For men who want regulations in society to prevent women from sleeping around- this would create a monogamous society where people married their attractiveness equals. Would you actually want to be monogamous to your physical equal forever?

IIHotelYorba · 2017-03-03T23:14:50+00:00

None of these keyboard jockeys are even close to actually understanding hypergamy and shouldn't bellyache about it. They're as stupid as people who think the Affordable Care Act is vastly preferable to Obamacare.

Hypergamy is a basic description of how women's attraction to men works. It's just meant to explain WHY women like obscure, seemingly illogical things like strong eye contact and a loud voice (aka "alpha male traits,") it's not meant to be another fucking EXCUSE for you to not even try to talk to women.

I have sympathy for pathetic guys but I'm not going to CHANGE SOCIETY for them when they're so lazy they won't even learn the most basic game. If most of them went out and got laid once they'd feel better and shut up.

cxj · 2017-03-04T00:35:48+00:00

Part of the issue here is the assymetry in desire. The average young girl under 25 who is not fat is pretty fuckable to the average guy. Especially if he gets exclusive sexual access to her during her reproductive prime. The reverse is unfortunately not true.

There is no rea hope for the majority of men to be sexually satisfied imo. Men evolved to kill each other off and the winners would reproduce disproportionately to propagate the best genes.

80_20 · 2017-03-04T13:17:41+00:00

I feel like this post is directed at me because I do argue about the inherent imbalance in life.

But I honestly don't know how to "solve" it. I just want to point out that it is happening and raise awareness that men are suffering.

I don't agree with all these hamhanded methods of regulating sexuality or forcing anyone to do anything through laws or religion or whatever twisted way some people come up with.

But it is still a problem.

How do you solve millions of years of evolutionary pressure? In the end that is what we are fighting against.

I think that is why there needs to be more support for incels, neckbeards, guys in moms basement, autistic, etc.

I think they are demonized by women and it is hurting them even further.

Women have to strawmen forever aloners as bad people in order to justify their discrimination against them.

In turn I think that does a greater injustice than just admitting, "Yeah I'm hypergamous and I don't choose to be with those guys."

The demonization of these men are leading to a crisis. I think it is going to get worse.

I don't want to see another Columbine/Elliot Roger. I don't want the suicide rate to increase. I want to help these people and tell them they aren't alone and they aren't bad people. The world has screwed them and it isn't their fault. That is the first step to fixing the problem.

4Nova · 2017-03-03T21:31:05+00:00

I'm super hot, so that's fine by me.

[deleted] · 2017-03-03T23:41:40+00:00

"Forced to be monogamous," which doesn't even happen in the most repressive societies on Earth.

nemofourteen · 2017-03-03T21:17:03+00:00

I've seen quite a few posts on Reddit saying they wish women's hypergamy could be restrained by some kind of law or regulation, thereby forcing women to opt out of casual sex and hookups.

You're mistaken about that, at least here. The standard claim here is not that women should be restrained or need to be. The question usually is something like "what would it take to fix the problems" and the answer includes something like "put back the prior social, cultural, religious and sometimes legal restrictions and incentives on women not to fuck around".

it's not "throw them in jail if women don't restrain themselves". It's "if you want to fix this, this is what it will take".

I suppose some of these men believe that if such a law was enacted, the hot women would stop sleeping around with those dastardly Chads, and instead find some unattractive guy to sleep with.

No; I believe what would actually happen is that hot women would hold out for marriage to Chad; and would withhold sex until they got a Chad to commit. There is no way "hot" women will find unattractive guys to sleep with.

The men who suggest this are usually (self described) average or unattractive. Do they realize that this kind of sexually restrictive society would guarantee, at a maximum, a monogamous marriage to a woman of their own attractiveness level, NOT a redistribution of hot women from Chads to the guys who supposedly 'deserve' them more?

Yes, they are, and yes, they realize it. Contrary to what you believe, most average to unattractive men don't expect sexual socialism to allow them an "equal chance" to sleep with Stacy. Even when there WAS sexual socialism pre-sex rev, average to unattractive men didn't get to fuck or marry Stacy or even so much as interact with Stacy. Most average to unattractive men will be quite happy having one woman of roughly equal attractiveness or even a little bit below, so long as (1) she's his and is as committed as he is to the monogamous relationship; (2) she is disincentivized to fuck around or divorce him; and (3) if she does divorce him, she won't be rewarded for doing so.

And yes, this is something they'd actually want. Because they realize that life isn't fair. They realize that much much better than most women do.

EDIT: Under a system like you propose, if you leave everything else as it currently exists the same, the marriage rate would positively crater. The bottom would fall out of it and you'd have probably a 20% to 35% marriage rate. You'd have at least 75 million single adults in the US, most of whom would be average to unattractive. Most women are not going to marry men who are 5s and 6s. They dont' need those guys for financial support. If they need sexual relief, they can always masturbate or get a vibrator.

And a large number of men and women would just break the laws prohibiting extramarital sex - these laws are virtually unenforceable. They weren't very enforceable when they existed. They were routinely flouted. All that happened was that the anti-adultery and anti-fornication laws forced discretion, secrecy and prudence, and that's what would happen again.

AutoModerator · 2017-03-03T20:59:43+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.

Ascimator · 2017-03-03T22:38:12+00:00

I've received compliments about my face before and I don't think I'm too bad, either. I'm underweight, but some muscle is visible. What kind of a girl would be my physical equal?

DashneDK2 · 2017-03-03T23:32:37+00:00

I'd love to get married to female me. I wish I could create a female clone of myself so I could go fuck myself every day.

[deleted] · 2017-03-03T23:54:21+00:00

If you remove most government welfare, no fault divorces, and alimony then yes you'd have more people staying in marriages, les single parents and less mental health issues

trpobserver · 2017-03-04T01:39:31+00:00

In such a society I'd happily marry a woman who was slightly below me in attractiveness if was into weird stuff like me.

boscoist · 2017-03-04T02:10:08+00:00

Oh fuck yes. It's rough being the most attractive man at the bar. The men and women agree.

[deleted] · 2017-03-04T07:24:27+00:00

Would the law leave obese or land whale women to live by themselves?

Doom_and-Gloom · 2017-03-05T13:00:41+00:00

Yes. For them, it would be an improvement.

The way things are now, we have below-average and even outright unattractive women sleeping around with top percentile men (if only because they believe they have an actual chance at a relationship with these guys, but that's neither here nor there). Whilst below-average and unattractive men are forced to remain virgins well into their 20s in many cases.

There should be a Jack for every Jill. Not 10 Jills for every one of a select few (extremely lucky) Jacks.

despisedlove2 · 2017-03-05T18:03:22+00:00

Not the worst thing in the world provided she was smart.

[deleted] · 2017-03-05T18:36:34+00:00

My physical attraction equal is fairly good looking and fit, so yes, this would be the best case scenario for everyone.

Way better than the current situation where all the women over 4 are used up and think they're hot shit. There is a hygenic element to that too, women who get passed around as pieces of meat are nasty and not worthy of long term commitment.

AutoModerator · 2017-04-15T03:29:21+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.

buttlollipop · 2017-03-03T22:52:32+00:00

Too narrow.

Several steps are required to fix modern western society. They're not all regulations.

Welfare can't exist, except for cases where people are physically incapable of living without assistance.
Gender quotas and affirmative action in general can't exist in the workforce and in education.
Alimony can't exist, except for when the higher earner initiates a divorce with insufficient grounds or when abuse is provable beyond reasonable doubt.
Marriage should not be a contract between one man and one woman.

These address certain core issues. The lack of welfare means that incapable men don't have the resources to breed. Incapable women also don't have the resources to breed alone. They would be forced to compete or marry up and are subject to loss of well-being if they are not faithful to the partner.

When it comes to competing, a removal of quotas and affirmative action means only the best men and women have any chance of excelling in the workforce. Only the best will be picked for education as well, ensuring the workforce is a highly competitive place, based on merit.

This alone, means most women will have to rely on a man and men won't be discouraged from entering a marriage contract with women, but it doesn't account for everything.

As for regulations.

Schools must be gender segregated for the important learning years, with male teachers for boys.
Marriage contracts should allow for a spouse to have as many partners as they can financially support. "Abuse" within the definition of alimony would include taking on additional spouses without sufficient means.
Voting should be restricted to family heads with a sufficient stake in the nation. This can be defined by ownership of property or tax bracket.

These clean up any extra mess.

More boys will succeed with a school system that doesn't favour girls, which will make the workforce even more competitive to bring extreme emphasis on merit. Most girls would not be able to compete, but the ones that are capable, will be highly exceptional and equivalent to most male counterparts and even better in some cases.

Many men would not be able to find a partner due to lack of resources, this is good. High value women would tend to share high value men, but they'd be tied to one high value man and those men will be tied to the women they choose, this is good.

People of low capability would not be able to shift policy to favour equality over competition, this ensures that none of the laws in place can be changed without a clear benefit to the nation's progress.

Ideally, there would be some male scarcity involved here to remove some potential disturbances to peace. But, male frustration can be addressed with porn and prostitution.

theiamsamurai · 2017-03-03T21:20:36+00:00

Considering, I've dated some fatties, and never lost attraction, that would suit me just fine.

buttlollipop · 2017-03-03T22:32:37+00:00

Ugly smart men would figure out a way to dupe dumber Chads. What you're describing is essentially inverted feminism.

[deleted] · 2017-03-04T10:28:42+00:00

We should just go back to having open harems and women being used as sex slaves and cum rags. 20 chicks can get to share their top 20% alpha male. That's what women want essentially considering they all fight and bicker over those men anyway in today's society. Why not just go back to doing it openly?

Comments