Chart: Number of messages men get by age and income

Vornnash · 2014-09-22T18:52:13+00:00

http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MaleMessageDistributionByIncomeBright.png Is this hypergamy?...

[–]GridReXXit be like that8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

Hypergamy exists.

However the flip side is that men are more willing to expend resources for female companionship than the converse.

Take Chris Brown's song "Loyal" for example (excuse the profane language):

"When a rich n^gga wants you and your n^gga can't do nothing for you. These hoes ain't loyal."

In the very next portion of the song he states the following, suggesting that he is willingly part of the problem:

"Just got rich. Took a broke n^gga's bitch. I can make a broke b^tch rich. But I don't fuck with broke b^tches."

"Got a white girl with some fake titties. I took her to the bay with me."

...if female "hypergamy" is ruining odds for the "beta" man, then male "ego" is also ruining odds for him.

A lot of men look at that song and think:

"OHMAHGAH women aren't loyal! See! A physically attractive rich man offered her the world and she accepted!" (Please note most married women aren't leaving their husbands because a rich man took interest. I'm sure they thought about it, but it doesn't happen as often as the internet would have you believe.)

And what I'm thinking is:

"Firstly, this man prides himself on tempting taken women with once in a lifetime propositions that even Jesus would have a hard time turning down. Secondly, this man flew this woman across the world just for sex? Men like this offer lower-middle class women Maserati Quattroporte's in her name and others are surprised her morals were compromised?"

Incentive makes the world go 'round.

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Heh, you think men have to be a rich moviestar/singer to make women cheat, that's rich.

No I don't think that.

And secondly it's not about being a moviestar/singer. It's about what he offered her.

Let's say there is man X who is the epitome of a stand up guy. He's never traveled before, but he's dreamed of it. He has a GF he's committed to.

Let's say a woman comes up to him and offers sex. As you are suggesting I'm sure a lot of men would jump at the opportunity and cheat immediately because sex.

But not our stand-up guy. He has scruples.

Let's say another woman. A richer woman, a more convincing woman, comes up and offers to take our young man jetsetting across the globe first-class/private jet style to explore every crevice of the world he's ever desired.

Our stand-up guy is infinitely more tempted than he was before.

My point was these women aren't cheating because they want sex. And they aren't cheating because they are so wet and turned on by the "alphaness" of a famous singer or movie star.

They are cheating because of access/opportunity/experiences they'll never likely experience otherwise. They are cheating and/or deciding to LTR it with well-off men because the opportunity exists for them to do so. Incentive.

I can't say I'm the type to do something like that, but if George Clooney propositioned me and I accepted, it wouldn't be because I desire so much to fuck Clooney, it would be because he's going to fly me on a private jet to his private villa on some private lake under the Tuscan Italian sun.

That's my point.

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atlantic68Purple Shill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 11 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]thats_a_semaphor1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I have to admit that I haven't seen any evidence for hypergamy. I've seen information that men tend to out-earn women in relationships, that relationships are less functional, on average, when women out-earn men, and similar information, but none of this implies, to me, that women are inherently driven to "marry up". Part of this might be to do with some redefinition of 'hypergamy' that the RP has made, but here are some of my problems:

marrying up involves moving from one status group to a socially perceived higher status group. A woman marrying a man that earns more than her or looks better than her does not necessarily mean that she has moved up status groups - they could well be within the same status group. Unless sociological status all of a sudden has nothing to do with its Weberian origins, I feel like this is a silly misuse of status and, therefore, hypergamy.
I haven't seen any evidence that men consistently earning more than women is due to women's (or men's) innate desire for a particular power-relationship in their romantic relationship. On the contrary, most compelling explanations involve socially constructed norms and/or historical factors and not, say, underlying biological drives.
I haven't seen any evidence that relationships that are less functional or less happy when, say, the man out-earns the woman are due to women's inherent nature rather than, say, difficulty coping with being outside social norms and failing to meet socially-constructed ideas of "what it is to be a man" or "what it is to be a wife".
Hypergamy doesn't imply that people are always on the lookout for better mates, unless this, too, is a redefinition by TRP - but we're starting to completely divorce ourselves from academic literature about hypergamy now, and I'm unsure why this is the word we've picked.
Regardless, I haven't seen much evidence that less happy or less functional relationships result in the relationship ending and then the woman finding someone of higher status, better looks or whatever.

All the data I have seen has had to use several assumptions to make the data fit the theory. (I think this is why, when people say that research finishes with "and we don't know why this is", they are confused. Obviously the researchers do not share or do not support their assumptions).

I have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence. I made a thread in this particular subreddit where I asked about evidence, and I was basically told that academic research is biased and rubbish because the researchers have ideological commitments, and that anecdotal evidence is fine if it's from a redpiller but not if it is from a bluepiller because they are obviously confused or lying. I know that these people don't speak for all RPers, especially as you guys are not a unified group, but I think that it is telling that TRP only has sufficient evidence to support it if you already assume that some of it is true.

So I'm a sceptic - I don't have a great deal of evidence against hypergamy as the RP defines it because I don't think there is a strong argument for it. That doesn't mean, obviously, that it's not true, but the absolute confidence with which I've seen RPers act as if this is a proven fact seems completely misplaced to me.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As with "female solipsism", RP has a special definition of "hypergamy" that serves best to illustrate its observations about that phenomenon. At its basest, the RP definition of hypergamy includes two assumptions:

A woman will only go for men who hold at least the same, if not more power than she does (usually financial ressources, but status, intelligence, education etc. will also play into this; more physical strength is pretty much a given).
A woman will go for the best man she's able to get.

This is also the reason why you have a comparably large share of female high earners - once they got in the position they are in, the guys she's able to get usually aren't the ones she wants - they have lists, but the guys who conform to these lists have different priorities when it comes to women. If you don't believe me, check how many high potential thirtysomething who are eager to settle down suddenly find themselves without suitable men.

Hypergamy is also insofar a problem for men because you'll be hard pressed as one to cover all bases for a woman when it comes to (2). For example you might be loaded and professionally successful, but because you're old and a flabby pencil pusher, you aren't attractive and she may cheat on you with the handsome pool boy; you might be educated and intelligent, but because you picked the wrong line of trade, she may drop you in favor of a richter guy etc.

Not of course not every woman jumps at an opportunity to get a better man, and not every woman even gets an opportunity to get a better man, but that doesn't change the problem that hypergamy in the sense of TRP exists.

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have to admit that I haven't seen any evidence for hypergamy.

lol

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/sjp/71/3/157/

Research has found that, for long-term dating, women value men with greater financial resources and higher status, while for short-term dating they value men with greater physical attractiveness. However, there are discrepant results for both long- and short-term dating. As most of the previous studies used only questionnaires, we conducted a field experiment to evaluate women’s receptivity to men’s date requests. Young male confederates who ostensibly had high, middle, or low incomes, depending on the experimental condition, asked young women walking down the street for their phone number. We found that men’s financial resources were positively associated with compliance with their request. Evolutionary theory proposing that women select men with greater resources for them and their offspring is used to explain the results.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

It indicates that women who use OK cupid are gold diggers. That's the only real fact you can take away from it. You can extrapolate other information. For example, if all other women had no preference for income this overall trend would still exist, however it would be less noticeable. Even if we assume that trend exists...

It doesn't really surprise me at all. We live in a society where men have been considered breadwinners for a long time. To a certain extent, they still are. A couple decades ago, the only way for women to advance in society was to marry a man with a high income. This dynamic still exists today, and it likely will for many generations.

We live in a sexist society, and all sexism goes both ways. When you discriminate against men, you're also discriminating against women. When you discriminate against women, you're also discriminating against men. If this is news to you, then you haven't been particularly perceptive.

This chart is evidence of sexism. It isn't women on OK cupid wanting guys that "have their shit together," it's women on OK cupid objectifying men. It's evidence that for every sexist man, there is a equally sexist women. Most of us are sexist.

[–]Vornnash[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not denying that corporate sexism exists to some degree, but I don't know about this...

To a women growing up in society, she has a better chance to make $200,000 by marrying into that income than she does working her ass off at her job.

Yes the average women has a better chance of marrying into $$$ than earning it herself. But's that's because there are more attractive and charming women than there are women cut out to be CFOs, investment bankers, VCs, surgeons, management consultants, or presidents of universities. Same with men.

The other issue is that unless you are truly exceptional person, you can't raise a family and make 200k a year. Earning that kind of money requires years of sacrifice and hard work. It's nearly impossible for someone not born into wealth to have any work/life balance and huge amounts of money. I think a lot of women realize corporate life is soul-crushing, and family is fulfilling, and so they choose the latter.

And then finally, I suspect a lot the 'sexism' women complain about is just the same bullshit everyone else deals with. When you're part of a large group competing for a few elite positions, people fuck other people over. They gossip, backstab, harass, sabotage, and so on. I know a lot of powerful, successful women, and what they all have in common is none of them complain about sexism. They just play the game like everyone else, except better than everyone else.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes the average women has a better chance of marrying into $$$ than earning it herself. But's that's because there are more attractive and charming women than there are women cut out to be CFOs, investment bankers, VCs, surgeons, management consultants, or presidents of universities. Same with men.

But why?

The other issue is that unless you are truly exceptional person, you can't raise a family and make 200k a year. Earning that kind of money requires years of sacrifice and hard work. It's nearly impossible for someone not born into wealth to have any work/life balance and huge amounts of money. I think a lot of women realize corporate life is soul-crushing, and family is fulfilling, and so they choose the latter.

And yet more women are choosing to work full-time careers. The number of women that desired full time life-long careers has increased 50% since 2007. The number of women making more than their husband has increased more than 500% since 1960. Clearly, the trends exist.

I know a lot of powerful, successful women, and what they all have in common is none of them complain about sexism.

They don't complain about it, but that can be said of all people in those positions. It doesn't mean they don't have stories if you ask. They don't advertise it, but when I've asked I've heard some pretty crazy stories. For the record, I've heard similar stories of racism from black men. It's just an added burden. It makes a hard task slightly harder.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But why?

Most people aren't that talented and hardworking.

And yet more women are choosing to work full-time careers. The number of women that desired full time life-long careers has increased 50% since 2007. The number of women making more than their husband has increased more than 500% since 1960. Clearly, the trends exist.

I would say two things. Considering that at one point (not even that long ago) women were basically not allowed have real careers, of course the trend is going to be in the other direction. And second, there is a big difference between a career, and trying to get a Director level position at Bain or McKinsey. Being a teacher, an HR manager, running a local bank, being a scientist...these are careers that don't make the same kinds of demands as surgeon, CEO, or partner at a top law firm.

They don't complain about it, but that can be said of all people in those positions. It doesn't mean they don't have stories if you ask.

Again, I'm not saying it never happens. What I'm questioning is the extent to which it's really a limiting factor. Sure there may be some disadvantages, but there are are also upsides like the Women are Wonderful Effect. Being black or lower class in corporate America, in my experience, is much more of a burden than being a middle class white girl (which I'm not convinced is better or worse than being a middle class white man).

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

To a women growing up in society, she has a better chance to make $200,000 by marrying into that income than she does working her ass off at her job.

First, I don't know why we're even talking about $200K. People who earn $200K are a very, very tiny section of the population which is limited to CEOs, Venture Capitalists, Investment Bankers, Pro Athletes, etc - most of whom are married to their jobs (which is not a type of career that a lot of women want). Maybe it's because if you had said $100K, well, there's plenty of careers that will put someone on the path to doing that. For example, the student male-female ratio in medical school is pretty close to 50-50.

Second, why are we even talking about $200K+/year as a goal in the first place? What? Someone isn't going to be happy if they're with someone who "only" earns $100K/year? Is $200K really that much better than $100K? Is that really such an important trait - to be in the top 2% of American earners?

Third, the same could be said of men - i.e. most men have a better chance to make $200,000 by marrying into that income than he does working his ass off at his job. Afterall, here's what a man would have to do to earn $200k:

Pick the right job (CEOs, Investment Banker, etc). Most jobs give you zero opportunity to earn $100K/year, much less $200K/year.
Hopefully, you like one of those rare jobs that will earn you that kind of money, otherwise you'll be miserable.
Go to college and then (probably) get your MBA or law degree.
Get really lucky.
Be really smart
Be really driven.

What percentage of men do you think meet all those criteria?

Or:

Find a rich woman, woo her, and marry her.

It looks like the second option is a lot more attainable for most men.

Honestly, when I read your posts, I think you come across like someone who's too much of a female apologist. I know the RedPill is generally unfairly negative about women, and I can certainly see someone arguing against that, but I think you go much too far to the other side. I think there's too many people who go out of their way to make excuses for women, as if they're fully committed to the "Women are wonderful" narrative that's everywhere in our culture.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I posted this in another comment, but I'll post it again. 23% of women make more than their husband/partner today. In 1960, only 4% of women made more than their husband/partner. Hypergamy has decreased since 1960, it hasn't been consistent.

Yes, that gets brought up a lot. Here is a thread entirely devoted to talking about breadwinner moms.

My comment, which I think may be the top one (might depend on whether you're bp or rp, as reddit tends to tailor their results to the user), explains how the significance is exaggerated.

Notably:

If the number of breadwinner mom families (with husband still there) steadily rose on its own, then you would have had a stronger case for changing attitudes. However, that statistic has risen along with others, which together overall just tells us that "more women are making money now, relative to men" / "women are less financially dependent on men". That's it.

I.e. You're technically correct that hypergamy as defined strictly as "socioeconomically marrying up" has decreased, but Phokus is not wrong that women tend to resist marrying men with low income.

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Your logic is rather horrid. You assume that because more women outearn men in marriage than before, that means women are not hypergamous. However, you do not account for the fact that the women in question have much fewer marriagable prospects and are FORCED to compromise. The redpill argument makes more sense:

1) Men don't care how much women make (this is certifiably true)

2) Women are now focusing more on education/their careers (certifiably true)

3) Men are doing worse off economically than before (certifiably true)

4) Men care more about beauty in mates while women care more about provisions (certifiably true)

5) Women's beauty/fertility goes down a lot quickly as they hit their 30's (certifiably true)

5) As a result, men AND women are marrying later in life (certifiably true), because there's a market failure where neither can provide what the other one wants. Thus, women have to compromise in their mates (wealth, health, looks, status, etc)

It makes SENSE that women aren't happy in those marriages.

*And men don't care because sex has become so cheap in the sexual marketplace.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PhokusProgressive-Lazy Christian-Leans RP-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

A good looking traveling musician might not fit their relationship criteria, but the criteria for sex is much lower.

It's probably the same for men. A guy doesn't care if a random hookup can't cook, but I'm sure he'd be dismayed if his wife couldn't.

None of this is shocking. Both genders expect more of their SOs.

The problem with this is that men rarely ever get the best they can get without committing; while women (at least those who are open to casual relationships) usually have no problem getting sex with "better" (i.e. more attractive) men than the ones they're finally more or less forced to settle with.

Of course men settle as well; but the odds are that the woman they wife up is the best one they could get so far. And this is a particular problem RP has with the so-called cock carousel in conjunction with the so-called wall: that there are quite a number of women are sexually more attracted to the men in their past than they will ever be to their husbands.

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The problem with this is that men rarely ever get the best they can get without committing;

I don't know about this. I have plenty of male friends who confide in me about many things. And some have openly said that girls in their past were better, more adventurous "lays" than their current LTRs. And that sometimes they miss that kind of sex. Or that the party girl had better boobs.

They are openly admitting they had more sexual chemistry during their "sow his wild oats days" than their current relationships, but they love too many things about their current relationship to end it because she doesn't like "facials."

The best sexual chemistry I've ever had with a guy was with a guy who I've never even had actual sex with (oral or otherwise), but my God everything leading up to that was crazy palpable. A guy who can kiss you exactly the way you like and touch you exactly the way you like... invaluable.

But that mofo is crazy and there is probably a reason I have never desired to date him or take it to the next level and have sex with him.

There is more to life and relationships than sex.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]lev21pirate2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

The wage gap is largely a myth, if anything it's men that are falling behind

As this trend continues, i wonder if hypergamy wouldn't be forced to move to a wealth comparison between possible suitors as opposed to comparing it to her own. In the sense that, even if her wealth/education is greater than his, so long as he remains wealthier than other men, he is "attractive".

From what i've seen recently, a lot of women are moving to value other traits than money or education and going after , what i could only describe as , Ornamental men : Party goes , fitness fanatics , fashion freaks and the likes.

They're just as disposable as before but seem to invoke a mothering instinct in women. These women reject the idea of having children and are , at the same time ,dating much younger men. I figure that it satisfies a need to take care of -someone- while at the same time gain access/status to a "scene".

Apologies for the rambling , had a few minutes to kill.

[–]Vornnash[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Well hypergamy principle argues that regardless of how wealthy a woman is she will generally seek someone more-so.

No, that's what TRP and the manosphere argues. That doesn't have anything to do with hypergamy. Hypergamy is like a symptom. TRP argues that hypergamy is (or is a symptom of) a very specific disease.

Plus, women are going to college in far greater numbers than men now.

And they still make less money.

The wage gap is largely a myth, if anything it's men that are falling behind, having seen no median increase in income since the 1970's or so.

No it isn't. The explained wages gap is 14 cents on the dollar and the unexplained wage gap is 6 cents on the dollar. The total wage gap is 80 cents on the dollar, and that statistic is the relevant one in this particular situation. Keep in mind that 62% of people that make the federal minimum wage are women. More women live below the poverty level than men.

Meanwhile women have enjoyed enormous increases in income with little to no effect on hypergamous preference. So the income disparity argument is not very convincing.

This is true, but the income gap still exists.

[–]Vornnash[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In the US, women make less than men. Ergo, when the average woman marries the average man, she's marrying a man that make more money than she does. That's hypergamy.

That's a poor argument because the chart does not tell us that, "Women tend to date men who make $4k more than she does; and meanwhile, the average man earns $4k more money than the average woman." It shows that high wealth is a factor that influences women to message men.

To put it another way: let's say that money made no difference at all to who women send messages to. If that were the case, you'd see a yellow distribution across the entire chart; there would be no red and no green areas. I'd also point out that, if you earn $100k or more per year, you're in the top 4% of income earners.

Admittedly, I'm not the surprised or judgmental that women would pass-up men earning $30k per year or less because most people don't want to live in poverty. The green areas on the right side of the chart shows that earning $100k per year is a lot sexier to women than earning $50k or $60k.

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Beta bucks. Right?

Look, if you're a good looking, dominant, but low earning male, you won't have any problem getting laid. You'll have a harder time getting into a long term relationship with a very desirable woman with options, but you've got a good chance to hook up with her.

As the OKC data itself reveals, the vast majority of men are not physically appealing to women. What they have to offer is therefore (a) sexually-exciting dominance, (b) financial provisioning, or (c) emotional provisioning/validation.

Faced with a sea of essentially identical unattractive males, why shouldn't the modern materialistic woman try to maximize (b)? Most men are not (a), but most men are (c). So you aim for (b) and (c).

Tons of data reveals that today's Western human is more materialistic and narcissistic than anyone else in history. We shouldn't be surprised that they express this facet of their personalities in their dating lives too

[–]an_absolute_roseRed Pill Boy1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vornnash[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, there's that, but it's also a matter of convenience for a lot of people.

When a woman's convenience is threatened by a list of 10,000 guys for her search results, no matter how "egalitarian" or bp she wants to be, she's going to use the filters to narrow her results (or filters in her own mind).

"Heuristics" to make her own life more convenient.

It's currently not possible to search specifically for bp virtues online (just as it's impossible to read people's minds IRL for bp virtues). So even a hypothetically honest bper will have to settle for relying on superficial, self-reported stats like income, height, etc.

Of course, many of the craftier and hypocritical SJWs know this, and that's why they'll complain when weight is available as a filter (even though OkC made you pay to use a weight filter, while allowing height and income to be a filter used against men for free).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CallMeMrBadGuy2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say it was. I was talking about how "attraction" (desire for provisioning manifested by exchanging displays of affection for access to provisioning) and attraction (sexual interest) are different things and that many people - red pill and blue pill alike - tend to conflate the two.

I don't think traditional red pill "hypergamy" theories sufficiently account for this distinction.

In an overused example...

Bill Gates and a guy that looks like David Gandy (http://static.squarespace.com/static/50f07a45e4b07454d6dd1df7/53a2f49be4b0ba2ac7959ffc/53a2f4a4e4b03f568efb2d53/1403188390185/2560908.jpg) and acts like Clint Eastwood from his big Western trilogy but earns a construction worker salary walk into a nightclub.

Gates has more "status" in the sense that he's one of the most important people in the history of the world and he's more wealthy than my hypothetical male model outlaw construction worker.

Does hypergamy suggest that women are more attracted to Bill Gates? Because I can promise you that Bill Gates is responsible for exactly zero pairs of wet panties in that situation. But I've known lots of low-earning, low-status, good-looking socially dominant males who have never wanted for easy hookups from eager women.

I don't think it's controversial to say that women would be more likely to pursue Bill Gates for a long term relationship. They're more "attracted" to him in the sense that they'd rather have a relationship with him.

Meanwhile, do you think the average male would rather have an unemployed Adriana Lima (http://celebsnetworth.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/adriana-lima-net-worth2.jpg) lookalike or Martha Stewart for a long term relationship?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men like women with hot bodies. Women like men with high status.

But are women sexually turned on by Bill's status? That is, is he provoking an inherently sexual reaction in the nightclub?

The only thing I'd point out is that I doubt Melinda Gates is concerned about the moistness of her panties

I'm sure she's not.

I'm sure she loves and respects Bill based on his incredible philanthropy and for founding the company she used to work at.

I have no doubt that she does.

One of my biggest problems with TRP is how literally everything needs to revolve around sex.

Not everything revolves around sex. But when we're talking about "attraction", a lot of people (blue and red) are not sure what we're talking about. People say things like "Men are attracted to hourglass figures, women are attracted to status" and are meaning two different things by "attracted."

I'm making the case, here, that "status" alone doesn't provoke a sexual response in women. I'm saying that I've got friends who make $25,000 a year who have experienced something Bill Gates has never experienced: genuine, unnegotiated sexual attraction from highly desirable women.

Status in a certain context may help. In that sense, I think the drummer in a local rock group can have higher "status" than Bill Gates despite the vast disparity in global importance, wealth, and prestige.

That's why it's important to be careful with what we're saying. "Attraction" can mean different things in different contexts. When someone says "women are attracted to wealthy men" they don't typically mean "a woman would rather have a one night stand with a wealthy man than a poor one", because there is no provisioning going on in that situation. At that point, it's about sexual attraction.

[–]Vornnash[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]arleccio0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]arleccio0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MrCheddarCheese0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MrCheddarCheese0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Chart: Number of messages men get by age and income
Author	Vornnash
Upvotes	7
Comments	127
Date	September 22, 2014 6:52 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2h5h5m/chart_number_of_messages_men_get_by_age_and_income/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/chart-number-of-messages-men-get-by-age-and-income.284797 https://theredarchive.com/post/284797

Comments