Thursday, October 22, 2009

It's All About Hypergamy


It appears the debates between the relevancy, validity and morality of "Game" continues with both sides somewhat "talking past each other." I'm going to attempt to break it down to it's bare bones to try and foster a better understanding for "game" detractors, and to also explain why Game "works" across the spectrum of male and female relations.

In my view, I believe the biggest problem is largely of semantics. Many social conservatives and religious oriented detractors and critics of "game" have a hard time overcoming their sensibilities and moral sense of right and wrong when it comes to the terminology employed by "Game" proponents to gain a true grasp of the basic principles underlying "Game."

I myself thought at one time that the term "Game" was too loaded with negative connotations and that those of us that understand it should seek to come up with a better term for it...but I've since changed my mind about that, and I'll save that topic for another time.

Nevertheless, the misunderstandings that abound still need to be addressed.

First and foremost is the term hypergamy.

Hypergamy is the primary reproductive biological imperative of female sexuality. Whether you're a godless atheistic darwinist or a devout religious person, recognizing this basic fact need not be a point of contention, but rather an observation of reality. Either women evolved and adapted this hypergamous instinct as an evolutionary strategy...or God designed women that way on purpose. And while both views come from a very different starting point, they both have practical applications when it comes to understanding female sexuality and how it drives female mating strategy.

Because strategy is what it's all about. Mating strategies of men and women are nothing more than the reproductive biological imperative: Women are instinctually attracted to male dominance and men are instinctually attracted to female fertility. Both instinct-driven strategies are either God's or Natures way of ensuring the best means of ensuring the procreation of the next generation into an environment with the best chance of success in continuing the propagation of the species.

No amount of feminist social engineering, indoctrination or propaganda is ever going to overcome this basic instinct...it will only mislead people that believe in it down a path of unhappiness.

No amount of Christian-based moralizing and caricaturizing of male sexuality as depraved and female sexuality as chaste purity and virtue are going to overcome this instinct either, and it too only leads to shared misery of both men and women that adhere to it.

Both the religious and secular foundations of these shibboleths are destined to failure because they fail to understand the role of female hypergamy in the female mating strategy.

It all boils down to the basic fact that women are driven at a subconscious level to mate "up."

When it comes to "long term game" or dealing with it in a relationship, your mate will always subconsciously be judging your hypergamous position with regards to her in your relationship.

Think of it as a scale, with hypergamy on one end and beta-spinelessness on the other.

As long as your scale is tipping towards the hypergamy side, she's happy, she's in love, and your relationship is "working." Even if you occasionally backslide into some Beta behavior, as long as the majority of your relationship dynamic is tilted towards your status as a leader that she can respect and follow, you will not experience serious relationship discord.

But should you tip towards the Beta side far too much, it's a virtual certainty that she's going to "fall out of love" or start becoming dissatisfied with every facet of her life. Believe me, when you are running afoul of her basic hypergamous instinct, it will poison everything else in your relationship.

Marriage counselors and relationship advice folks always try to do scientific polls on the primary causes of divorce and/or relationship failures. They always point towards "money" or "infidelity" or some other easily recognizable "cause."

But what never gets addressed is the underlying female instinct of hypergamy.

A married couple can and will become a stronger, closer and more intimate couple in the face of severe difficulties and hardships in life...as long as the women has not developed Beta Contempt for her man. From a personal perspective, when I was in the death throes of marital beta-tude, minor financial troubles would turn into huge conflicts that would last for days...whereas nowadays we've never been worse off financially due to our current Great Depression 2.0, yet we get along better than ever.

Every instinct in every fiber of her being screams out for mating with a man who is "up" on the hypergamy scale. If your on the beta side, every little thing you do, every problem you both face, every obstacle and stumbling block in life will be magnified and intensified in her emotional reactions and her "feelings" about the Beta contempt she has for a man she no longer feels like she's "married up" with.

Another obstacle that seems to be hard to overcome appears to be an almost post-traumatic stress disorder reaction that manifests itself amongst many of Game's detractors - the minute a "Game" proponent tries to explain or encourage men to try and understand how they could apply the Game principles, critiques and criticisms of thought, ideas or actions in that context, they are reflexively deflected or rejected as nothing more than the equivalent of "shaming language."

Their is a substantial difference between trying to help someone recognize that a certain behavior is an attraction and respect killer to the female's attraction instincts by pointing out to them 'That's Beta,' versus a feminist or a mangina trying to silence debate by insulting someone simply to shame them into silence.

But I digress.

The primary point here is that whether you like it or not, the reason why "Game" has gained so much traction as of late, is because whether you agree with it or not, whether you are turned off by the hedonistic and what many consider the immoral pursuits of some of it's proponents (the PUA's), is because "Game" only WORKS because it is based on recognizing the principles of the female biological imperative, hypergamy.

Whether you are a devout Christian saving yourself for a marriage consecrated by God, or an aspiring player looking to engage in hedonistic indulgences with as many willing women as possible, understanding the principles of the female biological imperative will go a long way to understanding how to succeed at whatever avenue you choose to pursue.

28 comments:

Anakin Niceguy said...

HL,

There are two discussions going here.

1) Whether or not game is based on biological fact. You're entitled to your convictions on that matter.

2) Whether or not game is compatible with the tenets of Christianity. To be honest, HL? I haven't seen much of a compelling case for this, even when people tried to get on my blog and argue with me about it. At this juncture, I have difficulty believing that God wants me to read after Ross Jeffries.

I think it would instructive for the "Game" advocates to forget about arguing the case for #2. I daresay most of them don't have enough of a religious background and/or training in the Scriptures to speak with authority on that matter to believers. I'd be more inclined to hear a discussion of "Game" from my fellow religious bloggers Puritan Calvinist or Amir Larijani if they ever embraced game.

One may judge Christianity to be impractical and unrealistic about sexual mores. One may try to read one's views back intro traditional Christianity like some homosexual activists in liberal churches have done. There's nothing I can do to stop PUAs from doing these things. But neither of the above approaches will get one very far with conservative Christians.

Until an advocate of Game who is a devout Christian, active in his church, and very knowledgeable of Scriptures makes a case for Game, then it's no use making bald assertions about its compatibility with Christianity. When people try to attack my MGTOW views on religious grounds, I try to make a solid, in-depth exegetical argument. I haven't seen any game advocate do anything like this.

I think "Game" will be more successful among men who are not particularly conservative in their sexual mores.

Dex said...

AN,

A lot of the commenters over in the Roissysphere can be pretty obnoxious. And Ross Jeffries, by all accounts, is more than a bit of a freak. The alpha/beta dichotomy is very poorly thought out. But there is knowledge here, some of it useful. On the two discussions:

1. There's plenty of evidence that when a woman has lost respect for her husband and begins to feel contempt for him that she begins to look around either at other men or at just being single. If you don't want to see the science of it, then just look around. If you do want to see the science of it, I recommend John M. Gottman's work.

2. Game was developed by men who went out every day or every week and approached women and documented what got positive responses and what didn't. They collaborated online. They refined the techniques for arousing a sense of attraction in women. They became pick-up artists. But what they learned, and what they have published, is how to be attractive to the opposite sex if you don't necessarily have looks, fame or money going for you.

Surely no Christian man would wish to do this! She should want to be with you soley based on the strength of your faith and your exegetical ability! Just as you shouldn't find her physically attractive, but rate her on a scale developed from Proverbs 31. Right?

At the Christian college that I attended, I've actually heard variations on this. It was people lying to themselves. The heart wants what it wants. The two become one flesh, not one soul.

Christianity is not impractical or unrealistic about sexual mores - far from it! Get married, and keep each other happy? It's not unrealisitc - more than half of us are able to do it for life. It could be a larger percentage if we were willing to get real about our nature. It's the denial or avoidance in our churches of what Christianity teaches that keeps Christian marriages from being more successful than unbelievers. Man is the head of the woman, yes? I hear even conservatives trying to ameliorate this. Wives submit to your husbands - try getting a Sunday School teacher (in a class that includes women) to admit that this means what it actually says. Men being the leaders of their households vs what the PUAs call psychosocial dominance? Six of one, half dozen of the other. Negs? Playful teasing. Disarming "bitch shields" or passing "shit tests"? A soft answer turns away wrath. A word aptly spoken is apples of gold in pictures of silver. You meet a nice girl at your Bible study group ice cream social, or whatever, and "number-close" her, call her up for a date, what sin did you commit? Wise as serpent to get her number, innocent as dove until the wedding night, if that's what you prefer.

I'm not really invested in this; I'm happily married myself, now. I learned some things the hard way and I was lucky or blessed enough to have kept my eyes open and learn from wherever there was knowledge on the topic. I have lots of friends who are single, pretty much forced to GTOW because they don't meet or can't keep women interested in them. I'm a Christian and have no issue telling them about Game - in particular the Neil Strauss book or David DeAngelo youtube clips - in hopes that they'll pick up some Game. I'm sure that anyone who thinks it over can see a way to apply attraction techniques in a manner that doesn't offend the Lord.

The Social Pathologist said...

Anakin
1) Whether or not game is based on biological fact. You're entitled to your convictions on that matter.

There's a fair amount of variability in the female population, but the "rules of thumb" hold. A woman is attracted to psychosocial dominance just as a man is attracted to beauty. Virtue in a woman does not give a man a hard-on. Same for women.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Disarming "bitch shields" or passing "shit tests"? A soft answer turns away wrath. A word aptly spoken is apples of gold in pictures of silver.

A "soft answer" is Alpha?

The b-shield = Let not provoke and envy one another.

DHV = Whososever exulted himself shall be humbled.

Hypergamy = Those who are eager to get rich ...

G__ Tingle = Like a ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.


Surely no Christian man would wish to do this! She should want to be with you soley based on the strength of your faith and your exegetical ability! Just as you shouldn't find her physically attractive, but rate her on a scale developed from Proverbs 31. Right?


Yeah, some initial attraction is important, so I ask: Will you still love your wife when her looks go south after 40? Did you primarily love her for her looks? If something happened to her looks now, would you stop loving her?

lifescansdarkly said...

In case you haven't read it already, Roger F. Devlin's seminal essay "Sexual Utopia In Power" makes many similar assertions.

http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no2/DevlinTOQV6N2.pdf

Dex said...

I already said I thought the Alpha/beta dichotomy was screwed up. But, yes, reframing a criticism or engaging her sense of humor in an otherwise tense moment is part of Game. And is remarkably important to be able to do. I didn't learn it from the PUAs but I do recognize it.

Hypergamy isn't about being rich, it's about status. Having a good husband in a monogamous relationship, regardless of his socio-economic status, gives a woman status among other women. Think of it as a kind of conspicous consumption. You can avoid having her eyes wander by continuing to be an attractive male to her.

You might be confused about loving and being attracted - they are preconditions for each other, but not the same thing.

To answer your questions/attempt to see me as shallow: since she hits her 40s soon, I can predict that I will both love and physically want her as she ages. A good hip-waist ration covers a multitude of cosmetic sins. I've been with her since her late teens and BMI<21 days. Did I love her primarily for her looks? Nice try. But if we hadn't been attracted to each other, we never would have gotten to love, dude. And when her looks changed - the post-baby fat came along - yes I did still love her. Would I have been hotter for her had she lost it all right away? You bet. But you're talking about a matter of degree here.

Men are less likely to pack it in than women, as plenty of MGTOW and MRA sites you've been to can attest. Thus, while it's best if a woman can maintain her appearance, as well as behave in a way that edifies her family - it's much more important to the marriage that a man be able to maintain her respect and keep her attraction level up.

Talleyrand said...

Very good post, HL.

The two sides both have problems with Game because for the liberal it means there is no such thing as an "equal" relationship if its a romantic one. It just isn't possible. The male is either the dominant partner or the relationship is doomed.

The problems Christians have with it is that it flies in the face of what they want to believe (not what scripture says, but the way they view scripture). Again, many want to see women as the moral gender, They are not.

Anakin, there are plenty of examples of "game" in the bible.
I think the problem is differentiating between what is the moral course of action and what game says about the choices (for good and evil) men have. Game is neither consistent or inconsistent with Christianity.

In fact being a strong leader of the household is a tenant of game. The man is the head, the woman should be subservient. It wasn't just an admonition, but a warning of strife if the man doesn't have the wife's respect.

It doesn't really matter. Any philosophy or religion that has too many lies as part of its foundation will fail eventually and be replaced.

The Social Pathologist said...

You know one of things that really shits me about the opponents of game is the underlying assumption that they they are O.K and that it's the world that's all screwed up.

Many of them remind me of the fat chicks who want someone to love and in their failure, blame the world for their problems and not themselves.

I deal with lots of young men, and you know what? If I had daughters I wouldn't want them to marry nearly 98% of them.

Lazy, lacking in culture or sophistication, no dress sense, emotionally unstable(the pathetic crumbling at slight setbacks), a sense of entitlement with a corresponding sense of self worth. Fuck if I were a woman I would not marry them. And lets get this strait, the "therapeutic" Christianity that has been preached for the last 60 years has produced hoards of Christian men without any balls.

Game is about masculinity. It's whole focus is about making yourself attractive to women by being a man.

Will you still love your wife when her looks go south after 40? Did you primarily love her for her looks? If something happened to her looks now, would you stop loving her?

What the Hell has that got to do with Game? Game is not about pumping and dumping, a player can pump and dump if he chooses it is not an imperative of Game. Repeat after me: Game is about learning the skills which will make you attractive to women, it is not about bedding as many women as you can.

Talleyrand said...

I would go further.

Game is accepting the truth about what men and women find attractive.

Rejecting it, is equivalent to rejecting the idea that men find young, healthy, blemish free women with symmetrical faces attractive.

You can reject the truth, but it doesn't leave you any better off doing so.

You can deny that the lava will burn you all you want, but if you walk into it with that mindset, you're dead.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you're making the attempt to understand why game is so viscerally challenging to so many guys HL. It's about time someone did.

I think your emphasis on hypergamy is the right start. Game starts on the presumption that it has a valid understanding of what is attractive to women, and it's not just guess-work, theorizing, moralizing or vain hope. It's empirical (ie based on experiment), and as such is closer to science. I think its observations are sound, in that they accord with my own experience of the world. Women are indeed drawn to confident men with an air of authority about them, and the more social smarts a man can broadcast, the more attractive women will find him (most women anyhow - some women will immediately dislike such a man because they will rightfully believe they don't have a chance of snagging him).

Women are 'running game' as soon as they uncap the lip-stick, or go on yet another diet. They've correctly understood that the appearance of fertility is what attracts a man, and that youth, good physical build and symmetry of features (which is what beauty is) are the best indicators of fertility. The most attractive women also know how to be submissive in demeanor, in order that the man gets his opportunity to shine in what she expects of him - taking charge (this is the so-called feminine mystique).

Not every man needs game though, just as not every women needs make-up, exercise and dieting. They're rare though. Some people are so damn attractive that they are better off down-playing rather than upgrading themselves, so that someone will at least think they have a chance with them.

Funny thing is, we don't condemn women for reading our basic attraction psychology correctly and trying to exploit it - we even encourage it.

So I've come around to the game proponents point of view thus far, after initially being resistant. However, had game been presented in this way to me, I don't think I would have had any objection to it. It's not its observations, or even its application of those observations that are causing the rift between so many men. It's the command that is carried under the breath of so many game proponents: "get with game, or you're a lesser man - being attractive to women is all that matters."

You probably don't think that yourself - and to be frank, I've never read you say such a thing. But it is common amongst the game community, and there are always a gang of crows sitting along the fence ready to heckle anyone that might take exception to a game guru's pronouncements. There is a strong element of hype and intimidation present, and the fact that books are going to print by these gurus suggest a lot of truth could be being economized with.

I read a guy like Roosh for example, who openly states that he has no respect for any man who doesn't walk up to attractive women and try and engage them in conversation, and I shake my head in disbelief. He sounds like the pretty high-school girl who abuses all the other girls for not trying harder to be popular with the guys.

Don't get me wrong, they can think what they like. But if we want to understand why game gets a bad rap, then it helps to look at all the reasons. Sell it into the right space, and it will get the best reception - but hit men over the head with it for saying 'nah, not important to me' and it will suffer.

Thursday said...

Religious game opponents really need to say what specific practices they find morally questionable. :

1. Out and out asshole game
2. Boyfriend destroyers
3. Use of seduction phase techniques outside marriage

Game for example tells you:

1. How to talk to a girl so as to engage her on an emotional level
2. How and when to ask for a phone number or date
3. What kinds of dates to go on
4. How and when to start touching a girl
5. How to make a girl comfortable with you
6. How and when to kiss a girl
7. How to handle congruence tests

I fail to see how any of the above violate traditional morality.

The principal objections to game seem to be its association with the immoral men who have discovered its principals. I would agree that caution is warranted, but the truth of a proposition has no necessary relation to the moral worthiness person that propounds.

Thursday said...

Oops.

Religious game opponents really need to say what specific practices they find morally questionable. I would say the following are not acceptable:

1. Out and out asshole game
2. Boyfriend destroyers
3. Use of seduction phase techniques outside marriage

Thursday said...

Notwithstanding all the talk about shaming language, sometimes the criticisms of at least some MRA/MGTOW guys is justified. For example, these two phenomena actually do exist:

1. Some guys have minds and personalities that are just repulsive to women. They seem to exhibit all the most annoying habits of the male brain. These may turn to MRA/MGTOW to find a way to blame others, rather than acknowledge their own unattractiveness and perhaps start learning how to be attractive.

2. There are guys who have found engagements with women to be painful and confusing and who are looking for an excuse to not put themselves out on the line a gain. The ability to cloak their lack of initiative in moral righteousness is a goldmine.

There is a lot of female bad behaviour out there, and it frequently is the woman's fault. But on a personal level sometimes a little more self examination on the part of guys wouldn't hurt.

That is one of the other things that tends to upset a lot of MGTOWers. Game requires a lot of self examination and the ability to let go of one's own ego. That can be difficult for some guys, who want to remain in a safe place.

The real problem with shaming language isn't that the specific charges aren't sometimes true, it's that the truth or falsity of thos charges isn't relevant to the truth or falsity of a persons ideas. A MRA/MGTOWer can be an obnoxious coward whose women problems are almost entirely of his own making and still speak truth about female misbehaviour and the injustice against males in our society.

The Social Pathologist said...

Thursday, I also think that other great stumbling block of Game, when it comes to religious conservatives, is the implicit assumption in it of the existence female carnality/sexuality, something that Christianity has tried to suppress/gloss over before.

I think a lot of Chrisitian guys, especially when they're in love, tend to look at their partner with a "Platonic outlook". The thought that the beautiful object of their romantic affections, whom they love wholeheartedly, is hanging out for a good rogering repulses many of them. Game teaches men how to deal with the carnality of female nature. I've often had the notion that when it came to male-female relations, Christianity has tended to gloss over the whole subject of female sexual desire treating it as if it didn't exist.

Kirt33 said...

The problems Christians have with it is that it flies in the face of what they want to believe (not what scripture says, but the way they view scripture). Again, many want to see women as the moral gender, They are not.

Thursday, I also think that other great stumbling block of Game, when it comes to religious conservatives, is the implicit assumption in it of the existence female carnality/sexuality, something that Christianity has tried to suppress/gloss over before.


I'm a conservative Christian; I agree with these. I think that many conservative Christian men today have a view of women that is less biblical than it is Victorian. For what it's worth:

Either women evolved and adapted this hypergamous instinct as an evolutionary strategy...or God designed women that way on purpose.

I actually see many of the worst aspects of female nature as a result of the Fall - for example, I believe the way hypergamy often manifests itself today is merely a corruption of woman's initially good desire to look up to her husband's headship in marriage. (See the curse of Eve in Genesis 3:16, etc.)

And, I still agree with Thursday about all that he's said here so far re: Game and compatibility with Christian life.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Religious game opponents really need to say what specific practices they find morally questionable. :

1. Out and out asshole game
2. Boyfriend destroyers
3. Use of seduction phase techniques outside marriage


I think you will have to be more specific about your definitions. My objection is that many of your colleagues have tried to dictate to me what I should believe when they are not even Christians or that they appear to little or no knowledge of the Bible. I think they are forgetting something - a lot of Christians like myself do not accept evolution. I don't accept that women are hardwired to be greedy, contentious, unsubmissive, with selfish ambition, unable to be moral apart from the husband, unable to give weight to spiritual matters. If I, as a Christian man, gave the emphasis on looks that you allow Christian women on perceived male status (what you call "game"), I would be derided as shallow and worldly. I want you people to tell me how the s**t test (a vulgar term no less) harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 13.

Let's face it. Men are finding respectful women with great personalities abroad entirely without the benefit of game. I have heard too many specific examples in the MGTOW/MRA camp. But what standard excuse do I hear from guys who persist in dating women from what is arguably a materialistic, secularized, gynocentric culture? "Oh, we don't have what it takes to move abroad or find love abroad." Thus the irony of the charges against MGTOWers being too lazy and afraid.

You honed and refined your techniques on one the most spoiled, privileged and pampered groups of women in human history. These women have lived their entire lives in a culture that is bent on wealth, instant self-gratification, vilification of males, discourtesy, lack of sacrifice, lack of compassion, etc. Do you kinda' think that uh, perhaps, these women are a wee bit affected by that? And yet you persist in rewarding them with what they want. As the Byrds would ask in one song, "Why?"

I applaud your skills on being able to stare down tigers. You're braver than me. But I prefer the tigers to be behind cages or away from me. I don't want a tiger. I want a woman conformed to the image of Christ.

Anakin Niceguy said...

[my response cont'd ...]

I have more understanding for the PUAs day by day. With all their experience and knowledge about women, they STILL don't hang around women for long. They have indicated through their actions and words that a good number women of this society are only good for one thing. Roissy, himself, has made that clear.

You guys want to lecture me on Game. You guys have said that one should only listen to a man who has had wide experience with women, meaning of couse "Game" advocates (as if there aren't any MGTOWers who aren't into the Seduction scene and haven't educated us on AWs for years now, thank you very much).

Well, I'm listening! Are you listening? On the fundamental question of whether or not women in this society are worth it: Roissy, other PUAs, and most MGTOWers are united! That's the biggest lesson on "Game" a man's needs to learn - just how much the women are "worth it."

And you know what the irony is? Those oh-so nasty, non-Christian lotharios that steal the Christian women from you know that your religious sisters are only good for one thing. That's why those guys don't often commit to them. What?! Not see the beauty of such "godly" women? How could these men be so mean and unappreciative?

You see, gentlemen, this what you don't know about me: I didn't grow up in a Christian household. I've been in the world and know how secular women are. Therefore I know when a Christian woman is acting a certain way, I know what to expect.

A vast number of religious women in the Anglosphere are fakes. You think that because she sits her pretty posterior down in a pew and has certain verses highlighted in yellow that she is Dante's Beatrice. No. And here's why. As the religious scholar Martin Marty said one time: Religion in America is like the River Platte - very wide and very shallow. For the most part, I am not impressed with "your women." Neither are the bad boys that use them.

Keoni Galt said...

Anakin, I've got the exact reverse situation as you. I was born and raised in a devout Christian household. I was forced to go to church and read the Bible until I was 15 years old. From their, I rebelled and plunged into secular hedonism full tilt. I've since come full circle...while I don't attend church, I do read the bible, and I have come to believe in the Christian world view again.

And although I'm no amateur bible scholar, I certainly have an understanding of the Bible and Christian principles and precepts...and from my own observations, I see that the biggest problem in Christianity today is the subversion of the principles of Patriarchy.

I've literally seen women snort in derision and men meekly joke about how they are supposed to be the "head of the house." Otherwise decent, upstanding and devout worshippers, have let the secular dictates of female "equality" have led many to ignore that basic principle. As if all of god's commandments in the bible are required to follow EXCEPT the one in which women submitting to their husband's authority.

I came from a house in which both my Father and Mother had a relationship based on the false, 20th/21st century Christian idea of men's debased nature and female moral superiority.

I've lived the experience firsthand in a household in which the male headship was subverted by this mistaken notion.

I fell into the pattern myself...and it nearly drove me and my wife into divorce.

When I began studying game, and I began to appy it's basic principles, I was amazed at the transformation in our relationship.

I only came to my current point of view, because I've seen the truth of it from first hand experience.

I've learned that it is absolutely necessary for me to live up to my RESPONSIBILITY to be the head of my house.

Thursday said...

And you know what the irony is? Those oh-so nasty, non-Christian lotharios that steal the Christian women from you know that your religious sisters are only good for one thing. That's why those guys don't often commit to them. What?! Not see the beauty of such "godly" women? How could these men be so mean and unappreciative?

This is out and out paranoia. At least where I live, there is virtually no overlap between the bar scene and church girls. Judging by the ones I've dated, most church girls raised in Christian homes are virgins, even the older ones. Not only has that been my experience, but my three closest friends have married virgins too.

Not only that, but coming from the other side, my "player" friends tell me that girls who have committed to not have sex before marriage are really hard to get into bed and aren't worth the pursuit. "Last minute resistance" for these girls is measured in months not minutes.

Fantastic women are very findable, even in North America.

Anakin Niceguy said...

This is out and out paranoia. At least where I live, there is virtually no overlap between the bar scene and church girls. Judging by the ones I've dated, most church girls raised in Christian homes are virgins, even the older ones. Not only has that been my experience, but my three closest friends have married virgins too.

I am not arguing that the price is higher. My point is that the players refuse to commit to them. Good women in North America? But Roissy says "Don't get married."

Doug1 said...

Good post. Even with LTR game though marriage today seems awfully one sided. Woe be to the man that faces serious reversals, and today’s society will understand his wife’s decision to leave him, as her hypergamous attraction takes a hit. Yet woe be it for a man to leave his increasingly less attractive wife. He must be punished, and she supported. Fair or not fair?

I think you’re right to point to female hypergamy as the singly biggest insight of game, particularly the single biggest socially relevant insight. Of course it’s actually an insight of evolutionary psychology, which much current game, and certainly that preached by Roissy, draws from.

From the overall social point of view, one of the big downsides of female hypergamy is that the type of male psychosocial dominance that women are attracted to if their hypergamy isn’t strongly culturally shaped and constrained, isn’t by any means always socially recognized male leadership and status, but rather often rough bad boy or even thuggish violence. Not just revolutionaries but criminals attract women. Not just romantic and perhaps justifiable privateers or pirates, but serial killers attract some women. The later may be a fringe case, but the tendency for women to be attracted to bad boys achieving little and creating or leading little in society is not a fringe case, again if not sufficiently culturally shaped and constrained. Feminism has worked hard to remove almost all social constraint from women’s sexual choices these days – including even their cheating sexual choices within marriage, rewarded or anyway not punished by no fault divorce. Which of course in practice means no female fault divorce, since in practice all divorces for whatever reason are treated the same, or actually much worse, than male fault divorces treated husbands 50 years ago.

Even with game your message Keoni/Dave from Hawaii seems to be that the married man better not stumble. Or not for long anyway. Feminist female liberation has meant that when a woman promises “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health” her fingers are really crossed. Further you’re telling us that game says that’s her nature so that’s ok. If a man has serious reversals that it looks he will not be able to fully climb out of, then his wife will stop being attracted to him, for hypergamous reasons. Men not facing such reversals however, who’s wives lose their beauty by e.g. becoming fat or due to sickness, must continue to be stood by and really the culture says still loved by their husbands, or else they’re terrible, and certainly will be made to pay in divorce court. Yet if the wife leaves a bankrupt husband, well we currently say of course, that’s socially condoned. Rather one sided, today’s marriage even with game, isn’t it?

We know that times of prolonged male unemployment lead to significantly increased rates of divorce. That was true in the 1930s, lord knows it’s likely to be more true now, what with all the additional female empowerment over the last few decades. We also know that female unemployment has no effect on the divorce rate.

Marriage seems like a rather rum deal for men in these one sidedly female empowered days. Certainly any marriage which doesn’t disallow all alimony and doesn’t limit the wife to her own earned or brought into the marriage assets in the event of divorce for anything other than strong male fault. Laughable feminist “domestic abuse”, e.g. slapping his wife a time or two without serious injury or certainly serious injury would not qualify; felony assault would.

Anonymous said...

"yes, I used to watch porn. I realized that it was damaging my spiritual essence, it was corrupting my character, and I quit watching it and I've learned that I'm a much better man for having developed such self-control."

So you are saying you should not watch porn if you have a girlfriend or wife?

You should throw away any porn you do have as soon as you get a date?

Keoni Galt said...

Nah, I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm only saying that after some introspection, I realized that watching porn was distorting my view of sex and I found it a source of corruption for my mental well being, so I quit.

Sex, Lies and Attempts at Truth said...

Very interesting discussion. As a woman I found the notion of hypergamy, a new term until I stumbled upon Roissy, enlightening. It explained much of why I rejected men I'd met for dates. I had wondered if I was just difficult to please, this notion bothered me. Once I understood I'm 'wired' to seek men who have social dominance, are dominant/leaders and comparatively older it made sense. I can reconcile this with Christian beliefs due to the notion of submissiveness. That said I've left the church due to some difficulties I perceive within organized religion (I used to work in Ministry). I don't enter this discussion to debate; I have poor skills in that area truthfully. I do appreciate those of you who write well and make great arguments, regardless of which 'side' you're on.

Martian Bachelor said...

"Hypergamy is the primary reproductive biological imperative of female sexuality. ...recognizing this basic fact need not be a point of contention, but rather an observation of reality."

The problem is it's a difficult observation to make, and therefore just isn't the "basic fact" some think it to be.

In fact, in the context of Game it's an axiom, in the sense that word is used in logic and mathematics. It certainly isn't any self-evident truth, at least not to me (and I think I'm fairly observant). If it was so obvious, the question "what the hell do women want?" would have been answered and settled long, long ago.

I would contend observational support for hypergamy is weak or lacking. I certainly don't see those who take it on faith to be doing anything to question or disprove the hypothesis that it's so central ("the primary reproductive biological imperative of female sexuality").

It could even be nothing more than a mere projection: guys fantasizing about easily getting women who are way out of their leagues, and then mistakenly thinking the gals must be thinking the same way.

Hypergamy is a pillar of patriarchal systems, which women have always chafed against and resisted mightily unless properly socialized and socially regulated. Such would not be needed if it just came naturally to them.

Now that all that socialization and those regulations are largely a thing of the past, hypergamy would predict all sorts of things happening that we just don't see.

I understand the desire for simple answers, and even a crummy strategy is better than no strategy at all, but never forget Darwin: "Sexual selection is in itself an extremely complex affair...". The topic almost forbids neat, simple answers such as the one you're trying to present.

Anonymous said...

@ Martian Bachelor

Your comments reak of blatant appolgetic clap trap. You my friend made an argument that the stereo type for women as untrue and too easy. This means you are disgruntled and more than likely a feminized beta boy. Your argue ments used passive voice and insubstantial niceities. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

@ Martian Bachelor

"Hypergamy is a pillar of patriarchal systems, which women have always chafed against and resisted mightily unless properly socialized and socially regulated. Such would not be needed if it just came naturally to them."

Just what the hell do you mean by "hypergamy" here? Certainly not the same "hypergamy" that HL writes about.

Traditional patriarchal systems worked to keep women's hypergamy in check through social, religious and economic pressures. Women in the old days weren't free to seek out the most dominant alpha men they could find (to the exclusion of all others). Moreover, they weren't free to discard declining, boring "beta" male husbands in favor of exciting, ascending "alpha" males, like they are now.

Laura said...

ugh, this game stuff disgusts me. i guess for men who feel awkward and insecure trying strategies has always been popular. watching just one video with Jeffries giving the example "leading a horse by the reins" made me ill.
Even if some of the info is correct like Alpha/respect etc. does not mean the intent is good or even the info is good.
What about honesty? This teaches predator skills in my opinion. What I like about it is if woman are trained right and treated right by their mom's and Dad's they won't fall for this. If a man touched me like that as if on cue back when I was single whenever I laughed my sense of protection would have come out. I sense when things don;t match and don;t fall for a face or touch not matching the soul. It is called intuition. It has warned me of weirdos many times.