Hypergamy

[Childress]

hy·per·ga·my: hīˈpərɡəmē/

noun : The action of marrying a person of a superior caste or class.

Has the sexual revolution has exposed the hypergamous nature of women?

 In the pre-civilized state of humanity, red in tooth and claw, women determined which men got sexual access. Being calculating, they operate from a position of power- they crave it less. Men seek sexual release, women seek status and security. Thus marriage- as opposed to promiscuity-  represents an artificial state which in a civilised environment needs to fenced in by religious strictures, taboos and penalties. Is this stating the obvious? Have we returned to the Garden of Eden or ... something else?

Faithful matrimony, however desirable, runs contrary to our genetic code. And despite the modern ethos enduring sexual unions appear to require innocence on both sides. The less knowledge and experience and the fewer partners, the better. And inexperience on both sides benefits the male of the species.

Debate.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Childress

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, Childress said:

Debate

Well, I have noticed that with the advent of reliable contraception and increasing economic independence of women, female sexual promiscuity has really run wild. The story used to  be that men were promiscuous and women were monogamous, but clearly that was mostly due to economic factors and the need of a permanent partner to share in child raising. Now with more women pursuing careers other than mother and housewife, many seem to prefer sexual arrangements that are brief. They scratch the itch and move on to the rest of their lives. When the weekend rolls around, they mosey down to the singles bar to pick up another one night stand and scratch that itch one more time.

As a rather old-fashioned romantic, I find this trend a bit disconcerting. While I have taken advantage of it, I confess that I am not especially comfortable with the whole thing. I agree with a friend of mine who noted one time back about 50 years ago that the human sexual apparatus requires an extended period of time to fully express itself, and cannot be done in one-night stands, no matter how many or how often.

Michael

[Childress]

Do you believe that, with the modern sexual free-for-all, no fault divorce, women's rights, etc, males have ceded power to females? I tend to think so. The latter secures discretionary powers.

Does connubial bliss depend on mutual confusion, a basic misunderstanding? Or is it all just a joke?

Samuel Johnson to Boswell on sex: 'Sir, the expense is damnable, the position is ridiculous, and the pleasure fleeting.'

And on the fatuity of finding the 'right woman':

Boswell: "Pray, Sir, do you not suppose that there are fifty women in the world, with any one of whom a man may be as happy, as with any one woman in particular?" 
Johnson: "Ay, Sir, fifty thousand."

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, Childress said:

Does connubial bliss depend on mutual confusion, a basic misunderstanding? Or is it all just a joke?

Like everything else in life, it depends. I've known couples who are doing just fine and have done so for years. But people go though changes as they age, and the perfect partner when you are five and twenty may not be the perfect partner when you are forty. Indeed, at a certain point in life, you may just not really want a partner at all.

Michael

[Childress]

My point was that average men, contrary to conventional wisdom, find themselves at a disadvantage in a free-for-all sexual marketplace. 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Childress

[John Kettler]

Childress,

Am so disappointed! My quick scan saw it as reading "hypergamey," but then I noticed the "E" was missing necessary to describe someone of extremely dubious wargaming ethics. To return to the OP, I know someone decidedly hypergamous and male. Someone blessed with a sharp mind, Adonis level looks, a killer smile and abundant self confidence went from being highly productive and a lady killer (was in a car at a red light when he jumped out, got a girl's number and hooped back in just as the light turned) to a two-timing wastrel, dating two women, one I later learned was of legal complications years, the other a vivacious curvy woman with a "W" personable, sharp as a tack, accomplished in business and driven to succeed. Did she ever! These days, she's VP of essentially half of a major US firm you'd instantly recognize and pulls down the best part of $ 1,000,000 a year. From what I can tell, since marrying her he's done very little on the income generation front and has been able to pursue his hobbies on a monthly budget running into the thousands! He had enough for a small game shop in his basement game room alone, but an adjoining large unfinished room had at least that, if not more, with much of the product still hanging on pegboards. She's made it possible for him to live in one great home after another, dine at fine restaurants, drive nice cars, travel the world, dress well, etc. She keeps a beautiful home, is a great cook and a wonderful hostess. They are still nuts about each other, to the point where it leaps from their photos on FB. As far as I'm concerned, this guy won not the Lotto but a bunch of them. Dad used to tell me, recognizing my then highly introverted nature and academic bent "Son, marry a rich woman." One of my closest friends had two different opportunities to marry into wealth; the first had a father who owned a big landscaping (talking freeway green spaces, for example) firm. The other was the daughter and, I believe, only child, of a founding partner of a powerhouse law firm. Either way, he would've been set, Instead, he, the lineal descendant of a famous tenor, met a nice middle class girl who shared his interest in the performing arts (he performed in musicals and directed; she danced and choreographed). they had two daughters, who are themselves talented. Never got rich, but the home's nice, paid for and in a good area. He's won a stack of awards and bonuses for killing it in corporate bulding leasing.

Michael Emrys,

Am the eldest of six and never married. Not by design, just circumstances. All five of my siblings have +-30 years of being happily married. Since only one of them ever had to really root around in the psyche (had to to get a Master's in Counseling), I am astounded the rest weren't done in by negative programming dating to to early childhood in a house which became crazier and more abusive over time. Yet I did an enormous amount of work: in pricey, grueling weekend seminars (no Est), reading, one-on-one, therapy and other things to identify and unravel all that destructive programming, negative self talk, etc. Despite all that work, to include writing down many times what I wanted in my lady and affirming it often, I got one woman after another who was messed up, some in lengthy delayed action mode. I'd say more, but we both might cry! Nor is my current situation remotely favorable in terms of finding someone. I don't look anywhere close to my chronological age, am not ossified in my thinking or cantankerous and have no interest, as not PC as it is to say so, in being with someone who looks like my grandma used to. It's one thing to grow old together seeing each other day after day as Time unfolds, and quite another, I think, to start there. 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

17 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Am so disappointed! My quick scan saw it as reading "hypergamey," but then I noticed the "E" was missing necessary to describe someone of extremely dubious wargaming ethics.

Me too....."The old pillboxes on the map-edge trick eh?" 

[Childress]

On 4/11/2017 at 8:13 PM, John Kettler said:

Childress,

Am so disappointed! My quick scan saw it as reading "hypergamey," but then I noticed the "E" was missing necessary to describe someone of extremely dubious wargaming ethics.

 

Hehe. That's why this post garnered 140+ views instead of 12.

[Col Deadmarsh]

On 4/4/2017 at 0:40 PM, Childress said:

My point was that average men, contrary to conventional wisdom, find themselves at a disadvantage in a free-for-all sexual marketplace. 

I agree...and hypergamy has gotten a lot worse in recent years. If we expand the definition of hypergamy to include any sexual relationship and not just marriage, then I definitely think that women are holding out for a better class of men then they previously did, even if it's just to have sex with them.

The average guy used to be able to meet the average girl, date her, and enter into a relationship if he wanted to. Now, the average looking girl isn't exactly looking to settle down. She's allowed to date and have sex with a bunch of different men as this is somehow okay in our current Western society. Then at around age 29, she gets serious enough to find a guy who has money and wants to support her. 

These women are completely delusional as every one of them think that their Prince Charming is waiting to marry her even though she's already lost some of her looks.  You can attribute this new behavior to all these ridiculous movies that usually star Amy Schumer and involve women staying up all night partying in clubs, getting drunk, and acting like sailors on shore leave. 

The people who run the studios are obviously working in concert with other parties to make sure that Western women are ruined forever by the media they consume. 

Meanwhile, your average Joe who just wants to meet a nice girl and settle down is left spending his Saturday nights alone by himself.

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Col Deadmarsh

[Childress]

Very poignant, Deadmarsh.

I also agree that the sexual revolution was /is a disaster, particularly for men. Though having dipped my toe into the swamp, I consider myself a rank hypocrite.

My summary on free- or, if you will, promiscuous- sex:

1- The more numerous one's sexual experiences the faster ennui sets in, and the greater turnover of partners. (See gays)

2- As far as marriage is concerned, the fewer prior experiences the better. This applies to men and women.

3- Since women crave sex less, they decide when intimacy takes place. They're in the driver's seat.

4- So status considerations loom larger with them.

5- This phenomenon marginalises average men.

6- Ready availability of porn, i.e., the internet, has proved a negative.

7- The best and most enduring sex is based on mutual innocence, if not ignorance.

8- We've been deceived by propaganda on the subject of sex since the 60s.

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by Childress

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, Childress said:

I also agree that the sexual revolution was /is a disaster, particularly for men.

Since we are all opinionating here, my 2¢ worth is that it was/is not a disaster, but a profound upheaval that requires considerable adjusting, and those adjustments are ongoing. I will agree that a lot that was accepted on faith in, say, the '80s has turned out not to work the way it was thought to work and needs to be discarded. But by whom and under what circumstances involves a lot of fine tuning. One of the worst facets of the old-style attitude towards sex was its rigid one-size-fits-all dictate. People still need to find their own path, but it would be helpful if there were some useful markers and less BS along the way.

Michael

[Childress]

Former Seattle running back, Marshawn Lynch: 'I'm here because I don't want to get fined'.

Me, on this radioactive topic: 'I'm not replying to your post because I don't want to get banned'.

[Col Deadmarsh]

15 hours ago, Childress said:

Very poignant, Deadmarsh.

I also agree that the sexual revolution was /is a disaster, particularly for men. Though having dipped my toe into the swamp, I consider myself a rank hypocrite.

My summary on free- or, if you will, promiscuous- sex:

1- The more numerous one's sexual experiences the faster ennui sets in, and the greater turnover of partners. (See gays)

2- As far as marriage is concerned, the fewer prior experiences the better. This applies to men and women.

3- Since women crave sex less, they decide when intimacy takes place. They're in the driver's seat.

4- So status considerations loom larger with them.

5- This phenomenon marginalises average men.

6- Ready availability of porn, i.e., the internet, has proved a negative.

7- The best and most enduring sex is based on mutual innocence, if not ignorance.

8- We've been deceived by propaganda on the subject of sex since the 60s.

Yeah, I'd agree with all of those points. #1 is especially important. I don't think we need to go back to the 50s or anything in terms of morality but we have gone way too far in letting women run around wild. It's destroying our civilization.

The sexual revolution may have made sex easier to obtain for men. However, we've reached a point now where women no longer worry about whether or not they look like whores for sleeping around with lots of men. So what do they do? They wait around to only sleep with the top 20% of men. 

In the past, they would've been shamed for such sexual morals. But now it's encouraged by our media as is being single. So your average 6-7 will wait around for a man who's an 8 or above in looks/personality/money/status etc to date her or have sex. Obviously, this is very damaging to all other men and that's why we now have the MGTOW movement. Average men who no longer have sexual access to these women have given up on them.

Our media might say shaming is bad, but that's their plan to keep things status quo. The reality is, it's shaming that kept society under control and women from being so promiscuous. Without shaming women for having lots of sexual partners, you now have the situation we have today. Some men might think this is a good thing but it's horrible for relationships, destroys the family structure, and is generally bad for society.

And this was all planned. Communists said this was how they would destroy the West and that's exactly what they've been doing.

 

[Degsy]

"And this was all planned. Communists said this was how they would destroy the West and that's exactly what they've been doing".

No, I think their plan involved fluoride. See this helpful documentary clip:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY