https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/7f9zqv/hypergamy_hypocrisy_projection_and_double/

There was this post made by a user earlier regarding "hypergamy", the point of this users post escapes me, but aside from that a lot of users seem to not understand what The Red Pill definition of "hypergamy" actually is. There are 3 commonly used definitions of hypergamy, the social scientific definition of hypergamy, The Red Pill definition of hypergamy, and a third confusing definition that is a mix between the 2 other definitions, there will be no going into the last one because it is fairly pointless.

The social scientific definition of hypergamy is fairly easy to understand, to put it simply; it is the act of marrying a higher individual who is a higher social status than they are, for example if a prole married someone that was middle class, that prole just engaged in hypergamy. There is a cultural observation that females have a tendency to marry or date males that are of their social status or higher, this does not mean that it always happens, it is just a tendency, so when someone is referred to as "hypergamous" in this context, it means that they are seeking a partner of higher social status than they currently are. Simple straight definition.

Now, this is where it becomes odd, because we are entering into The Red Pill territory, a lot of concepts in The Red Pill can not be understood, unless other concepts are first understood, so something that must be gone over is "Frame". What "Frame" is, in The Red Pill, refers to the "reality" that someone lives in, it is pretty much just a word to describe the subjective way that an individual views the world, and not only that but deciding to take certain actions based on that subjective worldview, so when you read about Red Pill users saying "holding frame", what they are referring to is holding a certain world view AND acting in congruent with their world view.

The idea with The Red Pill's Frame, is that you can pull other people into your Frame, it is similar to how a performer at a concert or a charismatic cult leader would work a room, and it can also be done at an individual level, it means that you admire that person or they are dominating you etc. Now the idea is that in a male/female relationship, the female has to be in the males Frame, now in order to be in another individual's frame, you must respect them, or fear them or admire them in some way, which is a sign that individual has a higher "status" than you.

Imagine 3 characters: Dylan, Cindy and Chad. Dylan and Cindy are dating, Cindy absolutely adores Dylan, meaning that Cindy is in Dylan's Frame. One day Cindy meets Chad. Chad has a very impressive Pokémon card collection, immediately Cindy is pulled into Chad's frame, because it is more "dominant" than Dylan's, Chad is just a super-cool charming male as well. Now Cindy looks up to Chad, and not Dylan. The idea is that Cindy would leave Dylan in a second for Chad given the opportunity. Cindy needs to look up the male that she is dating, and she needs to be in his Frame, the second Cindy gets pulled into another males Frame, that male has won her over and she will leave her current partner for that male with the more dominant Frame. There is a word for Cindy's behavior that The Red Pill uses, and that word happens to be hypergamy.

In the context of The Red Pill's definition and context of the word use, and the idea that females have to be in the males Frame to maintain attraction, males can not be "hypergamous". A male wanting to trade in his wife for a more attractive younger beauty or something along those lines, is not The Red Pill's definition of hypergamy because it has nothing to do with "Frame" or status. It is supposed to trigger some hind-brain need for the female's partner's social status to be higher than there social status. There is obviously a lot more writing about this subject and this is a fairly quick way of explaining it.

Here you go u/PostNationalism :3 I mostly wrote this for you.

  1. What do you think of The Red Pill's definition of Hypergamy?

  2. Do you think there is any pragmatism in viewing relationships this way?