What sense does it make to call women "hypergamous" if men are too?

[Jot]

Over the past couple of years, people started talking more and more about the hypergamous nature of women. 

This topic came up with regularity in Stefan's podcasts as well. The theory is that the female brain is wired to look for the best possible mate they can get and to trade up as much as one can. After this Stefan usually adds "and men as well". 

My question is...if it is the case that men are hypergamous as well, how come "female hypergamy" does not lose its relevance? (since regardless of the gender you are hypergamous) 

[Wuzzums]

Men aren't hypergamous because both sexes cannot possibly be hypergamous at the same time.

Men breed across and DOWN (hypogamy) in the dominance hierarchy.

Women breed across and UP (hypergamy) in the dominance hierarchy.

This is not a theory. It's human biology.

[Jot]

2 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Men aren't hypergamous because both sexes cannot possibly be hypergamous at the same time.

Men breed across and DOWN (hypogamy) in the dominance hierarchy.

Women breed across and UP (hypergamy) in the dominance hierarchy.

This is not a theory. It's human biology.

Biologically speaking, a woman's highest value is her looks (am I wrong?), men care about looks and women about resources (that's what I always hear).

My observation is that men are incredibly hard-wired to be drawn to female physical beauty (maybe even more powerfully than women are to resources), when selecting a mate, men try as hard as possible to land the most physically attractive woman that they can get.

Also, there is this infamous behavior of men when they would sometimes leave their partner with whom they have been for a long time for a younger, hotter female. We have heard a bunch of cases when guys in their 30s and 40s left their wives for attractive women in their 20s. What is this if not hypergamy?

[Wuzzums]

2 hours ago, Ferssitar said:

Biologically speaking, a woman's highest value is her looks (am I wrong?), men care about looks and women about resources (that's what I always hear).

My observation is that men are incredibly hard-wired to be drawn to female physical beauty (maybe even more powerfully than women are to resources), when selecting a mate, men try as hard as possible to land the most physically attractive woman that they can get.

Also, there is this infamous behavior of men when they would sometimes leave their partner with whom they have been for a long time for a younger, hotter female. We have heard a bunch of cases when guys in their 30s and 40s left their wives for attractive women in their 20s. What is this if not hypergamy?

You need a common denominator and like you said, women seek resource, men seek looks. These 2 are not the same. Thus a man seeking an attractive female is not equivalent to a woman seeking a richer man. Male attractiveness for a woman doesn't carry the same amount of weight as female attractiveness for a man. Female resources for a man doesn't carry the same amount of weight as male resources do for a woman.

A man in his 40s will never ever trade his wife for a 20 year old that's more attractive than him AND richer than him. If the 20 year old is  more  attractive than his wife and/or not richer than him then he will probably make the switch. This is not to say he's mating UP the dominance hierarchy. The 20 year old being somewhere in between his wife and him in the dominance hierarchy.

Hypergamy refers to trading up to oneself, not trading up compared to another female.

There are several reasons why men cannot be hypergamous.

(a) Women are hypergamous. They will never trade down therefore a man who IS willing to marry a hot rich 20 year old won't be able to because the 20 year old won't want to date him.

(b) Men were bred to b the dominant one in the human species and most other species. Therefore a man who cannot dominate his woman, so to speak, will feel emasculated. It's true when they say that men fear strong women. The roles are reversed and the man will revert to being the child-like one. Little boys may love their mother but they also fear her.

Keep in mind when I say "dominate" I'm referring to any human endeavor that a man is better at than his woman. A female MMA fighter might marry a wimpy tech nerd IF the nerd is smarter than her and has more resources. She may have the strength but he has the power.

 

Btw, I just made an interesting connection that strengthens my point. There's the adage than men insult each other without meaning it and women compliment each other without meaning it, right. This is also true with the relationships between men and women. Men make backhanded compliments all the time to women. Same with backhanded insults. This lowers the woman status (artificially) and implicitly raises the man's status (artificially). The man is happy because the higher he is in a dominance hierarchy the greater the odds of the woman staying with him AND the woman is also happy because the higher the man is in a dominance hierarchy the greater her desire to stay with him. It's a win/win. Same thing with a woman that compliments her mate. 

[Jot]

Thank you for the explanation. I had not had the time to analyze your response too deeply yet but it all sounds reasonable and makes good sense.

[smarterthanone]

Hypergamy works great for strong, dominant, intelligent, powerful men... so just be that and you will have a harem in no time.

[Caley McKibbin]

On 6/4/2017 at 3:44 PM, Ferssitar said:

My observation is that men are incredibly hard-wired to be drawn to female physical beauty (maybe even more powerfully than women are to resources), when selecting a mate, men try as hard as possible to land the most physically attractive woman that they can get.

Women are not drawn to resources.  Men only appear to select for beauty more because they have a more constantly high libido.  Women are able to obtain resources from men only because of that imbalance.  What people obtain is a function of supply and demand, not being programmed to pursue those things.  The ability of women to select men for resources is entirely the result of testosterone difference.  If estrogen made you more horny than testosterone the rule would be hags driving Maserati's with studly waiters in the passenger seat.  The roles would reverse just from that.

[luxfelix]

7 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

Women are not drawn to resources.  Men only appear to select for beauty more because they have a more constantly high libido.  Women are able to obtain resources from men only because of that imbalance.  What people obtain is a function of supply and demand, not being programmed to pursue those things.  The ability of women to select men for resources is entirely the result of testosterone difference.  If estrogen made you more horny than testosterone the rule would be hags driving Maserati's with studly waiters in the passenger seat.  The roles would reverse just from that.

With respect to this, does this mean that there is less demand in places like Japan and the West (or perhaps the balance is tipping toward women?) -- perhaps part biology, part epigenetics, part social attitudes (political correct culture included)?

[Wuzzums]

10 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

Women are not drawn to resources.  Men only appear to select for beauty more because they have a more constantly high libido.  Women are able to obtain resources from men only because of that imbalance.  What people obtain is a function of supply and demand, not being programmed to pursue those things.  The ability of women to select men for resources is entirely the result of testosterone difference.  If estrogen made you more horny than testosterone the rule would be hags driving Maserati's with studly waiters in the passenger seat.  The roles would reverse just from that.

So why is the guy in 50 Shades of Grey a billionaire?

[smarterthanone]

I don't think its money or resources per se but power. Money is a form of power so sure that often works but power is what shows a man has the ability to manipulate the physical world in some fashion so that he can provide. You can be broke but if you are a 7ft tall weapons expert with military experience and are bad ass enough to use it to acquire resources... that is power and it will attract a woman. If you are a nerdy little mousy man beta with $1 billion dollars, that is power and it will attract a woman.

[SnapSlav]

On 6/4/2017 at 3:59 PM, Wuzzums said:

You need a common denominator and like you said, women seek resource, men seek looks. These 2 are not the same.

I believe you're missing the salient point of "relative to what". Namely, male resources are to women as female fertility is to men. That they do not seek the exact same element in their counterparts is NOT illustrative that they do not seek "the same thing".

They're both "trading up", however you split it. It's simply WHAT they're trading up for which differs by the subject. So, it's still hypergamy in either scenario. Hypergamy doesn't stipulate that what one seeks must be strength or protection. It's just "trading up". The peahen chooses the peacock with the most illustrious feathers because he demonstrates that he is SO capable with his detrimental and costly feathers that he can survive in spite on this handicapping attribute; the peacock is offering survival guarantee, the peahen is offering fertility. If there wasn't a biological constant in what the sexes desired from each other, but the hypergamous drive still remained, then we'd see the same thing split across all individuals. An individual who seeks a more eloquent speaker would seek that out in his/her mate, and their counterpart might be one who embodies these qualities, yet THEY seek out one with long and sturdy hair and they themselves don't care about speech skills... just throwing out random elements to illustrate the point, not that these are actual sexual selectors. Regardless of what one side pursues, both sides are "trading up".

That being said, I still consider the topic question to be moot. Just because both sexes are hypergamous doesn't mean we can't call women hypergamous. They are. That's like saying just because we all get hungry we shouldn't say that some people are going hungry. That kinda misses the point of descriptive explanations, don't you think?

[Wuzzums]

2 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

I believe you're missing the salient point of "relative to what". Namely, male resources are to women as female fertility is to men. That they do not seek the exact same element in their counterparts is NOT illustrative that they do not seek "the same thing".

Using quotation marks does not an argument make.

I have already addressed your "relative to what" clearly in my previous post.

[Caley McKibbin]

On 6/10/2017 at 1:07 AM, luxfelix said:

With respect to this, does this mean that there is less demand in places like Japan and the West (or perhaps the balance is tipping toward women?) -- perhaps part biology, part epigenetics, part social attitudes (political correct culture included)?

Less demand for what?

On 6/10/2017 at 3:09 AM, Wuzzums said:

So why is the guy in 50 Shades of Grey a billionaire?

I haven't read it.  So I don't know why you are bringing that up.

[Wuzzums]

40 minutes ago, Caley McKibbin said:

I haven't read it.  So I don't know why you are bringing that up.

You said:

On 6/10/2017 at 0:03 AM, Caley McKibbin said:

Women are not drawn to resources.

The guy in the in the most successful pornography book (or just book) ever written aimed at women is a billionaire.

Testosterone does not make you horny. Arousal makes men have higher testosterone levels. Testosterone increases aggressiveness, competitiveness, strength, and size, roughly speaking. All these traits are what is required to excel in a dominance hierarchy. Women arouse men which turns them into these resource gathering machines. Funny how that works.

If women do not want resources from men how come men have been positively selected by women over hundreds of thousands of years to find pleasure in getting resources for women?

Also a high libido has a negative selection effect on attractiveness. The hornier the guy the prettier he thinks the woman is.

[SnapSlav]

22 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Using quotation marks does not an argument make.

I have already addressed your "relative to what" clearly in my previous post.

Quotations were not the source of my argument. Quotations were used to attribute a concept to a closed group of words that on their own do not mean a specific concept. Then I went on to illustrate what I was talking about. THAT was the argument. You'd know that if you actually read my post with any intellectual honesty, rather than your curt dismissal.

Secondly, I'd posit you DID NOT address my "relative to what" point, because my point was illustrating that both sexes ARE hypergamous (because they're trading up according to their own relative interests), whereas you're laboring that they aren't... for the same reason. So if the same evidence leads one to a certain conclusion and yet another to a different conclusion, then the other attempts to explain to the first why that different conclusion is made, clearly the first did not previously "address" that point at all.

[luxfelix]

9 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

Less demand for what?

Less demand for relationships?

You mentioned that the roles would be reversed if estrogen provided more libido than testosterone.
Is there a shift to female proposals as opposed to traditional male proposals (or proposals at all...) for relationships?

In Japan there are "herbivore men", in the West we have MGTOW, and in most of the world we have political correctness. If not indicative of demand in general, do these elements reflect a shift in which half demands more?

(If this still doesn't make sense, I'll have to find a better way to ask the question...  )

[Wuzzums]

19 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Secondly, I'd posit you DID NOT address my "relative to what" point, because my point was illustrating that both sexes ARE hypergamous (because they're trading up according to their own relative interests), whereas you're laboring that they aren't... for the same reason. So if the same evidence leads one to a certain conclusion and yet another to a different conclusion, then the other attempts to explain to the first why that different conclusion is made, clearly the first did not previously "address" that point at all.

See:

Don't forget to read my post with at least some intellectual honesty. Show me how it's done.

[Caley McKibbin]

On 6/12/2017 at 4:35 PM, Wuzzums said:

Also a high libido has a negative selection effect on attractiveness. The hornier the guy the prettier he thinks the woman is.

The feeling associated with looking at women and libido are the same thing.  It's like saying the colder you feel the colder you think you are.  There's no way to trace what is arousing you in isolated cases.  If you look at a person and feel something, you don't automatically know what particular feature is doing that.  So thinking that something is pretty is not quite the same as having a feeling triggered by something that went through the visual cortex.

Quote

Testosterone does not make you horny.  Arousal makes men have higher testosterone levels.

Experiments on T supplement and blockers are plentiful, particularly transgenders.  People that get T therapy report having higher libido while people that take blockers report the opposite.  Women that get HRT often report their libido "going through the roof" within a few months.  Women get both a T spike and a libido spike when ovulating.  The BC pill is known to suppress both.  You would never get aroused at all from looking at women if you didn't already have an androgen response, proven by males born with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome having female heterosexuality.  I can't see any basis for claiming that T does not increase libido.  I suggest reading transgender stories.  It gives an understanding that we would never have otherwise.

Quote

Testosterone does not make you horny...  Testosterone increases aggressiveness, competitiveness

That is a contradiction.  Aggression and competitiveness are omnipresent.  Those words refer to actions in a social context, not to motives.  They are a result of the combination of any kind of desire and opportunity.  A biological factor can only affect them by affecting desire.  To claim that testosterone increases aggression is to claim that it increases desire for something.  Why do women hit kids much more than men do?  Kids are the only humans weaker than them.  Hitting kids is their aggression outlet.

Quote

The guy in the in the most successful pornography book (or just book) ever written aimed at women is a billionaire.

So what?  It's screen version rating on IMDB is 4/10. It probably got a lot of reads because it looks controversial.  Most women on Earth struggle to eradicate the existence of billionaires.  One does not struggle to eradicate his or her favourite thing.  You could make a movie called "Billionaires Should Be Shot" that does nothing but loop a billionaire being shot for 2 hours and it would get a better rating than that, especially from women.  We're hard pressed to get most women to even speak to us if we don't want to burn the rich.  But everyone is a hypocrite.  So women want billionaires so they can quit their jobs and spend all day buying shoes and watching soap operas.

15 hours ago, luxfelix said:

Less demand for relationships?

You mentioned that the roles would be reversed if estrogen provided more libido than testosterone.
Is there a shift to female proposals as opposed to traditional male proposals (or proposals at all...) for relationships?

In Japan there are "herbivore men", in the West we have MGTOW, and in most of the world we have political correctness. If not indicative of demand in general, do these elements reflect a shift in which half demands more?

What is a relationship?  People are vending machines.  Insert appropriate number of coins and press button for desired menu item.  Buttons have a relationship with menu items.  As productivity increases over time and women have more coins the marginal utility of a coin decreases.  It seems to me that what has changed is what we need to offer each other, while in places like India and Africa you still get a lot of bang for your coin.  I don't know how you are linking that with what I said about hormones.

[Wuzzums]

1 hour ago, Caley McKibbin said:

Most women on Earth struggle to eradicate the existence of billionaires.

No. Flat out lie.

1 hour ago, Caley McKibbin said:

That is a contradiction.  Aggression and competitiveness are omnipresent.  Those words refer to actions in a social context, not to motives.  They are a result of the combination of any kind of desire and opportunity.  A biological factor can only affect them by affecting desire.  To claim that testosterone increases aggression is to claim that it increases desire for something.  Why do women hit kids much more than men do?  Kids are the only humans weaker than them.  Hitting kids is their aggression outlet.

Aggression and competitiveness are not polar opposites therefore you're wrong in saying it's a contradiction. The rest of the statement is gibberish. You bring up social context and desire and opportunity in a statement about the effects of testosterone only to fog up my clear statement.

1 hour ago, Caley McKibbin said:

Experiments on T supplement and blockers are plentiful, particularly transgenders.  People that get T therapy report having higher libido while people that take blockers report the opposite.  Women that get HRT often report their libido "going through the roof" within a few months.  Women get both a T spike and a libido spike when ovulating.  The BC pill is known to suppress both.  You would never get aroused at all from looking at women if you didn't already have an androgen response, proven by males born with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome having female heterosexuality.  I can't see any basis for claiming that T does not increase libido.  I suggest reading transgender stories.  It gives an understanding that we would never have otherwise.

I don't care about transgenders. This is a conversation about men and women, not the exceptions.

And are you stating that women/men with Morris Syndrome do not get aroused? They do. When you give me such an excellent clear-cut example that proves my point I know you're not bs-ing when you say you "can't see any basis for claiming that T does not increase libido".

1 hour ago, Caley McKibbin said:

The feeling associated with looking at women and libido are the same thing.

It's not. 

What the hell are you talking about? You talk as if you're not from this planet. From time in memoriam, in every single species on this goddamn planet, not a single one looked at their opposite gendered sibling (OR PARENT, OR OFFSPING) and felt aroused. (Except for the sick and disturbed ones that were/are quickly weeded out of the gene pool, of course).

[luxfelix]

7 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

What is a relationship?  People are vending machines.  Insert appropriate number of coins and press button for desired menu item.  Buttons have a relationship with menu items.  As productivity increases over time and women have more coins the marginal utility of a coin decreases.  It seems to me that what has changed is what we need to offer each other, while in places like India and Africa you still get a lot of bang for your coin.  I don't know how you are linking that with what I said about hormones.

The link is in the alleged role reversal of men and women with regards to relationships (social and personal romantic connections) and whether this would be linked to hormonal changes -- if any -- as a cause or an effect of hypergamous behavior?

(Or perhaps this is a non-issue contrary to human biology?)

What do we need to offer each other; is it fundamentally different from what needed to be offered in the past?

 

[Caley McKibbin]

5 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

No. Flat out lie.

Very convincing.  I take from something you said elsewhere that English is not your first language.  So I will verify that you know what a lie is.  It is a statement with a deliberate intent to deceive.  Is empty libel really how you want to present yourself?  Also, if you want to hide my posts from the whole forum by going back through my posts with a flurry of -1 reps because I disagree with you, you only reveal yourself as an insecure troll that is less interested in philosophy and more interested in surrounding himself with an echo chamber to reinforce his ego.  Why not just go to my profile and -1 the rest of my posts and get it over with?  Since I arrived to this forum I have found that it is quite the opposite of what I would expect from a so-called philosophy community.  I've met with little but insults and almost every time people disagree with me about anything they get angry, nasty, fence and try to hide my posts.  You embarrass yourselves and make a mockery of the spirit of FDR.  I've scarcely ever seen such an anti-philosophical community.

5 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Aggression and competitiveness are not polar opposites therefore you're wrong in saying it's a contradiction. The rest of the statement is gibberish. You bring up social context and desire and opportunity in a statement about the effects of testosterone only to fog up my clear statement.

I said nothing even close to those being opposites.  It's baffling why anyone would give a such a response.  I can only assume that Wuzzums somehow did not understand what I said at all or understand the words he uses.  An action is not cognitively aggressive or competitive.  The concepts of aggression and competition depend on the meaning of actions in a context outside of the person performing it.  E.g., if Peter hammers a nail into a board, that is not an aggressive act.  If Peter hammers a nail into Paul's head, that is an aggressive act.

5 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

I don't care about transgenders. This is a conversation about men and women, not the exceptions.

And are you stating that women/men with Morris Syndrome do not get aroused?  They do.  When you give me such an excellent clear-cut example that proves my point I know you're not bs-ing when you say you "can't see any basis for claiming that T does not increase libido".

Experiments adding and removing factors is just elementary deductive research procedure.  The logic of this procedure is very simple.  If you change something and something else changes following that and only that, then what follows is dependent on what was changed.  Experiments that sometimes involve transgendering are the key to understanding men and women.  The person that is best qualified to understand and explain the difference in sexes is someone whose experienced extends the most into both.  I don't think the fact that genetic males with CAIS have female heterosexuality requires explanation.  Libido and even orientation is controlled by sex hormones.

Up to this point I'm the only one that has given any evidence for anything.  All Wuzzums has done is shovel out empty insults and try to shut me out of the forum.  I don't scrape gutters.  My patience for keyboard commandos is very close to zero, so unless nothing but substance on the topic is forthcoming and those replying to me decide to act like a person that has come to FDR with an interest in genuine discussion I won't be visiting this site again.  You'll have to decide: a community of trash talkers or a community of philosophers.

5 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

It's not. 

What the hell are you talking about? You talk as if you're not from this planet. From time in memoriam, in every single species on this goddamn planet, not a single one looked at their opposite gendered sibling (OR PARENT, OR OFFSPING) and felt aroused. (Except for the sick and disturbed ones that were/are quickly weeded out of the gene pool, of course).

Not an argument.  Trash talk.  Trash comment.  A reasonable response would be something like, "Caley, that makes no sense to me.  Can you prove it?"  I acknowledge only people that conduct themselves at the standards they maintain when using their real names and speaking to someone's face.  You're not in kindergarten.  I'm sure you can handle that.

[Wuzzums]

17 hours ago, Caley McKibbin said:

I said nothing even close to those being opposites.  It's baffling why anyone would give a such a response.

You quoted me saying:

On 6/14/2017 at 1:10 AM, Caley McKibbin said:

Quote

Testosterone does not make you horny...  Testosterone increases aggressiveness, competitiveness

That is a contradiction. 

 

Don't talk to me in the 3rd person as if you're taking the pulpit or something. I know you're shook and looking for validation from others but I'm the only one here on this thread that's reading your responses to that wonderful man, Wuzzums.

[SnapSlav]

On 6/13/2017 at 11:06 AM, Wuzzums said:

See:

Don't forget to read my post with at least some intellectual honesty. Show me how it's done.

Right, I DID respond to your "common denominator" logic; that's what my argument was ABOUT. Also, let's not play this petty game of your being passive aggressive, shall we? I'm not interested in insults and slights. I'm responding to something you said, we disagree, I'm addressing that disagreement, it was you who first dismissed me, not the other way around. I've taken the time, I only ask you the common decency to do the same, or if you really don't want to, at least just own up to that. Don't pretend you've refuted me by referring to a previous comment of yours. That's not how rebuttals work, and you know that, I know that, and I'm sure you know that I know that.

My point was to illustrate, as I understand the matter of hypergamy, that your "common denominator" argument is funamentally flawed for the reasons of my illustrated "relative to what" explanation. The flaw isn't the concept of common denominators itself, nor how you're using it to dismantle the concept of both sexes being defined by hypergamy. The problem is your over-narrow criteria. Both sexes DO share a common denominator. The definition of hypergamy doesn't specify that the act is about money (although one could be forgiven for seeing it that way, when one reads "caste or class"). The key defining feature is the matter of "trading up", moving from an inferior choice to a superior choice, an improvement. Both sexes ARE doing that when one goes for a spouse with more resources and the other goes for a spouse who is younger and hotter. The first "traded up" for more resources, the second "traded up" for more fertility. But both traded up; they shared that common denominator.

So they DO share a common denominator in that they are both making an exchange in preferable partners for a better option, even if what constitutes "better" differs from one sex and the other.

[Wuzzums]

22 hours ago, SnapSlav said:

Also, let's not play this petty game of your being passive aggressive, shall we?

How dare you?

I was not passive-aggressive. I was flat-out aggressive if not down right insulting. Never, ever accuse me of passivity ever again.

[meetjoeblack]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 5:59 PM, Wuzzums said:

You need a common denominator and like you said, women seek resource, men seek looks. These 2 are not the same. Thus a man seeking an attractive female is not equivalent to a woman seeking a richer man. Male attractiveness for a woman doesn't carry the same amount of weight as female attractiveness for a man. Female resources for a man doesn't carry the same amount of weight as male resources do for a woman.

A man in his 40s will never ever trade his wife for a 20 year old that's more attractive than him AND richer than him. If the 20 year old is  more  attractive than his wife and/or not richer than him then he will probably make the switch. This is not to say he's mating UP the dominance hierarchy. The 20 year old being somewhere in between his wife and him in the dominance hierarchy.

Hypergamy refers to trading up to oneself, not trading up compared to another female.

There are several reasons why men cannot be hypergamous.

(a) Women are hypergamous. They will never trade down therefore a man who IS willing to marry a hot rich 20 year old won't be able to because the 20 year old won't want to date him.

(b) Men were bred to b the dominant one in the human species and most other species. Therefore a man who cannot dominate his woman, so to speak, will feel emasculated. It's true when they say that men fear strong women. The roles are reversed and the man will revert to being the child-like one. Little boys may love their mother but they also fear her.

Keep in mind when I say "dominate" I'm referring to any human endeavor that a man is better at than his woman. A female MMA fighter might marry a wimpy tech nerd IF the nerd is smarter than her and has more resources. She may have the strength but he has the power.

 

Btw, I just made an interesting connection that strengthens my point. There's the adage than men insult each other without meaning it and women compliment each other without meaning it, right. This is also true with the relationships between men and women. Men make backhanded compliments all the time to women. Same with backhanded insults. This lowers the woman status (artificially) and implicitly raises the man's status (artificially). The man is happy because the higher he is in a dominance hierarchy the greater the odds of the woman staying with him AND the woman is also happy because the higher the man is in a dominance hierarchy the greater her desire to stay with him. It's a win/win. Same thing with a woman that compliments her mate. 

I agree with what you are saying. The question is; how do you win this game?

 

You either win the genetic lottery or you stake claim in the free market and win. Women want both.

I know a doctor that won this game but, his wife is taking him to the cleaners so, he is now officially losing the game now.

 

Dating down seems to be a stupid strategy because the women still are initiating divorces and taking resources. The divorce stats are staggering and even more so is the divorce stats initiated by women. It seems like a fools game at this point IMO.

 

I watched RM & Stefan video recently. I agree with the emphasis on marriage, the value there, children, and what two can create together. Then again, I see the fallout and risk as beyond stupidity at this point.

 

Online dating be it pof/tinder/okc or IRL is full of women cratering SMV in youth and fallback plan is white picket fence and baby rabies. How any man can fall for this game is beyond pathetic.

 

The only solution I can think of is choosing younger and marrying the woman who dedicates her youth to the LTR otherwise, it is not something I deem as a intelligent investment.

 

 

 

[Wuzzums]

12 hours ago, meetjoeblack said:

I agree with what you are saying. The question is; how do you win this game?

No idea but if you don't play the game you'll never win, nor lose. I was perfectly content with not playing until I saw what happens to a society when men stop caring about their women (case and point Sweden). So we're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation. To use a line from the greatest tv show ever made: "You're lethally fucking middled."

However humans are a species that strive when fighting against something so...

[meetjoeblack]

4 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Quote

No idea but if you don't play the game you'll never win, nor lose.

We've classed before or better said, we've agreed to disagree. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I completely agree. This is the fault of MGTOW IMHO. Checking out of dating/LTRs/Marriage etc. is like the little boy who cannot compete so, he takes his ball and goes home. WTF? I question the level of testosterone any man who wont compete. I am not being a dick as I do see that MGTOW is correct in many ways about family court, divorce, and the dogs of the state extracting their resources for female victimhood.

I saw a study (I will link it if I can find it) whereby, the beta chimps were shown to have poor health, higher stress hormones, CAD, and at high risk for a variety of health issues. There is certain hardwire programming that women have intuitively to choose the alpha; the male that won the genetic lottery be it through aesthetics/looks/resources or other.

I am glad you've given your own thoughts on the topic as anybody can plagiarize someone else and play off the theory as their own (not to imply you did this). I recently watched Good Will Hunting. That sort of scene where the dude did that in the bar to try and posture plus impress some girls is disgusting.

 

I've heard there is no original idea. That we all take ideas from other sources. I concur with this finding. I like your perspective and where you went with the dominance hierarchy. I have listened to quite a few Jordan Peterson vids on the discussion. The problem I am seeing is that, there is literally ZERO fallout for 'sloot gonna sloot' and single moms; hell, society actually promotes the following, and women are cheered off the cliff. The same feminism that preaches about equality is the one chanting women wont jump. So, some cuck/beta/white knight will pander and supplicate to a sloot or single mom. Will raise his babies and foot her bills.

Again, their is absolutely no fallout until of course, SMV craters, the dating pool dries up, and then, its victimhood time.

4 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

I was perfectly content with not playing until I saw what happens to a society when men stop caring about their women (case and point Sweden). So we're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation. To use a line from the greatest tv show ever made: "You're lethally fucking middled." However humans are a species that strive when fighting against something so...

Are you or were you a MGTOW?

 

I was recently asked by this before from a business associate. I am single. I rarely enter into LTRs. I refuse to have a gf that lives with me. I see a lot of disgusting female behavior and there is this victimhood argument when calling out gross behavior like; cucking men; crater SMV then turn on the good girl act; look at the women that divorced Rich Piana (racist rant not withstanding) or Kali Muscle?

 

With respect to not caring about women, if America went the way Germany was headed; 1200 women sexually harassed/abused; many under age girls gang banged by pieces of shit all brought in by feminism/idiotic politicians; if it was women in America that brought this into being, FUCK NOT GIVEN. Outside my mom, cousins, friends, I AM SWITCHED OUT.

 

I dated this girl who makes over six figures. No shocker here, she is a feminist, has the illogical "don't need a man" rhetoric which got played out pretty damn quick. Needless to say, she cratered her SMV, trashed her 20s, and ended up blowing up my phone drunk dial style. The thing is, I was getting texts from girls 18/19/20/21 so, needless to say, the younger option always for me has been the better one. I rather young over baby rabies. I rather youth over playboy stopped calling and she just jumped off some dude's dick who wont return her call (as was the case here). The best part was, I told JTO about the situation; he warned me what would happen, of female nature especially like a pea brain like her.

 

 

So, I've made a decision. I want a wife and two children. I will approach until my life comes to an end as this is something I want but, more importantly, I have a passion that I am really following. I am looking to create something of freedom for myself. I am not saying, being the richest stiff in the graveyard. I am saying, a platform whereby, I can make money anywhere in the world, and not be tied to the corporate world. In chasing this dream, in doing mastermind groups, seeing difference conferences, I am finding myself in a different environment, and people who are exploring their consciousness while living at their edge. I've met some better women along the way. It is my hope that, before my dream is reached, I will have met an awesome woman I can share my life with, and bringing her along.

Lastly, I feel a solution is necessary or I am just spinning the wheels and being resistant to what is. The solution I have come up with is to date younger. I know this goes in polar contrast to Stefan's advice. Also, approaching tons of women everywhere (gym, bar, club, starbucks, grocery store, Whole Foods, street, etc). Small talk >>> rapport building >>>> Real convo about me/my life/passion >>>> number >>>> date >>>> sex >>>repeat until end game is reached.

 

I tried waiting, I tried social circle, I have tried online, pof/okc/tinder, pickup, etc. There is an abundance of train wrecks, of women seeking meal tickets, trashing her SMV as is her right but, then, seeking to play homemaker after best days are done. My man, I am not playing that game and I will go out on my fucking shield. I will approach, I will handle shit tests, rejections, and flakes if it means at the end game, I meet a woman I can create a life together with; children, travel, a dog, white picket fence. I don't want to be a pua. I don't use magic or fake mustaches. I just talk to strangers everywhere and I have blind faith in the universe providing. Its lead to more dating and sex but, a lot of very liberal women and a lot of women I am better off without.

 

Would love to hear your solution or approach to the end game you seek? I am just doing my best to enjoy the journey.

 

[steljarkos]

The key to understanding women is to understand children, and where the source of motivations come from. Women don't compete or dominate because they don't have to... because there is no onus on them to do so... just like children.

Women have a powerful sex drive, but they don't have to pursue it because they don't have to, and therefore they never have to put themselves on the line... because they don't have to, especially if they are attractive. In fact, their sex drives are very flexible, they get off on a wide spectrum of contexts, from intimate and loyal to violent and rapey. And this leaves them open to playing the kid in the candy-store, where they deliberate over which lollies to pick from, because the sex is the one given over which they have very few decisions to deliberate.

On its own, this might not make sense. But when factor in culture... and how these predispositions normalize within culture... then everything falls neatly into place. [To understand where I'm coming from here, we need to understand why the genocentric, it's-all-in-the-genes, Neo-Darwinian paradigm is a load of horseshit... but that's another topic for another day]

Women also pay a price for their hypergamy. Because culture permits them to be dependent, they are less compelled to confront their fears. And so they often freak when they come across their ideal man. Many people interpret this as women "playing hard to get." They are not playing. They are spooking, and it's for real, and apart from the accompanying thrill and excitement, they don't really like it in the sense of pursuing it as an end in its own right. They spook when, from among the thousands of chimps-masquerading-as-alphas hitting on them, they encounter The One. And so The One, as desirable as he might be, has to work out how to get her, and all too often he has to give up in despair. In fact, I have a theory... I think that a lot of "gays" are not actually homosexual, but men who cannot connect with this idiotic "men have needs" bs that other tap-dancing PUA chumps turn a blind eye to.

These days, in this culture of feminism and liberalism, women often choose buffoons-masquerading-as-alphas because beta providers have become moral weaklings and cowards. Like women wearing makeup, perpetuating the facade of beauty, an emotionally stunted idiot-masquerading-as-alpha creates the facade of dominance, and many women buy into it and swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Women's hypergamy sheds light on women's choices. From the sublime to the ridiculous, it all makes sense within the context of materialistic hypergamy. From the complete idiots masquerading as alphas, to the boring beta plebs that at least make good providers.

I liked it better back in the old days when women chose providers. Back then, in a roundabout way, it was men choosing men... men defining success, and then women opting for successful, interesting men. Women's choices were more sensible, and it was no problem to compete, just by being competent, articulate and engaging. But these days? With the complete losers that women are choosing? Not interested. I'm not thinking of turning gay, but I have to say that I now understand where this gay phenomenon comes from. I suggest that a lot of gay preferences are similarly operating at a subconscious level. Sometimes it's an aversion to betraying trust... other times it's a disinterest in following through with the ridiculous logistics and dishonesty required to make it work. Why do PUAs think it's worth the effort?

But hey, it's 2017! These are the times we live in. SJWs, feminism, PUAs and Antifa are all a collective manifestation of exactly the same stoopid that our cultures have become. May our descendants review this period of history with disgust and revulsion.

[meetjoeblack]

14 hours ago, steljarkos said:

But hey, it's 2017! These are the times we live in. SJWs, feminism, PUAs and Antifa are all a collective manifestation of exactly the same stoopid that our cultures have become. May our descendants review this period of history with disgust and revulsion.

You've stared a lot of what you feel doesn't work but, you offer nothing with respect into the sight as to a solution.

 

How do you meet women? I approach a to of women everywhere I go. I make small talk and I take a number presuming any sort of connection or chemistry. It doesn't guarantee success but, it definitely isn't being a beta/cuck waiting for a woman to fall into my lap. The alternative is waiting. Stefan is against this which he voiced many times in his podcast. Then again, he has argued to wait for the state to fail, for the welfare state/the single mom state to crumble, and for women to need men again. Fuck that. That may or may not happen. I am not allocating my resources to a charity case of women that during SMV cratered it with bad boys and now, its time for white picket fence and baby rabies. No thanks.

 

The alternative solution is as someone else had suggested; dating younger, SMV top form, and building a life here. Again, Stefan called it "creepy" if I am not mistaken. This is not an argument. Alternative to dating younger is dating cratered SMV or single moms which is stupid. Why do that?

 

@ Mods - why was my previous post hidden? I don't think I broke any rules. The post is show now but, it was purple and hidden beforehand.

[smarterthanone]

On 6/19/2017 at 1:54 PM, meetjoeblack said:

The alternative solution is as someone else had suggested; dating younger, SMV top form, and building a life here. Again, Stefan called it "creepy" if I am not mistaken. This is not an argument. Alternative to dating younger is dating cratered SMV or single moms which is stupid. Why do that?

This. I don't understand why he calls it creepy. Younger women absolutely love older, established men. It's not like you have to hunt them down. Nor do you have to 'buy' them like some sugar daddy nonsense. They like stable, successful, serious, experienced men, is there a reason why they shouldn't?

[meetjoeblack]

On 6/25/2017 at 9:04 AM, smarterthanone said:

This. I don't understand why he calls it creepy. Younger women absolutely love older, established men. It's not like you have to hunt them down. Nor do you have to 'buy' them like some sugar daddy nonsense. They like stable, successful, serious, experienced men, is there a reason why they shouldn't?

 

When I am better able to construct better arguments in a more concise way, I would like to do a FDR Call in show. I have many of my own hypocritical and contradicting thoughts so, I would like to better organize my thinking before taking that plunge. Stefan is 50 I believe so, someone much younger, half his junior would have had contradictions in thinking the way he had at a younger age. No doubt, I acknowledge his genius and want to hear his philosophy.

I believe this bias comes from him having a daughter. The data he speaks of shows a high risk for divorce once the gap is large so lets say, a decade or more. I would have to seek out the actual data. Still, divorce is terrible and its women that promote 1) Marriage after SMV craters or nearly has 2) Divorce with some fallacious argument, female logic, and the essence of which being discontentment. Its not something I can fix or adjust.

Now, If we were to look at the data, Stefan put together a Truth on Sex vid, and it showed the fallout for promiscuity. Crater SMV clings to monogamy, to being lonely, and it is very alarming for me. I am getting older and I am faced with single mother victimhood or crusty women that spent their days running through bad boys. Society promotes this social conditioning to 1) Don't judge her for Sloot gonna sloot 2) celebrate Single moms. No man would willingly choose this without lower IQ, society normalizing the behavior, and betas/cucks/white knights etc. and so, 'Provider Male' is left to clean up the mess that women have made. Women being gatekeeper of sex.

Another poster stated, he wants 3-4 kids, wants to date someone 18-21, and that if they travel the world for the next 4-5years, by the time they finish having kids, she will be 33. At this point, there is little to no way a woman much older can be on this life path for this man. As for marriage, I am a bit cynical about more recently with the info Stefan has brought forth, my own dating experiences, and the fact that, women seem to seek it usually once the bad boys stop coming. That the puss is for those guys when she is thin and betas get the scraps after her youth is torched.

 

So, if I am 28 and I date someone 18, by the time I am 35, she is 25. WTF is wrong with this? No, this is not what I wanted nor what I planned for but, through cold approach, I have seen no alternative outside a MGTOW life path. I see no alternative even with Stefan saying that the government welfare state will fail and women will need men again. FUCK NOT GIVEN. I don't care when women need men again so, she will change her tune. While I am in the trenches deflecting grendades and walking around landmines, she is getting screwed and running through the parade of attention/free dinners/sex/male validation but, when it fails, we're suppose to jump on that bomb? 

 

My genes will go with me if I don't meet a good genuine woman. I think youth is the key for me.

 

 

 

[smarterthanone]

3 hours ago, meetjoeblack said:

 

When I am better able to construct better arguments in a more concise way, I would like to do a FDR Call in show. I have many of my own hypocritical and contradicting thoughts so, I would like to better organize my thinking before taking that plunge. Stefan is 50 I believe so, someone much younger, half his junior would have had contradictions in thinking the way he had at a younger age. No doubt, I acknowledge his genius and want to hear his philosophy.

I believe this bias comes from him having a daughter. The data he speaks of shows a high risk for divorce once the gap is large so lets say, a decade or more. I would have to seek out the actual data. Still, divorce is terrible and its women that promote 1) Marriage after SMV craters or nearly has 2) Divorce with some fallacious argument, female logic, and the essence of which being discontentment. Its not something I can fix or adjust.

Now, If we were to look at the data, Stefan put together a Truth on Sex vid, and it showed the fallout for promiscuity. Crater SMV clings to monogamy, to being lonely, and it is very alarming for me. I am getting older and I am faced with single mother victimhood or crusty women that spent their days running through bad boys. Society promotes this social conditioning to 1) Don't judge her for Sloot gonna sloot 2) celebrate Single moms. No man would willingly choose this without lower IQ, society normalizing the behavior, and betas/cucks/white knights etc. and so, 'Provider Male' is left to clean up the mess that women have made. Women being gatekeeper of sex.

Another poster stated, he wants 3-4 kids, wants to date someone 18-21, and that if they travel the world for the next 4-5years, by the time they finish having kids, she will be 33. At this point, there is little to no way a woman much older can be on this life path for this man. As for marriage, I am a bit cynical about more recently with the info Stefan has brought forth, my own dating experiences, and the fact that, women seem to seek it usually once the bad boys stop coming. That the puss is for those guys when she is thin and betas get the scraps after her youth is torched.

 

So, if I am 28 and I date someone 18, by the time I am 35, she is 25. WTF is wrong with this? No, this is not what I wanted nor what I planned for but, through cold approach, I have seen no alternative outside a MGTOW life path. I see no alternative even with Stefan saying that the government welfare state will fail and women will need men again. FUCK NOT GIVEN. I don't care when women need men again so, she will change her tune. While I am in the trenches deflecting grendades and walking around landmines, she is getting screwed and running through the parade of attention/free dinners/sex/male validation but, when it fails, we're suppose to jump on that bomb? 

 

My genes will go with me if I don't meet a good genuine woman. I think youth is the key for me.

1. That was me you were talking about that said that about traveling and such then having 4 kids.

2. I think the right woman will be available to me. I have dated some awesome women that if I had been married already, it wouldn't have been the worst decision of my life. That being said, if I don't, I will probably have a small harem of lower SMV women. I am financially well off, so I could keep a household of 3 or 4 women easily. Not the worst life.

[meetjoeblack]

8 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

1. That was me you were talking about that said that about traveling and such then having 4 kids.

2. I think the right woman will be available to me. I have dated some awesome women that if I had been married already, it wouldn't have been the worst decision of my life. That being said, if I don't, I will probably have a small harem of lower SMV women. I am financially well off, so I could keep a household of 3 or 4 women easily. Not the worst life.

Given the current legal system, even with financial independence with neither of us have, you would be a mark for women. I read the Neil Strauss book where he tried to do this. Likely, it was fabricated and a fallacious story if not a blatant lie. Needless to say, it did not end well, and despite the best of efforts, it ended terribly. He ended up marrying; being domesticated/house broken.

At my age now, I want to date someone in SMV or in the near future otherwise, I would rather be single. I wont be a meal ticket for someone