be, but she won’t and often cannot afford to be submissive. A household without one strong spouse cannot safely weather the dangers of this world.

    The problem, as I see it, is that we have a utopian view of human nature in that we ignore the fact that some personality traits are generally bound together in logical groupings. For example, strong men tend to also be more aggressive and “threatening” even to the point of some of them (a minority of indeterminable size) being able to give a truly defiant wife the back of his hand. Many, if not most churches, join in unity with feminists in abject horror and terror at the thought that some women might be mildly physically or emotionally abused by these men without realizing that they cannot have the good (a much higher prevalence of generally strong, tough, masculine men) without the bad (some of those men will be aggressive with their wives).

  • Mike T says:

    I’ll also add that naturally submissive men tend to also be a lot easier to bully into either a formal participation with evil or just outright committing it themselves. This is one of the reasons why women tend to find them abjectly repulsive. A submissive man is far more likely to be turned on them than one who is tough and dominant in most areas of his personality.

  • johnmcg says:

    I’m seeing a parallel to the financial world — norms and “rules” are evolving is such a way that benefit those who are already well off.

    In this case, eroding the norm of lifelong monogamy obvioulsy benefits the George Clooneys of the world. (again, assuming what he “wants” is a series of young, attractive, sexual partners, which may be “natural,” but disordered). He can have that without social stigma.

    To women, the George Clooneys are never “off the market,” even if wearing a wedding ring. So why settle for or put up with the middle management slug from town? Hold out hope that you’ll be the one picked the next time Clooney’s current girlfriend gets old and he looks down the bench.

    For the men and women in the middle of the bell curve, this isn’t such a great deal.

  • John:
    The sexual version of the Golden Rule, “he who has the gold makes the rules”. Young females have the sexual gold, and what we are seeing is what happens after a couple of generations when you strip away traditional patriarchal morality and let them make their own rules, Lord of the Flies style. “Free Love” was all fun and games in the first generation or two (well, other than for the slaughtered unborn and a few other people here and there who don’t count); but ultimately the Invisible Hand cares as little about the satisfaction of a population of hedonists as it does about maintaining a moral patriarchy.

  • Mike T says:

    John,

    It certainly doesn’t help things that most social conservatives subscribe to the apex fallacy with regard to how normal the experiences of George Clooney are to the common man. They tend to believe that, outside of their communities, ordinary men are enjoying a bounty of easy sex and good times even as most of the evidence (some of it empirically proven now) that a minority of men in many areas are having sex with a majority of the single (whether truly single, or single in mindset) women.

    In my own life, I’ve encountered this as sheltered social conservatives simply assumed that because I was not a Christian for the first 20ish years of my life and had a few girlfriends that I was “obviously” very worldly if you get my drift. They still couldn’t believe that in my freshman year of college, most of the single freshman men I knew couldn’t get a date if their lives depended on it.

  • Jehu says:

    Monogamy is not a ‘natural’ institution. The natural man is polygamous, the natural woman, hypergamous. But natural does NOT mean good or God-approved.
    All of the societies that people show by their revealed preference that they wish to live in are and have been monogamous. Monogamy is a cartel agreement with massive positive externalities, but it requires stern punishments to any defectors. Right now we’ve largely reduced the punishments, which is a large fraction of our problem.

  • johnmcg says:

    I do have to stand to oppose this, though:

    The problem, as I see it, is that we have a utopian view of human nature in that we ignore the fact that some personality traits are generally bound together in logical groupings. For example, strong men tend to also be more aggressive and “threatening” even to the point of some of them (a minority of indeterminable size) being able to give a truly defiant wife the back of his hand. Many, if not most churches, join in unity with feminists in abject horror and terror at the thought that some women might be mildly physically or emotionally abused by these men without realizing that they cannot have the good (a much higher prevalence of generally strong, tough, masculine men) without the bad (some of those men will be aggressive with their wives).

    This sounds like the flip side of that awful Marilyn Monroe quote that is a depressingly popular FB status for women (though they don’t ask themselves how that attitude worked out for Marilyn)

    I will acknowledge the following:

    Our society in general seems to classify all behavior as either “ok” or “dealbreaking sin” with nothing in between.
    This manifests itself by placing “submissive” sins on the “ok” side, and aggressive sins on the “dealbreaker” side.
    This has likely led to an equilibrium where men are more submissive than optimal.

    That being said, giving the woman the back of your hand and emotionally abusing her are sins, and the response to sin is not to accept it as part of the package that comes with desirable masculine traits, but a call to confession and repentance. Expecting a man to be masculine without abusing is not “utopian,” it is a call to our best selves.

    A man who gave one of my sisters the back of her hand or emotionally abused her, and hid behind an excuse like this to refuse to own up to it would soon encounter part of my aggressive side.

    Catholic men have many models of masculinity, Christ Himself and St. Joseph, among others, that do not include the physical or emotional abuse of women. These should be our models.

  • […] and “Game,” an area with which I’ve only recently become acquainted.  In the previous post I talked about the hypothesis or theory of hypergamy, the background concept underlying […]

  • Mike T says:

    John,


    That being said, giving the woman the back of your hand and emotionally abusing her are sins, and the response to sin is not to accept it as part of the package that comes with desirable masculine traits, but a call to confession and repentance. Expecting a man to be masculine without abusing is not “utopian,” it is a call to our best selves.

    I don’t know what you think you’re opposing here. What I said was that in a society which manages to make a great many of its men strong, masculine men there will be a minority who have it in them to give their wife the back of their hand for defying them as head of the household. When society optimizes for one general set of character traits in men, there are inherent side effects to that decision. I am accusing social conservatives of ignoring that and adopting an attitude that with the right social engineering we can make strong, masculine yet conspicuously unthreatening (the type who would be strong, but never deign to make a woman feel dominated or told what to do).

    This sounds like the flip side of that awful Marilyn Monroe quote that is a depressingly popular FB status for women (though they don’t ask themselves how that attitude worked out for Marilyn)

    Monroe was celebrating her personality flaws. I am merely pointing out that over a large body of men, optimizing for certain personality traits will result in some inherent problems that are simply part of that package.

  • johnmcg says:

    I’m arguing against a “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” attitude toward abuse. If that was not what you were proposing, then I apologize.

  • Mike T says:

    I am saying that whatever trait set we say is the basic definition of good masculinity will carry with it its own set of bad traits. Specifically, I am saying that a society which optimizes for strength and masculinity will be one in which women are more likely to be “abused” for being particularly defiant to their husband’s authority. The flip side of this is that the path we have chosen in modern America has bred a disturbingly large body of weak, passive-aggressive cowards.

    My contention is that most social conservatives in their efforts to appear to not be cultural reactionaries to the left (who will always regard them as such) have ignored the fact that whatever path we choose in raising men has an inherent down side due to being in a fallen world.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @ZC

    One hypothesis is that the whole Game phenomenon really only applies to promiscuous women with loose morals, and perhaps to those who are only a half decade of boredom and drudgery away from becoming a promiscuous woman with loose morals. The problem is that that describes the majority of the US female population right now; that those who aren’t that way at the moment are relentlessly inundated with divorce porn and other slut-positive culture; and that the whole legal and social apparatus (including the sympathy and support coming pervasively from Christian enablers or “white knights”) is designed to reward slutty behaviour. Add in how fat and spoiled we are, how subject to First World Problems, and that puts us into the world of Game:

    So well stated. This is my take.

    @Johnmcg

    Man, you are all over the place. This comment was very astute:

    In this case, eroding the norm of lifelong monogamy obvioulsy benefits the George Clooneys of the world. […] To women, the George Clooneys are never “off the market,” even if wearing a wedding ring. […] For the men and women in the middle of the bell curve, this isn’t such a great deal.

    No, it’s not. Even for the men who fall on the good half of the George Clooney divide, it’s enervating.

    ———-

    Then you say this:

    A man who gave one of my sisters the back of her hand or emotionally abused her, and hid behind an excuse like this to refuse to own up to it would soon encounter part of my aggressive side.

    Catholic men have many models of masculinity, Christ Himself and St. Joseph, among others, that do not include the physical or emotional abuse of women. These should be our models.

    Women aren’t made of china, John. Take yourself at your own word: sometimes the aggressive side is necessary, appropriate, and even arousing.

  • johnmcg says:

    I dare you to try that with my daughter or sister.

  • A little horseplay is one thing. Any man who smacks a woman around in earnest is suffering from HVLD.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @John

    Why would you tempt me to sin? I’m married, sir. If you had the good mis-fortune of me for an in-law, you’d have to fight your way through your kin’s amorous affections to get to me. Read the police reports of domestic disturbances sometime.

    By the way: Force projection only works if can actually project it. Blog comments have a range of about one foot–the distance between your keyboard and monitor.

    @ZC

    High Voltage Leak Detection?

    In seriousness: No sort of corporeal punishment should be delivered in anger. That being said: I think slapping has its place.

  • High Velocity Lead Deficiency. It is an unfortunately fairly common condition which can be treated with suitable application of high velocity lead.

  • johnmcg says:

    To put it a less aggressive way, I suspect you would not react well if your daughter, sister, or other woman you love was given the back of her significant other’s hand, and he adopted and attitude that she and you must accept this if we want his more desirable aggressive traits.

    At least I hope so.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @John

    React well? It’s easy to imagine a situation where I get righteously enraged at a man slapping my sister or daughters. We love getting all worked up about getting the bad man who is mis-treating our womenfolk. It’s the stuff of westerns–of which I’m a big fan.

    Women are for loving, not hitting. The latter idea doesn’t excite me. All things being equal: I’d much rather know her into submission. Moreso, though, I’ve been conditioned this way–to hate the idea of even mild violence on women. Well, they pushed it too hard, and now I’m a bit callous to the idea that women are the gentle creatures. I hope you’re not laboring under the delusion that, in relationships, men are the typical abusers. Nossir. Not in America. Besides: men are for lovin’, too, but only the truly foolish think that a male should never be corporeally punished…like with a fist, or even lead. (h/t: ZC)

    So it really depends on the situation. I can imagine several situations where a slap would be utterly appropriate, though, and I can imagine saying to my kinswoman–after she’s been slapped by her husband–“You had that comin’.” I know women that could use a good deal of it.

    I was thinking about your comment about how Jesus treated women, and how to reconcile that with ZC’s comment about the sort of women that are most prevalent in America. It seems to me that God hates misdirected desires more than he hates violence. I shouldn’t have to say that this does not mean men should go around beating women, but I will bear this burden of your fears, and say it: Slapping women should be avoided, and a measured response when it cannot.

    This is a bit off-topic, but just so you know, John: I’m not a Game-r. I don’t think it’s cute to manipulate or seduce anyone; whether through touch, words, violence, or whatever (I tend to think of seduce as different than arouse: arouse as amoral, seduce as immoral.). I think the decent parts of Game are not really “Game”. They aren’t things you play at, but genuinely develop. On the other hand: many women do respond to Game. They’ve been trained, and trained themselves, to do so.

    @ZC

    I like the caliber of your thinking.

    You made a comment here or at Dalrock’s about the need to draw your CEO pistol only when you’ve lost the leadership battle. That’s true. In such cases, you still have to draw, though.

  • Preemptively, I don’t like to phrase judgements subjectively as things I am for or against.

    I do not think that corporal punishment is intrinsically wrong. That includes corporal punishment of a wayward wife. However, I think the conditions under which corporal punishment of a wife is prudent are vanishingly rare, and it is morally wrong to act imprudently.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @ZC

    However, I think the conditions under which corporal punishment of a wife is prudent are vanishingly rare, and it is morally wrong to act imprudently.

    I think we’re in agreement. Are list of rarities might differ, but what is fascinating to me is the change in feelings about it; the total surrender of men to the idea that women must not suffer pain. Fifty years ago, every other movie featured a woman getting slapped. Now, you and John threaten (you more jokingly, him less so) to kill me.

    My bet is that our grandfathers, even the ones firmly against slapping a woman, would not have thought in such final terms.

    Anyway, my point isn’t to defend violence on women, but to poke at the idea that abuse of women by men is a real problem that must be addressed! It’s not true. I’d bet money that it is less frequent than divorce and affairs. And most times physical and emotional abuse is real, it’s perpetrated by women.

    It’s a feminist canard, John. Don’t get sucked in by it. Your defenses are needed elsewhere.

  • @CC:
    It’s not true. I’d bet money that it is less frequent than divorce and affairs. And most times physical and emotional abuse is real, it’s perpetrated by women.

    These are the sorts of statistical claims it is almost impossible to either validate or invalidate. (That doesn’t mean they are unbelievable or wrong.) Part of the reason is lack of data. Part of the reason is that every data source and analyst has an axe to grind.

    I think what follows though is that while we need to take individual cases seriously, we also need to take standards of evidence seriously. In addition, in the interest of justice we need to treat false reporting as an even worse crime with more severe punishment than the alleged abuse.

    Of course those steps are about as likely as an end to no-fault divorce and a return to treating adultery as a crime.

  • Mike T says:

    To put it a less aggressive way, I suspect you would not react well if your daughter, sister, or other woman you love was given the back of her significant other’s hand, and he adopted and attitude that she and you must accept this if we want his more desirable aggressive traits.

    John, put the strawman down and walk away slowly.

  • johnmcg says:

    The Godfather was written in the early 1970’s portraying events during World War II and set in a very male-dominated culture. (Spoiler alert) It included Sonny Corleone being lured into an ambush by his brother in law Carlo beating up his pregnant sister, knowing that this would lead Sonny out to kick his ass.

    Sonny is portrayed as a hothead, but the instinct to protect his sister from Carlo is not confronted as disordered or the result of feminist brainwashing.

    Yes, the abuse Connie suffered was a bit more than “the back of a hand.” Nevertheless, I’m not convinced that horror at a female loved one receiving corporal discipline from her siginificant other is a result of feminist brainwashing.

    I did mean to threaten to kill anyone, and I apologize for leaving that impression. I think I got caught up in the schoolyard jackoshpere culture, and taunted a bit. Mea culpa.

    What I was trying to do was offer a reminder that loosening the stigma on corporal punishment will result in more human women getting hit, perhaps not just the back of a hand. These women are not just sluts and whores, but our sisters and daughters. This is not a price I’m willing to pay.

    Now, our outrage should not be limited to women who get hit, and should include men who suffer various forms of abuse. But no, I’m not going to trade being OK with my sister or daughter getting hit in order to produce a possible increase in manly men.

  • John:
    I did [sic] mean to threaten to kill anyone, and I apologize for leaving that impression. I think I got caught up in the schoolyard jackoshpere culture, and taunted a bit. Mea culpa.

    I’m not a literalist or positivist of any sort. The last thing I want around here is for people to be afraid to speak figuratively. If someone wants clarification they can always ask for it.

    Follow this protocol or I’ll have you all shot.

  • johnmcg says:

    I was thinking about your comment about how Jesus treated women, and how to reconcile that with ZC’s comment about the sort of women that are most prevalent in America. It seems to me that God hates misdirected desires more than he hates violence. I shouldn’t have to say that this does not mean men should go around beating women, but I will bear this burden of your fears, and say it: Slapping women should be avoided, and a measured response when it cannot.

    I know this is the cliche’ passage of Jesus as a big huggy forgiving Teddy Bear, but jeez… http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8

    I’m sure there’s various ways to talk around this (as women find ways of talking around the command to be submissive to husbands). That Jesus didn’t pardon the prostitute, but only called on the Pharisees to conteomplate their own sins. That He told the prostitute to sin no more.

    But the idea that Jesus offers no lessons on non-violent means to deal with immoral women requires a bit of willful blindness.

  • […] Catholic: Saint Compromise; The Function of Universal-Suffrage Democratic Elections; Hypergamy; Hypergamy: social-behavioral concepts; It’s all Greek to me; Elections and Social […]

  • johnmcg says:

    Of course, another way of thinking about it is that as a man, I have effectively outsourced protection of my daughters and sisters to society. For all my tough-guy talk about what I would do if they were hit, the reality is that this isn’t something I have to really worry about. My present and future brothers and sons-in-law have been indoctrinated that hitting a woman is the most awful thing they can possibly do, and if they slip, the whole rest of the world would come down on them. There is almost no chance I will ever have to get all Sonny Corleone on their asses. What was once a “code” among men is now a society wide expectation.

    I’m not sure this is so bad, but I understand why some might disagree.

  • johnmcg says:

    And not to fillibuster the thread, but this development is probably a symptom of fatherlessness. If a significant number of women don’t have a father or brother to protect them, then the rest of society has to step up and fill the void, perhaps clumsily so, and with unintended consequences.

  • Mike T says:

    John,

    I have to ask… are you incapable of judging the impact of societal ideals about masculinity on a level broader than the immediate impact on your sisters/daughters? Because you certainly have a habit of bringing everything you say about to the women in your family which leaves little room to discuss the broader body of men and women.

    The women in your family may be saints, but women as a group are no more saintly (nor less fallen) than men as a group. There are plenty of women out there who have, at one point or another, done something that deserves getting knocked upside the head. Case in point, a married man who finds out his wife has cheated on him would be well within his rights to punch her lights out if he confronts her and she throws it in his face instead of repenting of it (and when the roles are reversed, a woman who throws a vase or phone squarely at his head and knocks him flat on his ass or worse is similarly justified).

    That Jesus didn’t pardon the prostitute, but only called on the Pharisees to conteomplate their own sins.

    The way Jesus responded to them (as well as in the case of the “render unto Caesar” bit) was an old rabbinical technique wherein one responds with a statement or question that forces the questioner to reveal their wicked motives (usually to turn the law into a weapon against someone). The only real meaning of that passage is that Jesus simultaneously affirmed the guilt of the woman, the applicability of the law to her and managed to expose the inherent wickedness of the pharisees’ motives when asking him if he upheld the law.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @ZC

    These are the sorts of statistical claims it is almost impossible to either validate or invalidate. (That doesn’t mean they are unbelievable or wrong.) Part of the reason is lack of data. Part of the reason is that every data source and analyst has an axe to grind.

    Yes, which is why I frame it as a bet. It’s what I see and hear among my friends, neighbors, and churchmates.

    I’m not a literalist or positivist of any sort. The last thing I want around here is for people to be afraid to speak figuratively.[…]Follow this protocol or I’ll have you all shot.

    Just for the record: I’m not either. It was the feeling behind the figure of speech at which I poked.

    @John

    Ok, John.

    Are you Roman Catholic? I’m not. I was raised Southern Baptist, where the Jesus-Out-Of-Context game is played with relish. You are terrible at it.

  • johnmcg says:

    Cane,

    I am a Roman Catholic, I provided a link to the story in the Gospel itself. In fact my link was to the entire chapter from which the story comes. Readers can include or disinclude as much context as they see fit. Perhaps that is what you mean by be being terrible at playing the Jesus-Out-Of-Context game.

    The assertion made upthread is that the Gospels stories of Jesus do not provide guidance on how to non-violently deal with the type of women one finds in America today. I think that there is a Gospel story where Jesus actively prevents violence against a woman caught in the act of adultery is a sufficient counter example.

    Again, I’m not a fan of the way in which this story is productive often bandied about to demonstrate that Christian dare not judge one another’s sins, particularly sexual sins. But it seems to me this addressed the assertion directly.

    MIke,

    Not all women are saints, and not all women are whores and sluts, either.

    Even with today’s strong proscriptions against violence by men against women, there are some women who are abused by men. They are not all sluts and whores, either. This may be overblown, but it is non-zero.

    Loosening those proscriptions will result in more women getting beaten, and not all of them are sluts and whores, and some may be saints.

    It’s possible this is the right thing to do anyway, but we need to be realistic about what we’re advocating. There is collateral damage to all policies. In some cases it’s worthwhile, but we have to honestly confront the cost.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @John

    Are you seriously going to contend that the situation the adulteress faced in Jesus’ era is the same as the era we live in? That woman would have been scared out of her wits. She, being caught in the act, really was facing death. That is not the case in America.

    Have you never seen daytime television? In America, women get celebrated for such things. Does a woman want to be a star? She just needs to be a relatively attractive woman, and make a sex tape; preferably one that could be framed later as “a mistake” with a man who is not her husband, but fulfilled a need that the husband just couldn’t meet. Travel the talkshow circuit. Write a book. Naturally, she’ll have to divorce the pathetic man (and they are pathetic, sadly) who put her in this mistake-making situation. She won’t get fantastically rich, but she can get by with the augmentation of alimony and child-support.

    That’s for the woman who shoots for the stars. Many women are satisfied to play the same role at work. Big fish in little ponds, you see.

    American mating habits are MUCH more analogous to money-changers in the temple than the woman staring down a pile of rocks with her name on it. What did Jesus do to them? I almost hate to bring it up. Too many men want to use that one scene as the crux of their argument that Jesus was a “bad-ass” in the modern and cinematic sense. It is, however, the one time we see him confronting the very acts of sustained and willful sin in what is supposed to be a holy context.

    Marriage is a holy context, too, and it is this temple that is over-run with moneychangers, and they’re wearing push-up bras and and five-inch heels. If the removal of the mental barrier that kind-hearted men have against ever dealing roughly with a woman causes a drop in pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce, and abortion: I’ll buy the gloves and men can go to work.

    This is why I hate the “white knight” label. Knights don’t put up with such nonsense, nor do they just stand around tsk-ing at the sluts as they howl in pleasure at being passed around by the players and the stoners and the Jodies who populate the sexually active quadrant of America. Meanwhile, the losers are off masturbating in the corner; some over porn, some over Xbox, and some over their puffed-up sense of self-righteousness that they are above such visceral things.

    The sluts and cads don’t think your sister and daughter are above such things, John. They are evangelizing to them with all their might. Stop dealing in the false dichotomies that equates all violence. Stop throwing up and knocking down straw men to make yourself feel good about passivity in the face of barbaric amazonian hordes, and the would-be usurpers who lead them.

    Wake up, you sleeper!

  • Mike T says:

    John,

    Loosening those proscriptions will result in more women getting beaten, and not all of them are sluts and whores, and some may be saints.

    Again, this is not about changing values to make us more laissez faire on hitting women or anything else like that. It’s about the fact that in a society which holds up strength, toughness, assertiveness, etc. as masculine ideals that some men will inherently incorporate into that a greater willingness to apply those things in less than desirable ways against women. Once again, this is not about teaching men anything about the permissibility of hitting women, but rather that (for lack of a better way of describing it) some of those memes about masculinity in such a society will “mutate” in some men into a greater capacity to hurt women. In most men, they won’t. Some men will have a personality that, combined with social ideals about strength, toughness, assertiveness, aggressiveness, etc. will translate into a capacity for abusiveness.

    Furthermore, I have never once insinuated that most women are sluts and whores. What I said was that women are no more saintly or less fallen than men by nature. That means that the victim-victimizer cultural Marxist claptrap we hear about male-female dynamics is axiomatically a load of crap. There are plenty of women out there who are as nasty, coarse and even downright evil as their male counterparts.

    It’s possible this is the right thing to do anyway, but we need to be realistic about what we’re advocating. There is collateral damage to all policies. In some cases it’s worthwhile, but we have to honestly confront the cost.

    That is precisely what I have been trying to tell you, namely that whatever ideals of masculinity society promotes will come with their own set of problems.

  • Svar says:

    Let’s see what TJF has to say on the matter:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/10/04/the-wrongs-of-womens-rights-iii-violence/

    “There is something unmanly about beating women, unmanly and sickening.”

    How true! Hitting women doesn’t make you cool or masculine. It makes you a prick. Read the article to see what happens to men who beat their wives in a traditional society. John is right; most men will not stand to see their daughters or their sisters being beaten.

  • Mike T says:

    How true! Hitting women doesn’t make you cool or masculine. It makes you a prick.

    No one ever said it did, troll.

    Read the article to see what happens to men who beat their wives in a traditional society.

    In a traditional society, if a woman did half of the things that a large minority American women often do to their husbands their father would not lift a finger in their defense if all he did was give her the back of his hand.

  • I do think people are missing Mike T’s point. His point (AFAICT) is that giving masculine traits a freer rein generally will have the BAD EFFECT of increasing, statistically, violence against women.

    I’m not sure I agree with the point – I think it is just as possible that women would be safer from violence in more masculine societies for precisely the reasons Svar and John give – but it seems a wildly unfair reading, to me, to suggest that anyone in this discussion would defend the proposition that violence against women is manly.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    I’m not sure I agree with the point – I think it is just as possible that women would be safer from violence in more masculine societies for precisely the reasons Svar and John give – but it seems a wildly unfair reading, to me, to suggest that anyone in this discussion would defend the proposition that violence against women is manly.

    Bingo. The men who espouse the manfully aggressive ideals of John and Svar rarely live up to them when the time comes. (Not to say they themselves wouldn’t–that’s just my experience.) Their aversion to violence is usually revealed to be whole, and not merely focused. When the time for physical defense comes, there’s always a “godly reason” to avoid it that they can evoke, Saullike.

    That’s the best case scenario. The worst case is when they become what they hate, or implode entirely. You can do a Google News search for “father murder-suicide” and get a daily toll.

    The swordsman can confidently wield the flat of the blade as well as the edge, but the peasant just swings in rage.

  • johnmcg says:

    Are you seriously going to contend that the situation the adulteress faced in Jesus’ era is the same as the era we live in?

    I think the story is in the Gospel for a reason, and cannot simply be waved off by saying times are different now. The story squarely addresses the question of how men should respond to the reality of immoral behavior from women.

    It may not be the final word on the subject; it may require more than a surface analysis, but it is simply false to claim that the Gospels offers no guidance on how men should respond to immoral behavior from women, or that this guidance is something other than against violence.

    If we are going to ignore this based on times being different, we may as well just throw away our Bibles, because we can play this game with anything.

    I’m quite sure a wife wanting to escape the Biblical command of wifely submission could launch a similar case that Paul was addressing a particular community at a particular time that is vastly different from 21st Century America.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    I think the story is in the Gospel for a reason, and cannot simply be waved off by saying times are different now.

    I am the last person to say times are different.

    You’re fundamentally misunderstanding me. I’m saying you are referencing the wrong bloody event because you think the issue is how to deal with an adulterous woman, or at least you think that’s what I’m talking about.

    This is about dealing with a person who is so lost in her passions and wayward thinking that only the physical can break through the fog. The adulterous woman brought Jesus is not that person. The money-changers are those people, lost in their sin–and they got the whip. I’m of the opinion that the moneychangers were thrown out for their own good, more than the good of the people being cheated.

    You seem think I advocate lashing out in response to the worst crimes, but I’m talking about meeting smaller cimes–the baby steps before adultery–with smaller consequences; among the useful might be a slap. Might. Again, it’s always a bad idea to correct with anger, but that doesn’t mean that it’s always and ever wrong to correct people, even women, corporeally. As ZC said, it’s rare–but for those who can’t even contemplate it, they’ve already lost the battle because their passions are weak.

  • James K. says:

    You know, most of those clips were from obscure old movies that I didn’t recognize, but from the general atmosphere of them, I think many of the men were SUPPOSED to be villains. To take one of the few I did recognize – are we really supposed to consider Michael Corleone to be a great guy? (Although it is true that in that scene, his wife has confessed to one of the most heinous of sins.)

  • Mike T says:

    I do think people are missing Mike T’s point. His point (AFAICT) is that giving masculine traits a freer rein generally will have the BAD EFFECT of increasing, statistically, violence against women.

    Thanks, Zippy. That’s exactly what I have been trying to say to John, Svar, etc. (That and that if we push for an ideal that goes in a nearly opposite direction, similar to what we have today, we end up with a lot of weak, cowardly men with no chests that leave women in an equal but different lurch).

    I think the story is in the Gospel for a reason, and cannot simply be waved off by saying times are different now. The story squarely addresses the question of how men should respond to the reality of immoral behavior from women.

    That story provides no such thing. It is nothing more than Jesus, as He did with the Pharisees over the coin with Caesar’s image, rebuking the Pharisees for attempting to use the Law as a weapon against Him.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @James

    I didn’t mean it as an instructional video.

    It shows what a sissified society we have become. It’s not unrelated that the implicit ban on slapping women in cinema occurred at the same time as the rise of gratuitous sex in film. Since the late 70s it’s something only bad guys and comedians do.

    Women slapping women, men slapping men, and women slapping men are still going strong, though. No one minds.

  • […] in order to take the subject seriously, and that is what the last few posts (here, here, here, here, and here) have been […]

  • […] Hypergamy is a real phenomenon with real consequences.  The standard issue androsphere explanations for it are probably wrong, steeped as they are in the materialist religion of modernity. […]

  • […] are the men who are most visible to women.  The great majority of men are in a very real sense invisible to women.  When women look at men they see a stereotype, and that stereotype is skewed toward the Alpha […]

  • J.W. says:

    As a woman, I just don’t get how this hypergamy is some sort of epiphany. Attractive women probably want attractive men. Men value physical attributes and women often-times value other ‘attractive’ attributes in men. So if you’re the pimply male nerd with the big nose in college, your probably going to find that the pimply nerd girls with the big noses will be the only ones interested in you. You’re not getting the sorority chicks. Doesn’t that make sense? You describe the men in the green zone as being the vast majority of men – yet you’re not describing the whole population of available women, you’ve only selected the physically desirable women (young, pretty, fit, thin). Let’s compare apples to apples here.

    My advise would be to quit staring at the 7-8-9 and start looking at the 4-5-6’s if that’s what you are. Nothing wrong with dating the ugly fat girl if you’re the ugly fat guy (especially if you don’t have any of the other non-physical attractive traits). Actually, I feel worse for the ugly girls than I do for the ugly guys. At least the ugly guys can be evaluated mainly on their non-physical attributes. For women, the judgment is almost solely on how they look.

  • Zippy says:

    J.W.:
    You describe the men in the green zone as being the vast majority of men – yet you’re not describing the whole population of available women, you’ve only selected the physically desirable women (young, pretty, fit, thin). Let’s compare apples to apples here.

    Setting aside the question of how well the theory corresponds to reality, I obviously haven’t adequately communicated the content of the theory to you.

    Lets set aside the “bottom 20%” or so of both men and women.

    The theory says that the top 20% of men are more than willing to shower sexual attention on (say) the top 60% of women[1]. That doesn’t mean that the average male 9 is generally willing to marry or commit to the average female 6: just that he is willing to give her sexual attention.

    This results in a situation where most young women find it relatively easy to attract sexual attention “above their marriage grade”, if you will. They become accustomed to finding the men actually in their marriage grade unattractive.

    There is a kind of corresponding male behavior: a mirror image graphic of sorts could be drawn. But the key difference is found in the fact (goes the theory) that women are the gatekeepers of sexual attention, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment and provisioning.

    So attractive women are willing to accept providing attention from less attractive men, while rejecting their sexual attention[2]. Attractive men, on the other hand, are willing to accept sexual attention from less attractive women while rejecting commitment to those less attractive women.

    This results in a very dysfunctional dynamic, especially as virginity-at-marriage become almost nonexistent. Women become accustomed to sleeping with men who would never marry them; they find the men who are willing to marry them unattractive. Even when a woman has managed to stay chaste, she has become accustomed to getting male sexual attention well above her marriage grade.

    That is the theory, at any rate.

    [1] However you slice the gradients. For the sake of simplicity my graphic only shows a single slice of what is actually a set of multidimensional gradients. The ‘picture’ viewed from the point of view of an average male 9 and an average female 6 will look different from the picture viewed from the perspective of an average male 7 and an average female 4; but the relative shapes of everything, and the intersexual dynamic it generates, remain more or less how I’ve drawn it.

    [2] The men who “orbit” a woman who is not interested in them sexually, but who nevertheless accepts their gifts, favors, and other provisioning behaviors, are called “beta orbiters”. The women who sleep with men from whom they cannot first extract a marriage commitment are called “sluts”.

  • […] theory of hypergamy proposes that the top (say) 20-ish percent of men are more than willing to shower sexual attention […]

  • JW says:

    Does this actually play out in reality? I don’t believe so. I actually believe that there are far, far more physically attractive women than there are men. So, let’s say that society dictates that a reasonably savvy young woman “takes care of herself” — Her natural beauty is probably a 6, but due to cosmetics, tanning, hair treatments, and clothing her societal attractiveness is kicked up to an 8. What does her counterpart male “6” do to improve his societal attractiveness? Not much. Women see it. Men are pretty clear (especially in the manosphere) that they singularly value women for sex. What they don’t seem to get is that sex isn’t the end all be all for women. Sure. Women enjoy sexual attention. We enjoy sexual attention from those we find sexually attractive (and that’s not just physical, as it largely is for a man). But men are missing the point. Men seem to be upset that women are getting sexed up by attractive men when the normal guy hangs along the sidelines and then after getting sexed up by an attractive man (men) settling down with an average man. Let’s tell the truth, though. The average men are jealous. If the roles were reversed, they’d be having even more sex with more women than women are doing now.They’d all be as slutty as they possibly could be because for them sex is the ultimate God. They’re not angry because women are sleeping with men, they’re angry because it’s not them who are getting the sex. And they’re even more angry because they have bought into the notion that they “deserve” a virginal “8” who wants nothing more than to marry a “7” and stay home serving him and calling him “master”. I’m not sure who sold them this complete line of crap (probably the evangelical church), but it’s set them up for a world of hurt. The Beta’s are hanging around the 7,8,9 in the hope of being noticed, when they should be wooing a 6. Instead they’re angry because they were “promised” an 8. I feel bad for all of us, to tell the truth. Good girls were told that if they remained pure and married a good christian man, everything would be okay. Instead, they get stuck with a pornified marriage where they’re not “sexy” enough and their husband is still “looking” for the next best thing (even if it’s only in his mind). Guys are told that they need a demure virgin who, once married, will become their very own porn star and be content to serve them for 60 years. Then, when, ten years into the marriage, their wife no longer wants to play the role of not-sexy-enough-servant and packs her bags; he’s left all devestated. No one told him he’d actually have to be faithful to his wife — he gets to oggle, porn it up, and demand sex (as if that’s the only thing in life that’s important) and his wife is supposed to be his servant. The whole thing is messed up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Hypergamy at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: