[cardguy]

Ok. I am confused by something.

It seems alot of guys use the word hypergamous as if it didn't apply to them as well. It is pretty simple...

A girls 'status' is based around her looks. As such - all guys would pass over a 7 to get to a 9 and so on.

Whereas a guys 'status' is based on a number of things. But usually revolves around success, wealth or fame. As such - all girls would pass over a D-list celebrity to be with an A-list celebrity.

So - is it time we dropped the use of the word hypergamous? Since it is just a fancy way of describing how judgmental a girl can be when comparing the status of one guy with another. But the same applies to men as well when comparing the appearances (ie status) of girls.

Or am I missing something? Maybe it is that girls can only truly love a gut who is of a higher status than any guy she has being with before. Whereas a guy could still love a girl even if he has made out with hotter ones in the past? In that sense a girl can be 'ruined' by being with a high status guy. Whereas a guy is not ruined by a night with a hot girl. He can still find girls who are less hot to be sexy...

Is this what people are getting at when they use the word 'hypergamous'?

[ghostdog]

hypergamy is how a woman selects a mate due to his status, alphaness etc. If she has a husband but finds someone more alpha than the husband and has sex with him, she will no longer be attracted to her husband. it's basically as hardwired into them as being attracted to youth and fertility is crucial to us. Getting mad at it is pointless. you might as well be mad at the orbits of the planets. We aren't dating grannies with cobweb uteruses, and they aren't attracted to effeminate, weak men. I'm kind of confused about whether the manosphere wants to stop hypergamy or to learn how to use it to their favor. Stopping hypergamy is pretty stupid. Imagine yourself as a woman. You would obviously want your sons to be able to seduce women, and you would want a partner who could support you and most importantly defend you. You also don't have much time to find such a person.

[Therapsid]

You're missing the key distinction.

A man, given the opportunity, will establish for himself a harem of attractive women. At the extreme, a man could have a vast stable of hundreds of beautiful and seductive women. This is what kings and emperors throughout history did, whether these women were called wives, concubines, or mistresses.

A woman, given the opportunity, will jump from beta to lesser alpha to greater alpha to alpha to end all alphas. But they'll normally abandon the previous mate, instead of accumulating them like men like to do, when given the chance. The only exception is when a woman wants a provider and an alpha male and cannot find them in the same person, but even then we're talking about just two men.

The corollary is that even an alpha who happens to be married but has affairs with more attractive women may stay with his wife out of a sense of loyalty. A woman who has access to men of significantly higher SMV will be much less likely to stay in a marriage she's unhappy in, given our no-fault no-stigma divorce culture.

[cardguy]

Intelligent responses there. Thanks. You have helped frame my question (and answer it) better than I ever could.

Still - I just wish men wouldn't get angry at women for being hypergamous.

To me that is like a girl getting angry at guys for wanting to sleep with hot girls. Just accept it and deal with it.

[ghostdog]

(01-02-2013 08:39 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

You're missing the key distinction.

The corollary is that even an alpha who happens to be married but has affairs with more attractive women may stay with his wife out of a sense of loyalty.

Shouldn't the man give up his temptation though? The two parties agree to curb their nature for the mental health of the children.

[Therapsid]

(01-02-2013 08:47 AM)ghostdog Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 08:39 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

You're missing the key distinction.

The corollary is that even an alpha who happens to be married but has affairs with more attractive women may stay with his wife out of a sense of loyalty.

Shouldn't the man give up his temptation though? The two parties agree to curb their nature for the mental health of the children.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that he's acting morally. Ideally, yes both should agree to curb their nature. In reality, we need society to help the majority of people do that, but we've gone ahead and systematically removed much of the stigma of affairs, separation, and divorce, especially but not only in certain demographics.

Having said all that, I do believe a woman who has affairs in a marriage is committing a far more grievous act. For the reasons I stated - she'll be much more likely to break up her family as a result of finding a better guy. Or if she stays, there's the risk of raising another man's kid. This is why most societies have viewed female adultery as a worse crime than a man having a mistress.

[Ryre]

To me, the reason the concept is important is because, while it is common knowledge that men chase attractive women, society perceives women's motives as more pure. So it gives the lie to the idea that men are chasing shallow things while women are looking for love.

It also explains why successful women with demanding careers, instead of marrying a man with a less-demanding job who can keep the home fires burning, instead prefer even more successful men. I recall reading a study of doctors-in-training that found that the women preferred to date a fellow doctor of even higher status, e.g. a surgeon or specialist. This despite the fact that as future m.d.'s, they could make plenty of money themselves; the mating preference wasn't for economic reasons. The men, by contrast, were perfectly happy dating the nursing students.

[cardguy]

Yeah - I am starting to think my original post was a bit stupid. Since the concept of hypergamy is very useful in many different ways.

I read recently that the reason the gap between rich and poor in the west has widened over the past 30 years is because of women entering the workforce. As a result of this - women have increased their wealth and job prospects.

But in doing so - the different classes have stratified and separated. Since woman's hypergamy results in larger concentrations of wealth (when a successful woman marries a successful man) than before when a housewife would be happy marrying most men who had a secure (even if unexciting) job.

Another one of those left-liberal policies which has ironically worked against their goal of creating a more equal society.

I am sure it was in one of the manosphere blogs that I came across this. I would be interested in hearing more about this point of view since it is an ingenious take on social mobility.

Cardguy

[teh_skeeze]

(01-02-2013 03:04 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I read recently that the reason the gap between rich and poor in the west has widened over the past 30 years is because of women entering the workforce. As a result of this - women have increased their wealth and job prospects.

But in doing so - the different classes have stratified and separated. Since woman's hypergamy results in larger concentrations of wealth (when a successful woman marries a successful man) than before when a housewife would be happy marrying most men who had a secure (even if unexciting) job.

Women entering the workforce isn't the reason that the gap has widened. It's just compounding the problem. The reason the gap has widened so much is because globalization and free trade. American workers are too expensive in the global market. It's why Donald Trump said that he would put a double digit tariff on Chinese goods. The powers that be don't give a shit because they are the ones profiting off of it.

We live in a so called capitalist society. In order to be a capitalist, you need capital. When you are starting near the bottom, and the jobs that fit your skill set are sent overseas, you are pretty well fucked. Not everyone has the capabilities needed to figure it out for themselves.

I think secure is a better word to use than happy. Happy is the reason everything has gone to shit. I feel that most here think of 1950s America when they speak of the "golden age" of marriage. You had rapid economic growth during the 50s and 60s. Oddly enough, it was this economic growth along with all the fancy new gadgets for the home that sowed the seeds for what we see today. It's not enough to put a roof over her head, food on her plate, and clothes on her back. She can provide that for herself.

This is why game is so important. Since women technically don't need a man for basic security, you no longer need to play the part of provider. Being able to provide always helps, but if you can wrap her up in a fantasy that you are selling for a few hours you'll be having more sex than the married chumps. Hypergamy only applies to marriage and LTRs.

[MattW]

From F Roger Devlin's "Sexual Utopia in Power":

"It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of male conservatives: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like six sex partners over the next year, and eight over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.” Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best."

[cardguy]

Interesting take on the subject here:

http://mattforney.com/2012/11/29/why-doe...ss-us-off/

Still - I am prepared to accept hypergamy for what it is. It is just part of tha game.

Play or be played.

[TheMan]

(01-03-2013 02:38 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Still - I am prepared to accept hypergamy for what it is. It is just part of tha game.

Play or be played.

exactly.

given the chance, fire will consume your flesh and it's very breath will, enter your lungs and choke the life out of you from the inside out.
but dig a small pit in the dirt and surround it with stones, control it's nourishment and it will give you light, keep you warm, save your life.

hypergamy is just a force of nature.
it is our responsibility to master it, and the other forces like it and use them to our advantage.
just like our fathers before us.

but never disrespect it [downplay as nothing it or forget what it is capable of], or just like an unattended fire it will bring the forest down around you.