There is a phrase that resonated with me—which I saw in the comments on a video by a "red pill" content creator—that went: "The male psychiatrist falls in love with the female patient, but the female psychiatrist does not fall in love with the male patient." This refers to hypergamy.

GoalDull4985 · 2026-07-02T23:31:29+00:00

I can't get over just how BAD this analogy is. It's basically saying, "men are willing to abuse a position of authority, and violate professional ethics by pursuing a vulnerable person, while women wouldn't do the same" - and yet it's presented as 'evidence' to suggest that women are the hypergamous ones lol???

That's not hypergamy! That's a comparison between unethical conduct and professional boundaries, and if anything, it suggests that the men are more willing to exploit power imbalances and vulnerable people, than the inverse.

Not to mention the statement is just blatantly predatory, and clearly very revealing of the person who came up with it. Instead of sharing this kind of brain rot drivel, I think you might need to do some hard reflection and unpack why this phrase so deeply 'resonated' with you.

SquareExtra918 · 2026-07-02T22:46:04+00:00

Mackenzie Scott married a teacher after she and Bezos divorced.

Britney Spears married Kevin Federline, then that high school bf, then that guy who I don't know who he is.

Everyone Madonna has married has been poorer than her. Maybe not Sean Penn, but it wouldn't surprise me if she was wealthier.

Elizabeth Taylor married that Larry guy. He was a normal dude she met in rehab.

Cher has dated plenty of dudes less well off than she is.

Drew Barrymore married a normal bartender.

That's off the top of my head.

Edit: bunch of autocorrect nonsense

Instigated- · 2026-07-02T23:42:47+00:00

The scenario given of a male psychiatrist falling in love with a patient is called malpractice. The difference in this scenario is a woman performing her job professionally, while the man is not.

Men and women both have choices in how they conduct themselves. If it would be inappropriate for us to be in a romantic relationship with someone, we can avoid developing feelings for them either by not entertaining that as a possibility or by removing ourselves from the situation.

If a psychiatrist finds themselves beginning to develop an attachment they should refer the patient on to another psychiatrist

This is not an example of hypergamy. It is an example of a man who acts like all the women of the world are a buffet for his choosing, and does not draw professional boundaries. He should not be a psychiatrist to women.

xvszero · 2026-07-02T23:42:38+00:00

Seems like a random claim with no data.

DearElise · 2026-07-02T23:34:05+00:00

Women constantly act as therapists to the guy they are dating. This is well known if you have female friends. It’s not ideal nor is it always the case but you do hear a lot about how women need to train the guy they are dating because they are emotionally stunted and don’t have basic communication skills. Women stay and try anyway. A lot of marriages are built of the patience of a woman. If that’s not debunking this crackpot theory, I don’t know what is.

Tushie77 · 2026-07-02T22:37:27+00:00

I think the better question is, "Do we tend to see hypergamy as much as we see positive assortative mating?"

And, the answer to that question is well-established: people largely pair off within their own social class (positive assortative mating). So throughout history -- and this still occurs today -- powerful men (i.e., those with resources) marry women from powerful families (i.e., those with resources), whether or not they have discrete power themselves (and vice versa). This idea of women "marrying up" is actually pretty rare, and it doesn't even fit within a US context.

Hypergamy initially described marriages between different castes in India in the late 19th century -- it was used by anthropologists. The term has been bastardized today to explain away marriages where income differential between partners is anywhere from 20-100k annually (approx), but this, in the greater scheme of things, this is not "marrying up". It's still two middle-class people getting together, and neither one has any real "power" in any sense of the word. Whether you make 40k annually or 200k annually, you're still a member of the "middle class" in the US. You don't suddenly have access to senators or members of congress, you can't suddenly get in touch with the CEO of the company that makes your toilet paper -- for all intents and purposes, you're middle class, and you're still working for a living, and you're still not influencing decision makers.

It's a bit of an aside, but it's an important one, because the underlying idea that a woman marrying a dude whose earning potential is 40-50k annually higher than hers as an example of "marrying up" completely disregards actual class structure in the US.

edit: word "positive"

Flourescendrama · 2026-07-02T22:03:14+00:00

I am referring to cases where women in a "powerful" position fell in love with "inferior" men. I said that last part without intending to offend; I don't mean that patients or sick people are inferior men—I was just using it as a shorthand.

Flourescendrama · 2026-07-02T22:34:37+00:00

I am referring to cases in which women in a "powerful" position fell in love with "less powerful" men. I said the latter without intending to offend.

Comments