Hypergamy: social-behavioral concepts
October 15, 2012 § 17 Comments
I’ve been writing a series of posts taking a look at the “manosphere” 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 “Game”, in descriptive terms. Before we can come to grips with Game itself we have to layer a model of social/behavioural tendencies on top of the basic theory. Keep in mind that I’m not particularly interested in whether or not Game is useful to modernity’s sexual garbage collector, the pickup artist (PUA). I’m interested in whether, underneath the rather plastic label “Game”, there are any basic complementarity-of-the-sexes truths of interest to Christian men and women. That makes marriage integral to the analysis.
The first thing to be said here is that we are discussing social tendencies. Both the word “social” and the word “tendency” are indispensable. With respect to the former, it is important to point out that these are not implied (by me) to be universal tendencies in all women all the time; rather, they represent aggregate tendencies like “most people seem to like sweets”. In fact a substantial number of people do not like sweets. This disclaimer is represented in manosphere discourse by the acronym NAWALT, meaning Not All Women Are Like That. Despite the disclaimer many men in the jackassosphere, my nickname for manosphere comboxes, seem to think of these tendencies as iron rules; or at least to write their posts as if they were iron rules. This is exacerbated by the determinism implicit in the evolutionary psychology (hereafter evo-psych) “frame” with which many manosphere commenters seem rather taken. Any long term reader knows that I have my issues with evo-think in general; and adding “psych” into the mix turns the tommyrot meter into a fan strong enough to keep a Virginia mansion cool in August. That’s my “frame” and I’m sticking to it.
Furthermore, the tendency to say “NAWALT” with one face while invoking biological determinism with the other is just a way of denying women moral agency. If y’all want to jump off that cliff you can have a ball; but make sure you’ve got your chute packed right and count me out, ’cause I’m just gonna laugh at you as you bounce off the cliffside on the way down. Women are moral agents just as much as men, and are at least as intrinsically capable of introspection and self-control, in general, as men. I’m not going to let any man or woman off the hook for their choices by invoking evolution or implicitly assuming determinism.
But I believe in trying to extract the best from any group rather than treating the worst as representative; so NAWALT is an important limiting principle to keep in mind. At the same time, from the fact that NAWALT it cannot be deduced that the tendencies described are unreal, insignificant, etc. The key lesson from the disclaimer isn’t “don’t take manosphere claims seriously”; it is “don’t take manosphere claims personally.” In order to take manosphere claims seriously one also must take the NAWALT disclaimer seriously.
Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, one of the first things to keep in mind is that at least in modern conditions, the Beta himisphere tends to be composed of more steady, reliable men than the Alpha himisphere. This sets up a kind of paradox: the men that young women find themselves the most attracted to are men who are not likely to make good providers for the long term, and who most likely would never settle down with her anyway.
When our Pocahontas is young and free, out “dating” and getting her feminist merit badge (a degree and a career), she is using up her marriage capital in more ways than one. In the meantime, the nice guy she will eventually marry can’t get a date: he may be her “Beta Orbiter” friend, but she is not interested in him romantically. He sits on the other side of an impenetrable “LJBF” wall of her making. Meanwhile she “dates” and bonds to the alpha males that she finds attractive, who are just using her with no intention of ever marrying her. Often enough she is perfectly aware that this is what she is doing: she understands that “bad boys” are for fun, and she will “settle down” later if that’s what she decides to do. A nice prince will come and carry her away when the time comes; life is good, and her decisions are validated by just about everyone around her.
Then she crashes violently into that wall she built to keep out the nice guys. Rather suddenly even men she isn’t really attracted to, but who are good long term provider prospects, aren’t as interested in her. Still, if she plays her cards right she hopes to land a good Beta provider when the time is right. She spends her time with her nice-guy husband as an “alpha widow”, pining away in her own thoughts for the men she has been with who truly excited her at the time, but who would never have married her. As the years of being married to someone she isn’t attracted to grind on she eventually realizes that she is very unhappy, divorces him, and pursues an “Eat, Pray, Love” fantasy. Everything about the modern world supports her in this decision, including her Christian friends.
This is the basic narrative: hopefully I haven’t left anything crucial out. It is in this social context that the specific prescriptions of Game are said to be useful to Christian men.
Zippy: what app are you using to create those graphics? If, that is, you are the one creating them?
It is just an old version of PowerPoint.
Ah. I know nothing of PowerPoint’s capabilities. No wonder it looked so cool.
One hazard of getting an MBA is an uncomfortable familiarity with PowerPoint, I’m afraid; a chronic familiarity from which it is difficult to recover, even with lengthy abstentions.
[…] Catholic: Saint Compromise; The Function of Universal-Suffrage Democratic Elections; Hypergamy; Hypergamy: social-behavioral concepts; It’s all Greek to me; Elections and Social […]
So the benefit for the Christian male is to use Game to find a NAWALT?
I haven’t peeled the onion all the way to Game yet; I’m still working on background. I don’t know what I think of it myself.
I think this is rather accurate, sadly. I’m not sure if it qualifies me as a NAWALT or not, but the reason I didn’t fall into the sad end of this trap is I got over my attraction to Alpha males by the age of 17, found a Beta male I’m actually in love with/attracted to, married him in my early 20’s and am currently living happily ever after.
[…] to take the subject seriously, and that is what the last few posts (here, here, here, here, and here) have been […]
[…] underdetermines theory choice, I’ll further observe that the materialist explanation of hypergamy and its social implications as the consequences of a hard wired evolutionary imperative has […]
[…] is a real phenomenon with real consequences. The standard issue androsphere explanations for it are probably wrong, steeped as they are in […]
[…] to – is that from an intersexual behavior standpoint, the male equivalent of a slut is the beta orbiter. Modernity has turned sexuality into a buffet: what used to be a loving commitment for life to a […]
[…] the ideas of “alpha” and “beta”. The hypergamy model predisposes us to think of them as absolute categories; but most of the time […]
[…] an intersexual behavior standpoint, the male equivalent of a slut is the beta orbiter. Modernity has turned sexuality into a buffet: what used to be a loving commitment for life to a […]
I have always been somewhat amused by the “alpha” or “beta” designations that are assigned to men in Western nations. Such social theories are fundamentally (and fatally) flawed in that they lie on the defective foundation of Western female sexual preferences. A form of sexual Stockholm Syndrome, for lack of a better term.
What the “experts” and “leaders” of the online MRM fail to comprehend is that an “alpha” in American society would most likely be soundly rejected by most women in Russia or other Eastern European nations. I have seen it first hand. The girls in Ukraine have the same cultural placement designations for unstable and unreliable guys we call “alphas”, and such men are relegated to “hooking up” with the lower quality girls e.g young, stupid, uneducated.
A man that is emotionally and financially stable is aggressively pursued by women on the higher end of the quality scale. Again, I speak from first hand experience. I had my pick of the litter, and I chose the best girl possible. That said, my statements should not be misinterpreted as a denunciation of NAWALT, because I do believe that 90% of the worlds women are not worth marrying. But I think we would all do better by not measuring, or allowing ourselves to be measured, by the American female yardstick.
[…] the social contract theory between men and women, or hypergamy in-depth, because these good folks do it so much better. Check them out, I insist. Then come back here, and the rest of this will make […]
[…] of the things that constantly comes up is that, because men and women are different, the kind of immoral sexual stimulation available to women differs from the kind of immoral sexual […]