Think about hypergamy this way: if women had their physical/financial/legal needs provided by the govt, they would only be interested in the most attractive men

rulenumber303 · 2017-05-24T09:31:29+00:00

If what it takes to get you a relationship is the woman actually fearing imminent death from financial deprivation (rather then just experiencing the horrible discomfort and general anxiety that comes from welfare level income) then I've gotta say you are the dregs and probably should not be given the opportunity to breed more like yourself.

Princeso_Bubblegum · 2017-05-24T12:28:17+00:00

Relevant: Do communists have better sex.

Its literally a case study of exactly this: a society where all the financial needs of women are met by the government - East Germany.

Women's sex did explode (they had twice as much sex as West Germans AFTER the sexual revolution in West-Germany), but not in the way you think it would. Since women weren't under the influence of capitalism, their taste in men wasn't commodified and enforced, rather, they had sex with whomever would give them the best time sexually. In school you were actually taught the best way to please woman sexually in sex ed, lol. Also, they weren't fucking anyone for status either, because there is no need to, a lot of women never even got married.

Temperfuelmma · 2017-05-24T07:24:31+00:00

You're telling me my choices would be a lot less pragmatic if I didn't have to worry about money?

Shocking insight.

dottywine · 2017-05-24T08:58:54+00:00

You're saying that when people are on welfare and (let's assume) have essential needs met, there is no desire for other means of more financial gain? Or status increase? Because I don't buy that. I think the premise of this is off.

opticallyolive · 2017-05-24T15:10:57+00:00

So let me rephrase this as I'm understanding it. Welfare will be enough to free women from the tyranny of having to lie to ugly men about how attracted they are to them? So they will only want to sleep with top notch guys as soon as they're getting oh, 35,000k or whatever the absolute top-out welfare number is for a woman with children?

You think women are waiting with baited breath for that? Care to expand on why you actually think this is an attractive lifestyle for women? I mean, are we talking about the basest, poorest people in the country, are we talking about college grads, are we talking about women who grew up middle class? Who are we talking about? Why would women who grew up in households making 200,000k be cool with going on welfare? The post only mentions tribes and some sort of vision of agrarian Europe from which OP extrapolated evo-psych reasons for why women do what they do? But you do understand that all interpretation is necessarily cultural, not to mention "of the times," right? That you can only view anything through your particular cultural lens?

I read that post yesterday on RP and found it laughable. It just reinforces the extreme solipsism of men who have swallowed this particular brand of crazy.

I'm not a "feminist" or whatever either, and that's because I am a human and I use reason instead of believing pseudoscientific lazy crazy.

Littleknownfacts · 2017-05-24T09:51:08+00:00

Nah, because evolution doesn't work so fast. If for all of human history, women needed to be as attracted to men with resources/status as they were to men with good physical genetics (because having resources/status is a non-physical manifestation of good genetics too) it isn't all of a sudden going to stop now that we as a society live comfortably. Those internal attraction tickers don't just shut off, it just raises the bar on what's considered high value.

[deleted] · 2017-05-24T17:03:04+00:00

What about women who make their own money? Wouldn't that have the same outcome?

eliechallita · 2017-05-24T18:25:22+00:00

News at 11: People make choices based on their chances of survival. Women living in poverty might choose a mate based on his ability to provide for them, especially if they are traditionally barred from roles where they could provide for themselves. Similarly, men in a traditional society who aren't rich or attractive enough to attract any woman they want will settle for someone who isn't horrible and can keep a clean house.

A solid social safety net helps both genders, because we're all likely to get sick, lose a job, or suffer some other form of hardship. Once you aren't liable to lose your home and health for quitting your job, you just might get more adventurous with what career you choose.

Same thing goes for choosing partners: If you aren't forced to look for a partner who will fulfill basic needs like income or housekeeping, you will look for a partner who fits less pragmatic criteria like physical attraction or personality quirks. I don't see the problem with that.

Justapasserby557 · 2017-05-24T15:22:30+00:00

I think not relying on someone's money also opens you up to choosing partners based on companionship and compatibility, too.

My fiance and I make about the same salary, and up until a few months ago I even made more than him. It means that money/providing in exchange for sex/affection isn't our dynamic, so we're each free to give to each other instead. We still stay together because we're best friends and genuinely enjoy each other's company, not because he needs sex and I need money.

I think in the future you'll definitely see a lot more casual pairings, but you'll also see mostly happy marriages since people will only get married if they feel genuinely connected.

GoldPisseR · 2017-05-24T12:56:26+00:00

Most attractive men

You think it is only limited to looks which just kills the entire argument. Money isn't attractive, but what it represents is.

A self made rich man is far more appealing than a 20 yr old jock who was born into daddy's money.Women love winners.

jewfrocel · 2017-05-24T09:52:26+00:00

what really grind my gears is that women, unlike men, don't actually need good genetics to be high sex appeal. Their facial structure in terms of the positioning of the upper/lower jaws is less important in their sex appeal than men, as men are attracted to soft tissue traits (ass,tits, neotony, makeup etc)

the average recessed woman hitting the gym and getting a toned physique will raise her sexual market value substantially. It will also raise the average mans, but to a much lesser extent. Woman can get away with being genetic trash, polluting alpha chads good genes in the process

AutoModerator · 2017-05-24T06:59:47+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

DeathByBeelzie · 2017-05-24T19:42:42+00:00

So if both of them work and neither pays for the other, the guy is automatically Chad?

mistresswhat · 2017-05-24T23:07:54+00:00

If literally the only thing you have going for you in a relationship is your ability to be a good provider than anyone who puts up with you deserves to be provided for. Living with someone you hate and pretending to care about them is work.

I can think of three guys I know personally just off the top of my head with girlfriends way hotter than them who make more than they do and still love them to bits. And it makes total sense because those guys treat them very well, provide emotional support, have shared interests/values, are super fun to hang out with, and are skilled/generous in bed. I know even more guys in happy relationships like this who are more evenly matched to their partners in terms of both looks and income.

Guys who can't just throw money at their love lives are forced to actually be good partners, and that's a good thing.

DashneDK2 · 2017-05-25T08:57:22+00:00

Women in Scandinavia have most physical/financial and legal needs met. They're hypergamous on other parameters. Mainly to do with education.

[deleted] · 2017-05-26T02:27:58+00:00

Except that socialism always ends as an abject, violent failure. So it's not something I worry too much about.

Title	Think about hypergamy this way: if women had their physical/financial/legal needs provided by the govt, they would only be interested in the most attractive men
Author	haleykohr
Upvotes	16
Comments	152
Date	May 24, 2017 6:59 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6d0jq3/think_about_hypergamy_this_way_if_women_had_their/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/think-about-hypergamy-this-way-if-women-had-their.267934 https://theredarchive.com/post/267934

Comments