Hypergamy: a woman’s natural preference for a male that is of higher status than other men and also higher status than herself.
Among the wide range of relationships that most societies practiced throughout the history of man, monogamy has been one of the most popular, but anthropological research suggests that it has only been around for a few thousands of years. Back in the stone ages, when hunter-gatherer tribes populated the world, monogamy didn’t exist. Polygyny (the practice of having more than one wife at one time) was one of the most common forms of male-female association. Homo Sapien men naturally surrendered to their polygamous nature. The evidence of the existence of marriage of a single male to multiple females has been present in all human cultures through man’s history.
The Benefits of Polygamy
Intensive polygamy by wealthy, powerful males seems to be an optimal male reproductive strategy, as powerful males are able to control very large numbers of females. But the reality is, polygamy is a high stakes reproductive game for men, with some men winning big (alphas) and others losing big (betas). Stakes are pretty high for women as well. Females must invest greatly in reproduction – pregnancy, lactation, and often childcare that required an extraordinary amount of resources and time.
In short, polygamy actually advantages some men over other men, and some women over other women. Only a minority can achieve it. It’s a less exaggerated form of “winner takes all” that some species employ (like cattle, lions, or wolves where there is only one reproductively successful male in a group).
How Did These Societies Turn to Monogamy
First, we should differentiate ecologically-imposed monogamy from socially-imposed monogamy. Ecologically imposed monogamy is usually found in societies that have been forced to adapt to very harsh environments, such as deserts, arctic regions or other adverse climates. The first Homo Sapien tribes that came to Europe established their settlements in the North Eurasian area. These populations were hunters and gatherers, not farmers. In such climates there was considerable pressure for male provisioning of the family. Hunting required experience and years of intensive practice. In other words, it required high-investment parenting. It also required intelligence because the hunting scenario is complex and ever changing.
Under such harsh conditions, it is impossible for males to control a great number of females, and women and their children would require a more committed provisioning from a male. If these conditions persisted for an evolutionarily significant period of time, one might expect to find that the population develops a more equal contribution for each sex, involving beta males into marriage, suggesting a tendency toward monogamy. This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. Under ecologically adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed at coping with the adverse physical environment.
In short, the “Homo Sapiens” survived and prospered while other Hominids (Neanderthals and Homo Erectus) became extinct. It’s not a coincidence that the rise of monogamy matches in time with the agricultural revolution. Many anthropologists consider this point in time to coincide with the rise of civilization, the remarkable transformation of human beings from hunters-gatherers to farmers.
The Rise of the Nuclear Family
The roots of the nuclear family can be traced back to the pre-industrial era, to the “Simple Household.” Due to shorter life expectancy and high mortality rates in the pre-industrialized world, the survival of a family depended on having a big family that could work on the farmland and how well it organized and utilized its resources. The pre-industrial family was the critical vehicle of Western modernization. Post-industrial families became more private, nuclear and based on the emotional bonding between husband and wife, parents and children.
Despite the preference for polygamy in primitive societies, the institution of monogamy diligently suppressed one of the strongest instincts in humans and led to the creation of the nuclear family model that was so common during the first half of the 20th century, providing welfare, comfort and stability to husband, wife and children.
The Broken Gender Social Contract
At the beginning of the 21st century, the situation changed dramatically. There are several indicators that the working social contract between the sexes that served men and women for many centuries has broken. With divorce rates skyrocketing (as high as 70 per cent in some cases), marriages rapidly decreasing and fewer men committing to marriage, the destruction of the nuclear family’s structure seems evident. Almost half of all new-born babies are entering into the world without a full nuclear family in place.
One of latest growing trends is co-parenting. Two independent persons, with no affiliation whatsoever, are coming together for the sole purpose of having a child. A child raised outside family environment. Pet style parenting—the family of the future.
The war against the family has been a regular feature of recent history. Few, if any seemed to have grasped the casualties.
Hypergamy Becomes Unchained
The induced monogamy that has prevailed for centuries and which assured a supply of females to every non-alpha male is long gone. A hypergamous fire has been raging across the world for almost 50 years, since the second wave of feminism in the 1960s. Whereas in an earlier time, the natural instincts of men and women were controlled and channeled properly into marriage, today there is no such cultural/societal barrier, which has led to widespread promiscuity and sexual adventure. Furthermore, the development of technology and proliferation of social media and smartphones have fueled this fire.
The Candy Store Effect
The constant bombardment by society, a culture that pedestalizes women while undervaluing men, and the proliferation of smartphones and social networks (WhatsApp, Facebook, Badoo), has caused women to give in to their hypergamous natures. It has created a “Candy Store Effect” for women, whereas basically tons of males are available within a tip of a fingers reach. This results in overconfident, deluded women (in regard to their true Sexual Market Value) who are invited to ride the carousel in their prime years, prejudice and guilt free.
Hypergamy vs. Men
For a man, there is little or no guarantee that a woman will stay faithful during the course of the relationship and won’t “upgrade” him for a higher status male. This combined with divorce laws that marginalize and crush men, is reducing the flow of men that are willing to commit to marriage, increasing the number of men who prefer short flings and one night stands.
In addition, feminism and careerism is causing women to look for a man to settle long after their biological prime. Today’s women spend their youth partying, studying and working. When the time comes and they decide to settle, it may already be too late. This is because women’s “shelf-life” clashes with men’s biological instincts which are naturally inclined to mate with younger women.
The Age Of The Beta Male Is Over
Women have not been taught the dangers of constantly seeking a better man. Hypergamy is as equally destructive to civilized society as polygamy. Both are destructive to civilization because they both leave non-alphas (“the foundation of society”) and women with few prospects for a happy marriage. Neither polygamy nor hypergamy encourage loyalty and contentment with one’s spouse; they both demand either “better” or “more,” and nothing else. As the relationship between the sexes goes down the drain, so does civilization.
Conclusion
The idea of the decline of civilization has been the object of much debate and speculation over the years. Civilization as we know it is a complex system created by man that is very much like natural ecosystems which exist in a state of delicate balance. In order for a society to function and prosper, an overwhelming majority have to have a stake in the present and hope for the future. The biology of men and women does not take into account the creation of civilization, only the survival of our genes. Should a man not have a wife or a genetic legacy, he will feel little compulsion to work for the good of the community. Should a woman not have a husband or children, she will become depressed, bitter, and most likely poor. The civilizing effects of the doctrine of monogamy are abundantly clear: for peaceful societies to exist, both sexes must have a stake in it, and when they don’t, society fragments and eventually fractures.
The question now is, can we still fix things or has humanity reached a point of no return.
Read More: Decreasing Marriage Rate Is Hurting Feminism
Amen to that!
Amen to that!
Amen to that!
Amen to that!
Amen to that!
Educate others to save it all.
BUT, make sure to pillage at the same time, so as to hedge your bet.
Educate others to save it all.
BUT, make sure to pillage at the same time, so as to hedge your bet.
Educate others to save it all.
BUT, make sure to pillage at the same time, so as to hedge your bet.
Point of no return!!!!
Fixing a problem begins with admitting the problem as a society. Since feminism (generally) has control of society, does anyone here think the hamsters wheel has come anywhere near this realisation?? And even if they started to think society was ending, it’s clearly misogyny that is causing it.
Government has the biggest cock of all. And the cash to go along with it. Until the fiat system goes belly up, nothing will change.
If you notice with the recent marathon bombing, the nation is not coming together. It’s splintering even further apart with many hoping that a white male or men were responsible. Believe me when I say white men are just the beginning and once the usefulness of other groups of men who they put against them is no longer needed, they’ll be treated the same. Right now everything that can be identified with white men is vilified. That of course will permeate to others when the time is right.
Which doesn’t seem likely to happen, now that it looks like the speculative bubble in gold has started to collapse. Don’t take financial advice from people who invoke Austrian economics, because they clearly don’t understand how money works in the modern world.
After rising from $300 to over $1,900 per ounce over the course of 12 years, there was a 2-day drop to $1,375, and on that basis alone, you are ready to proclaim all free-market economic analysis to be defunct and erroneous?
I never get tired of watching people contort themselves into believing what they already want to believe.
What do you have to say now?
There can be no feminism or hypergamy in a world without excess. Once the economy collapses and modern civilization as we know it starts to falter, women will have to make tight ties to their men for protection and provisions.
More correctly, they will have to make tight ties with those men capable of protecting and provisioning. Which, in dystopias like the current West, generally means government.
This is why we are seeing women championing laws that take stands against the regular men that would naturally be their husbands, and i favor of expanding the power of the thugband called the state.
IOW, the important thing is not for the economy to collapse, but for government to do so. Whether by bankruptcy or some nice, socially conscious Arab or Tim McVeigh wannabe decorating DC with Mushroom clouds, is pretty much irrelevant. All things that hurt government, helps civilization. And all things that help government, hurts civilization. Without any exceptions whatsoever.
Good stuff. Agreed.
Very astute.
The writers of the DOI understood this better than most I feel.
It is the state’s design to bring more power unto itself at the expense of personal liberty; and the citizens design to increase personal liberty at the expense of the state and everyone else.
I seriously doubt that Democracy will be replaced any time soon; though it fails every 250 years its seems?
Even if a beautiful mind does come along, and write up the math proving a more stable, and long lasting form of government, there is no guarantee people will do it with out being dragged kicking and screaming.
As much as I hate the state, I really like it when they come to find out who broke into my house and put them away.
Paradoxes, oxymoron’s, and conundrums; Oh my.
We have no idea how lucky we’ve been here, and how hard it was to make it this way. And you’re right about the nation not uniting after the Boston bombing. It’s nothing like 9/11.
Unless we turn it around, we’re headed straight to hell:
http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/the-blood-red-pill/
Yes, the white man is under attack; attacked using the full power of the state, which was used to attack black men during the Great Leap Forward (err… Great Anti-Father Welfare Society Social Experiment Using Live Humans). The powerful laws that have been used liberally against three generations of black men have been retargeted.
The machinery designed to silently grind up generations of men has been retuned and refocused. Now, all men can go to prison based on false allegations, or go to prison for losing their jobs, or lose their jobs for speaking out of turn, or speak out of turn by saying nothing at all.
Laws and machinery designed to turn men into “deadbeat dads” and turn their women against them; laws that deny them the right to impart masculine values to their sons and feminine values to their daughters; all have been amped up and given an additional targeting solution.
This is no longer a black man’s problem, nor is it a white man’s problem. It’s our sons’, our brothers’, our fathers’ problem. It’s our problem.
A Feminist gets some religion. From the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html
“By JUDITH E. GROSSMAN
I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.
But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.”
I guess feminism is now this feminist’s problem too.
No fucking foresight in women. They do decades of damage and only when the boomerang finally bonks them in the head do they care–meanwhile millions of lives never fulfilled their potential.
“…marathon bombing, the nation is not coming together.”
Well, at least there are some positive developments…..
Good post, too pessimist though. Hasty conclusion concerning the end of society.
I think we are at the point where we need to burn it all down and start anew. Our society is a virtual Disneyland of civilizations. No one has a grasp on reality anymore. Turn off electricity by that way the internet for about a month and see what society looks like after that. Walking Dead? Even worse.
This would be euthanasia. The term for the current society is “The Culture of Death”, and it is below replacement level. They USA is 2.1 on average, but the blue and red states differ.
Civilization will not end. What will happen is that the feminist population will be deplaced by muslims, chineese people, latins, etc. Nature waits for no one.
It’s popular to think that civilization is going to fall to the point of TEOTWAWKI, where we’ll all be in our mountain redoubts, living off hunting and gardening. More likely, the worst case scenario will be something like the Argentinian currency collapse in 2001, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. It could perhaps be as bad as the situation in Iraq when things were worst for ordinary citizens, in places like Fallujah.
However, most people will survive, and most will continue to work and pay for food, shelter, and clothing, at least at some sustainable level, even if they are no where near as well off as they had been before.
When things get bad, and the government no longer has the funds to maintain a welfare state, people will be motivated to provide for themselves, in many cases by resorting to crime and prostitution, but also in many cases by resorting to individual entrepreneurship. Eventually, the wheel of history will turn, and in 5-20 years, the bad times will be part of the past, and things will get back to normal.
I do think America will undergo a long term decline, and become more like the former great powers of Europe, and we will continue to see the percentage of whites in the population decline. However, I don’t think we’ll ever see a complete collapse of government, and a complete reset of society that will return us to marriage 1.0 for all. As long as birth control and abortion remain available, sex for pleasure will be decoupled from marriage and parenthood.
And why is this a bad thing? When you think about it, because society was arranged in terms of monogamy, that allowed the vast majority of men to reproduce, even the weak ones (betas). As a result, we have a society now full of retards, weaklings, etc.
If only the strong men were allowed to reproduce, like in nature, naturally the offspring would be strong also, and the human race could evolve as each generation becomes stronger than the next.
The Illuminati is correct- most people are useless eaters. They are completely worthless and contribute nothing to the human race. It would be better off if they were killed off, and only the strong survived, because then the strong genes would be passed down, and we’d have no more pathetic weakling betas reproducing and spreading their weakness, their disease.
So hypergamy is not a bad thing, in one sense.
You’re basically advocating the Hobbesian world in which life is “brutish, nasty, and short.”
Is a man who is short( 5’5),but buff,intelligent and good looking considered alpha or beta ?
Nothing can stop the 5’5- 5’8 man with a right mental attitude from being an alpha. Your attitude makes you alpha or beta, not your height.
Wasn’t that approximately Genghis’ height?
Jesus, stop overusing this alpha/beta schema. Yes, it’s useful for explaining hypergamy, but it’s not intended for you to use for yourself. Just use this rule of thumb: If you have to constantly ask yourself whether x or y or z is “alpha” or not, you’re not alpha. It’s as simple as that. Go lift, learn a martial art. Study stoicism. That’s like a huge chunk of alphaness that is “relatively easy” to obtain (given enough self-discipline to keep going). You may want to study Dark Triad traits as well. But let’s be real here for a minute: There is no clear, concise data about what attracts women except for: 1) Status: How you treat yourself, how others behave around you, how you behave around others and 2) honest, direct desire. Women nowadays have to deal with an overflow of information. Their vagina tingles caused by a potential “Alpha” aren’t very accurate. At best, they are caused by a person that in a SPECIFIC situation gives the IMPRESSION of being a person of “Alpha” status. Whether that is really the case or not doesn’t really show immediately. There are a shit ton of fake alphas out there, most commonly known is the “asshole type”, I imagine that could be the average ROK reader, negging the hoes a lot and viewing them as little more than sexual objects, thereby sub-communicating a false sense of higher status. I’m not criticizing that, I’m just saying that this person isn’t necessarily a true alpha. What is a true alpha then? Hard to say really, but I think we can all agree that the godfather is a good example for a true alpha. I’m not sure whether you can even become a true alpha without ever having killed anyone. I don’t mean this in a sadistic way or anything, but this act of killing seems to make something shift inside of a person. It just makes “click” and you either lose it (self-absorbed within your own guilt) or you grow from it. Hunting/butchering is probably as close as we can get to that nowadays.
Who is stronger, a low-IQ Muslim with AK-47s, or a high-IQ White controlling a squadron of drones from 1000s of kms away? Guns are the great equalizer. A beta with a gun >>> an alpha.
Betas with guns they are willing and able to use ARE alphas. Until dead guys start reproducing, armed guys’ targets are the betas..
…after 5 trips I can tell you that muslim culture has fuck-all to do with the alpha male. maybe it did a few thousand years ago when original sheikhs carved out their standing, but today the best and brightest get shit on in favor of some limp-wristed 2nd-cousin-of-some-sub-sheik’s adviser…its pretty fucked up.
Hitler had those ideas too.
Eugenics isn’t all bad just because one man used it for the wrong reasons. The guy does have a point but I’ll leave it at that
What exactly is it that determines a ‘weak man’? It sure as hell isn’t something like height. Pablo Escobar was 5’5″ but you wouldn’t know it from how feared he was and how people said he had a presence about him.
Tony Montana was played by a 5’6″ man but he’s THE man so nobody cares. What sets the weak apart from the strong iyo?
Furthermore, an illiterate 5’5″ cripple, with 7 armed sons, 5 armed brothers and 40 armed grandchildren, is infinitely more powerful than some barren cagefighter. Which is why the latter have a penchant for running and crying for massa gommiment’s help, to keep the former at bay.
strength can only be observed after the fact, because they aremerely sucessful or unsucessful responses to conditions, which cannot be predicted and which are always changing for one reason or another. one cannot predict what traits will become a strength. this is the main concept behind constant evolution. if strengths were set in stone, everything would strive to be the same. instead everything is different, and strange things thrive.
in nature, the strong (we can deduce that they were strong if they survive and reproduce and their offspring do so as well) survive and the weak die.
in a society that takes resources from everyone to prop up the weak, this does not occur, and the weak pollute the gene pool. but one could also deduce that coming up with this system is a strength the weak have found to survive. they changed the conditions and thrived, thus they are strong in the present contrived conditions.
now with the strong getting tired of it, the women giving themselves unfettered (by everything but their physical condition) access to their primal desires, the condition is once again beginning to favor the traditional strong. conditions change, and old strengths become strengths again. also, new strengths emerge. but as i said a strength cannot be identified until after it is excercised and demonstrated to be an advantage.
If we didn’t expend so much energy catering to the weak and helpless, they would be able to reproduce so readily and there wouldn’t even be any, or far fewer, useless bastards to kill off…we brought this on ourselves.
Betas are the foundation of society and the creators of everything you know in the physical world. Evolution is assumed to be a good thing.
Is it?
Why do you believe so?
Alphas hold back progress at every step in every generation through misallocation of resources and time – the scientific model is proof of that – no one outside of the science world uses this model – the most effective method for learning, advancement and progression to date. Survival transcends what you think you know about evolution. If weaklings and retards walk the earth it is because of the threatened men who make the social rules who deem it so – else society would naturally cancel them out. Since that is not the case, the “alphas” fear these types to gain a measure of power to rival their own – especially if they band together and multiply their effect exponentially. The strong don’t survive, they die alone quickly in the battle of their choosing.
white population are the most (or maybe the only) affected, others groups still have strong familiy values. the picture a see here is the rise of hispanic (mexico-americans) as majority lets see how the it goes for the others
Ur rite the white population lost its morals n values n now we see their decline.liberal sex resultin in declinin birth rates.virginal marrage at a young age prduces more kids. In 50yrs suddenly the decline has iccured.whts happening to whites n liberalism serves as a warning on wht free live does
This is true! When in my country I have problem because a women no wana be with me, they say “Roberto Vincente, why we wana getting in relationship with you? Si!” And so I tell them “Proque tengo un pene masivo! Si!” which mean “Because I am a wonderful person and have a great personality. Yes!” And then they wana getting with me and then we can making a family. Si!
i dont know dude. central american culture, especially coupled with anglo style female “liberation” creates one hell of a hypergamy shit tornado. i see people from mexico and latin america stay together and raise families, and ones that were born here or came here young are 10 times worse. especially the women. there is a deep seeded resentment men have for their fathers that goes back a long way for reasons i wont get into. then there is this cultural “mijo” thing where the women prize their sons and pamper them and “protect” them from their fathers. this of course leads to men raised almost entirely by their mothers.
add that with law that protects women from the consequences of their own actions… i banged a few that were married, their husbands were pussies. all of them. one was preggers. one wanted me to help her cuckold her husband i shit you not. i had a blast. i know one that has 1 kid and 2 baby daddies… do the math. i fucked her while i was dating her sister. i HAVE YET to meet a SINGLE latina female that gives two shits whether she has a boyfriend or not. we know all girls are willing to move up, but most broads at least need some plausable deniability to satisfy themselves. latin women raised here are fucking shameless about climbing the cock ladder.
i dont fuck with even the prettiest, nicest, sweetest 1st gen americans with latin ancestry without giving them a fake fucking name. they happen to be my favorite, so i pretty much have changed my name.
Have you all watched the documentary “Grinding America Down” yet? Highly recommended for anyone who cares about the disintegration of our country. This issue is featured heavily throughout.
Must watch!
Women have not been taught the dangers of constantly seeking a better man.
The problem is that the definition of “better” has been inverted. Hunter-gatherers need Alphas for protection and providing. Betas are an anomaly since they don’t have to be aggressive or physically strong to protect and provide.
The deep-dark thoughtless definition of “better” in a woman is the Alpha. The strongest, king of the hill, most aggressive male. It is not so much an illusion as out of context.
You complain about people being fat. Well the same deep desire is to worry about lack of food, and to store it on yourself at harvest time to get through a freezing winter when there might not be much firewood. Especially with carbs, but there is a natural tendency to eat anything NOW because you don’t know that next year there won’t be drought, crop failure, or other famine.
You would send fat women to prison – which would only be fair if they could practice self control, but I think I could make the case that Hypergamy itself is far more destructive. No prison for them? Before we REWARDED single-motherhood, the consequences were sufficient to prevent the behavior in most cases.
We have lost the idea of virtue (temperance, justice, prudence, and fortitude), as well as any training in self-control.
The two greatest virtues are know-thyself which makes one humble and meek (which don’t mean what you think – the first is based in truth, not self-deprecation, to say I can press 150# when I can do 150# but not 160#, the second means power under control), and self-control that insures reason will rule the passions – harness them, ride them like a strong, fast horse, not be dragged by them.
We have reason, but that needs exercise. We have free will, but it too needs exercise and needs to be informed by reason to side with it instead of the passions. The passions tend to run on their own power.
We aren’t just to suppress the instincts, we are given the responsibility to judge what our instincts are telling us v.s. what we can reason the consequences – immediate and long term – will be. And we decide. We still decide and are culpable and responsible if we are merely negligent since we are able to do so in most cases (not all, as we are fallen).
“The question now is, can we still fix things or has humanity reached a point of no return.”
“Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
Why would we want to fix something that was a raw deal when it was working and is past the point of saving by now?
When faced with the toxic combination of unrestrained crony capitalism, political correctness run amok, and feminism in its most poisonous form, the only response left for the average male not born with enormous wealth, movie looks or an excess of charisma is nihilism.
The whole rotten structure once known as modernity is collapsing under its own weight. Bets just get out of the way and watch it all fall down. Sit back, crack open a beer and watch the fireworks. Should be quite a show!
…Part of this article makes me think of sections of “Coming Apart”, by Charles Murray. It is a very good book. It discusses, among other things, the decline in marriage rates and work participation among men in the US and the relationship between those two things. Though, the decline is in the lower “educational” classes, which I assume he assumes is a proxy for intelligence. That is a useful clarification in all these discussions of overall cultural trends- to whom do they apply. Don’t just inspect population averages. The divorce trends in the US are hugely different by educational class. Other trends are, too, like obesity. … He thinks the “filtering” of smart people out of certain communities has aided the decline in marriage there. That’s not feminism’s fault. … Yet, it’s the cultural and educational Elite who promote ideas, laws, etc. that are probable culprits for the decline in the lives of these other people.
“Should a man not have a wife or a genetic legacy, he will feel little compulsion to work for the good of the community.” The arguments related to this are brought up in Coming Apart. It’s contentious, but an interesting idea. The huge decline in marriage and decline in male work productivity in the lower education classes may go together.
“Should a woman not have a husband or children, she will become depressed, bitter, and most likely poor.” That sounds questionable to me, but (I’m still talking about the same book, ya. Selling something that changed the way I think. Few books really move you … ) he presents data arguing that a happy marriage and satsfying work predict most of overall happiness- marriage moreso, if I recall correctly. Among other things, this is worthwhile food for thought for “career-minded women”, the relative contributions of marital and job satisfaction to their overall happiness, and the less talked about influence of the former … Lastly, interestingly, the most job-satisfied group of women were homemakers. But, that’s a self-selected group, so I wouldn’t generalize. I hate domestic shit. But it would be worthwhile for feminists to remember that being an activist or a lawyer isn’t everyone’s idea of a good life, and homemakers aren’t choosing the easier but less satisfying route for them.
Yes, Charles Murray’s book was fantastic. You can really see the decline in the lower 90% everywhere you look now. In DC it’s shocking: Obesity, bad clothing, tattoos everywhere. Complete dysgenic collapse. The rich hold out with normal lives while everyone else falls into a pit of decay.
On a related note, I am noticing more and more that young women who are out with men (and especially married to men) are generally out with really really good-looking guys. The cut-off line for who gets a relationship (in terms of male looks) with a quality woman in the US seems to have moved up quite a bit. Overseas looks are WAY less important.
I think it might be premature to extrapolate the trendline of lower class disintegration towards even worse social behavior. Higher class women are getting married and having children at a higher rate than middle and lower class women. All it takes is one anti-sex and the city to ratify the reality of upper class lifestyles and we might see a reversal of what Murray talked about.
The only people who benefit from monogamy are children and in many cases, women. People are always gonna have urges and if they can get it somewhere else, they will. It’s easy for women to cheat like it is for men but not quite. Especially if they have options and women can have options just by being into their 40s and 50s. The same does NOT work for men, that’s what money is for.
Anyway. women can call up a ‘friend’ and decide fucking him would be a good idea for that day and maybe that day only. It’s nothing. Not many men can do that but they can call a prostitute which would have the same effect anyway. He may have been paying the rent of a prostitute he called his gf or wife and now he gets one who’s just an upfront hoe, instead of one exploiting him and calling it ‘gender roles.’
Polygamy is what has enabled humans to increase their biological lifespan and their intelligence. The most intelligent as well as strongest and otherwise gifted men usually rise to the top of society where they have wealth and high status. In polygamous societies they can have more children than the less gifted. Since men can reproduce as long as they are healthy this also means that old men with wealth and status can continue to marry females of reproductive age.
Yes, I do think polygyny has to be allowed to some extent (it is now, de facto, anyway) to give men an incentive to over-produce. For example, in Islam, a man is allowed up to four wives, but it is rare for any one to have more than two.
Just to throw out some numbers, in a mini-society with 100 guys and 100 girls, you could have 80 monogamous couples, and 5 guys (the top 5%– software tycoons, basketball stars, RoK readers, etc. 😉 with two wives each. That makes 90 women that are taken and 10 that are “loose”, i.e. hookers, carousel riders, etc. The bottom 15 guys are out in the cold marriage-wise, but can probably score occasionally with the loose chicks. That would give a reasonable balance along with incentives for upward mobility.
I had a thought: Wouldn’t it be more accurate to describe the default modes of game by the two sexes as specifically “Hyperandry” and “Polygyny?”
I say this because technically, a man can be hypergamous by being hypergynous and selecting a hotter/younger mate over his current. Same can be said for a woman, she can be polygamous by being polyandrous and having many male mates simultaneously.
This may be nitpicking, but I thought it mattered enough to warrant a mention…
I’m not fixing shit. This was all totally predictable and they drank it down well and good.
Hypergamy: a woman’s natural preference for a male that is of higher
status than other men and also higher status than herself.
Based on what hierarchy? Many manosphere sites take for granted that
it is based on (in a feminized society, the easily counterfeited and imitated
behaviors indicating) social dominance.
Consider that the definition used is vital to the integrity
and predictive power of the model. This definition seems to consider female
sexuality as taking place in a vacuum apart from other biological
considerations, instead of as an interplay between many competing
considerations. Specifically, it applies to a world of material abundance, present security, and a society which holds the value set of the feminine imperative. Considering this is supposedly a biological dynamic, it only applies to very specific environments. It would not apply in environments where provisioning and security are leading factors in mate choice; it would not apply where males made the decisions regarding mate choice; and it would not apply in societies that do not hold egalitarianism as ideal (in other words, almost the entirety of human civilization).
The usual application of this definition (supposedly of a biological dynamic) requires that decisions and behaviors influenced by something other than “social dominance” be viewed as an unnatural “barrier,” “buffer,”or “wall” to hypergamy. Arranged marriage? Outside the “biological dynamic” and merely a “barrier.” Monogamy? Outside the “biological dynamic” and merely a “buffer.” Marriage laws? Merely a “wall” to the “biological dynamic.” Choosing a mate based on provisioning? Another “buffer” to the “true” dynamic.
Hypergamy is as equally destructive to civilized society
Transitive property yields: a woman’s natural preference for a male that is of higher status is [omitted] destructive to civilized society. Are you sure about that?
If your issue is women not honoring marriage contracts, state that.
If your issue is the state incentivizing single motherhood and divorce, state that.
If your issue is society normalizing and promoting the feminine imperative, state that.
But stating “a woman’s natural preference for a male that is of higher status is
[omitted] destructive to civilized society,” is going to lead you toward, if
not directly to, egalitarianism.
The question now is, can we still fix things
Fix what?
or has humanity reached a point of no return.
Huh?
You’re splitting hairs trying to justify the explicit meaning. The statement can be applied to any hierarchical social structure. It fits.
Hypergamy does not only manifest in womens preference for men of higher ‘status and wealth.
It also refers to women being more selective and finding fewer men sexually attractive. Women have a tendency to be sexually attracted only to the best looking men around. This manifests unmistakably in the CASUAL SEX marketplace, where an average looking woman can easily have flings, one night stands, affairs, FwB’s, etc with good looking, popular men.
So how do you explain Bedouin polygamy? In ecosystems with scarce and uncertain resources, mate guarding reaches new heights of intensity as alphas fight all to maintain their harem, much like elephant seals.
In settled agricultural communities, social order is prized so to allow the investment in crops to mature and yield. Hence monogamy is selected to avoid chaotic mating fighting and it is enforced by the community.
Agreed that female hypergamy will create social chaos and decrease community productivity. Of course, we might be surprised to find that a hypergamous society better fits our technical needs but will it allow us to out-compete monogamous societies?
this pretty much explains why, among other reasons, why the west was able to rise and why Africa and the middle east are shit holes, in other words, the nuclear family allowed the west rise. This also means that we are giving in into our animalistic sexual instincs; regressing back into savages in a way.
“The constant bombardment by society, a culture that pedestalizes women while undervaluing men, and the proliferation of smartphones and social networks (WhatsApp, Facebook, Badoo), has caused women to give in to their hypergamous natures. It has created a “Candy Store Effect” for women, whereas basically tons of males are available within a tip of a fingers reach. This results in overconfident, deluded women (in regard to their true Sexual Market Value) who are invited to ride the carousel in their prime years, prejudice and guilt free.”
Who have the fault of this? the women who mens try to buy with the money they get in their bored but well paid jobs?
This is the mens fault, there is a big contradiction about the text and the moral of the fable you pretend to show, if a women is courted by a bunch of men for who she have no interest is precisely by the natural laws that say girls must be attracted by a the most able tu survive, not the other 30 guys that in the poligamy structure would not fuck, a men should improve himself, not be crying like a pussy about how the womens choosing best mans, or dont you choose the best woman?
“Whereas in an earlier time, the natural instincts of men and women were controlled and channeled properly into marriage, today there is no such cultural/societal barrier, which has led to widespread promiscuity and sexual adventure.”
This by the eurocentric point of view, but the clearest example is the muslim asia/africa, you see a marriage oriented culture and what you see? a lot of guys repressed that become crazy harassers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19440656
“For a man, there is little or no guarantee that a woman will stay faithful during the course of the relationship and won’t “upgrade” him for a higher status male. This combined with divorce laws that marginalize and crush men, is reducing the flow of men that are willing to commit to marriage, increasing the number of men who prefer short flings and one night stands.”
I live in a catholic country with some of the lowest marry rate in the world, there are single mothers everywere raising their childs, even if they are not the most promiscuous and are known for their possessive attitude. They have to work and raise a child, their best bet would be marry the guy, but the guys usually are not willing to marry, it is not a political correct agreement.
That reminds me a lot the european neonazis blaming the goverment and inmigrants that make their population and economies still on float for their low birth rate.
The goverments are bringing inmigrants to their countries because europeans men and womens just dont want to get childs, is the foregneirs fault? maybe if neonazis were finding girls to have their white childrens instead of being pissed and beat the inmigrants that fucking their girls, their race would not extinct.
I have come to this post in your spanish blog where you complain like a bitch about how awful and promiscuous women are, at the same time you promote seduction and pick up books, so i really can’t understand this double moral.
You are improving your skills to fuck a lot of girls but at the same time you are angry and blaming women because the society is not monogamous, genious.
Im not a white knight im not saying that all the disasters of the world are men’s fault, but this article is a joke full of contradictions and making all mens look like poor pussy victims, and the women like the mothers of every bad thing, is inverse femminism.
Contrary of you i admit that i just want to fuck girls and live a exciting life, dont give a shit about family, you see, a lot of mens like me in conjunction with womens are who poop in your traditional way of living.
Greetings.
…I wish non of you were right. I wish I had someone teach me all these things growing up or to any other young boys needing direction. I wish all of this was a bad dream. I just want to wake up out of this nightmare, this femi apocalypse. Pandora box is opened and no turning back and lets face it, majority of you rewarded this behavior. You are every bit complicit. Fingers pointing back at you. But Fuck it. I’m wide awake and gotta accept things for what they are. And adapt.
I now finally understand what you guys mean by chivalrous dogs. Never again.
That is all.
This is extremely hard to argue against. In fact, lets face it….this is the harsh truth. Whats even more difficult is to refrain from resenting women greatly. Another aspect is the fact that for most betas, the only “help” out there is a rather forced attempt the somehow reshape them into Alphas. There is no amount of PUA advice that can achieve that natural impossibility. (Whether or not the PUA ‘gurus’ are deluded themselves or just more Zionist money shills is debatable).
“At the beginning of the 21st century, the situation changed dramatically.”
That’s a century late. The situation changed visibly and dramatically with the flappers of the 1920s, just after the West’s cultural suicide on the battlefields of the Western Front. Their daughters were USO “good time girls” a generation later, and leading indicators were showing a generation or more prior to the flappers with the suffragettes of the late Gilded Age and Edwardian period.
“The question now is, can we still fix things or has humanity reached a point of no return.”
That’s overly dramatic. Humanity will keep on keeping on. The specific cultural version of humanity called Western Civilization is in a crisis of confidence, however. But the cultural rot is in place, and will continue to advance until the edifice collapses. Just as the Emperor Augustus’ marriage reforms failed to reverse pagan Rome’s cultural rot, as exemplified in the unpunished hedonism of his own daughter Julia.
New growth can take place in the aftermath of the eventual collapse. In the meantime, ride the tiger and nurture seeds worth growing in the fertility the eventual collapse will bring to the cultural soil.
Karma is indeed a bitch, bitch
Why would a woman marry a lower-status guy and then “trade up” for a higher status guy years later, when her attractiveness, and therefore value in the mate market, has diminished her ability to attract a higher-status guy? Why wouldn’t she marry the highest status guy she could find from the beginning?
Because until she hits the age of 40, most women are deluded into thinking that their attractiveness has not decreased.