Why do "Red Pill" men think hypergamy is an exclusively female imperative?

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

EDIT 1: Just to show you that women are hypergamous, just look at this recent post on /r/dataisbeautiful, that women date/marry older guys.

13.8% of married couples, the woman is older.
52.7% of married couples, the man is older.
The other 33% is an age difference within 1 year.

The reason why women like older men is because older men tend to be more successful physically, socially, mentally and financially compared to younger men. Hence, hypergamy.

EDIT 2: Reworded status into 'SMV' since they are not the same for women (but they are for men). Both men and women can raise their status through improving on their physical, social, mental and financial traits. But women can only increase their SMV (sexual market value) through their physical and social. Men can increase their SMV using all 4.

Why do "Red Pill" men not understand that men engage in 'hypergamy' all the time? Women are given 'status' in many circles (and especially in the Red Pill community) by their level of attractiveness, and men typically choose to marry women that are more attractive than they are.

Exactly. To make it clearer, men only choose women who are physically attractive and have a typical feminine personality: be that the woman is more physically attractive than the guy himself or of equal physical attractiveness does not matter. This is why feminists are lonely as fuck. Not physically attractive and feminine at all.

But men don't choose women based on anything else regarding the typical things that define a man's status such as career and intelligence.

We don't give two shits if a woman has a Phd and has a 6-digit-salary. If she's hot, she's hot. Having a PhD or making 6-digits does not make a woman more attractive, unlike men. She can be a fucking janitor for all I care, and if she's hot, I'd still fuck her.

Women's SMV is largely based on their physical beauty (physical success) and personality (social success), while men's SMV/status is based on the physical, social, mental and financial.

Now you tell me: Which gender has the potential for a much higher SMV (sexual market value)? The woman's, whose SMV is only based off of 2 traits, or the man's, whose SMV is based off of 4? You can have the most beautiful woman in the world, but her status will never be higher than a man who is physically successful (tall, low fat, muscular), socially successful (confident, assertive, dominant, doesn't take shit from just anybody, is respected), mentally successful (ambitious, intelligent, has good habits) and financially successful (high paying career).

If a woman is physically more attractive than the guy and she happens to date/fuck him, then his status must be relatively higher than hers, be that a combination of the physical, social, mental, financial or all of the above.

If the woman has the same traits as a successful man, as in, she is physically, socially, mentally and financially successful, hypergamy states that her 'pool' of men to choose from drastically decreases. She can only date men of equal or higher status, right? And if she's, for example, a HOT doctor, then she can only choose men of equal or higher status than her own. And how many men out there are higher status than that? Another doctor? Lawyer? Sure. But you can bet your ass that these male doctors and lawyers can find an even MORE physically attractive and younger girl based on his own status alone. And why would they go for the younger, more physically attractive girl instead of the female doctor? Because they can. And it is less of a risk than a female doctor since, as hypergamy states, women constantly search for a high status male, regardless of her relationship. So if the female doctor finds an even better male (albeit rare), she can leave him just like that and rationalize that "she just wasn't feeling it anymore". But what about the younger, more physically attractive girl? Can't she find a 'better' male too? LOL, if she's fucking a doctor/lawyer, I highly doubt she'd swap him out, therefore, less of a risk.

Check this video out to see Hypergamy in action. The male prankster has a bunch of his friends randomly come up to him to validate his high status (SMV), making him appear like a celebrity. Then the girl actually asks HIM for HIS number after denying him and saying that she has a boyfriend (whether she actually has one or not does not matter, what matters is that she denied him directly before finding out he is a 'high status' male, but wanted his number directly AFTER his SMV was validated).

Typical hypergamy.

This is also one of the main reasons why Japan's birthrate is LOWER than their mortality rate. The Japanese are LITERALLY dying out. Why? Because Japan is largely feminist. And the women there are so masculine that they cannot find any men anymore. The women are so established in their own careers that:

A) They forget to take care of their selves
B) Their high 'male' status lowers their pool of men to choose from (due to hypergamy).
C) The only men they desire are so high status, that they could get any woman they want, anyway! Why go for the fat, career-driven woman, when you can go for the young, beautiful Japanese girl?

AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT FEMINISM IN THE WEST IS TRYING TO DO! They're trying to get more women out there to be LIKE men that they become unattractive TO men. I mean, there's nothing WRONG with being intelligent and getting a good career as a woman. Society VALUES that shit. But don't expect men to have those same values in terms of finding a mate. You see, this is where men and women are drastically different:

Men are valued for their physical, social, mental and financial success by BOTH women and society.

Women are valued for their physical and social success ONLY by men, and are valued for their mental and financial success ONLY by society. Women can't have both.

And this is where feminism steps in and screams for "JUSTICE!", when what they're fighting isn't society, but actually the most basic human desires.

Honestly, the fact that women are hypergamous and that men only like women based on their physical and social success is PROBABLY WHY women have been seen as lower than men since the beginning of time. Women cared if the man had high status. Men just never cared if she was career driven or intelligent. He just wanted to fuck her.

Now, for you women out there thinking this is 'unfair' let me show you why it is actually VERY fair.

Women don't have to try. They will have support from both society and (beta) males throughout their whole lives. There are more support groups for women than men. That is a fact. Women can cry and people will come rushing to their aid. You can be lazy, you can be ambitious, but either way, everything will turn out right since there is support for you either way from friends, family and society.

And men? If you're lazy, you get shit on by both society and women. Women do NOT want a lazy man. Oh boohoo, gonna cry? Society and women look down on that shit. Timid, insecure, and submissive? Boohoo, society and women look down on that shit. Societyand women will respect you LESS, and you're tossed aside.

See, the only way to survive as a man is to succeed (physically, socially, mentally and financially). To be a high status male. To be an alpha male. Which is what TRP is teaching men to do.

[–]Kozen117Light-Red7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerHuffGirl0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not so sure that it's “VERY fair”.

Women don't have to try. They will have support from both society and (beta) males throughout their whole lives.

Women can cry and people will come rushing to their aid. You can be lazy, you can be ambitious, but either way, everything will turn out right since there is support for you either way from friends, family and society.

This is false. You’re exaggerating the amount of support a woman receives in her life. It's like you believe that women get the same leeway that children do. They don't.

Firstly, a woman who doesn’t work out of laziness is looked down upon by society. You know how people disparage welfare queens, don’t you?

That's why the goal of every parent is turning all their children into autonomous adults, even the girls. Relying on other people is not safe and people look down upon you the more you do that, male or female.

Secondly, not every woman has plenty of beta orbiters, it’s pretty women who have options. The other women maybe find a partner. Or they desperately settle for an unattractive beta. Men with below average prettiness have more desirable options than women with below average prettiness.

There are more support groups for women than men.

There is more support for women, but it’s for women who are victims, like in the case of shelters for battered wives or research for breast cancer. It’s not for women who just "cry and don't try".

Besides, increasing the support for male issues is a cultural thing that MRAs can work on. It's not an ingrained, unchangeable human behavior like sexually attractive traits are.

Women do NOT want a lazy man.

And men do not want a woman who is too lazy to work on her appearance. Lots of women are not effortlessly beautiful, so they "try". And even if they are naturally beautiful, they still lose their looks with time no matter what. I'm saying this because you said that women have support from men "throughout their whole lives" as if the good looks that attract men never go away. They do. The wall.

Timid, insecure, and submissive? Boohoo, society and women look down on that shit.

Most people have the empathy to help a person who shows that he's genuinely struggling with insecurity, male or female. Maybe men are less likely to be helped by strangers, sure, but friends and family do usually provide those they care about, male or female, with emotional support. It's the point of having these personal relationships.

And if they don't, MRA's work to make people aware of that bias can change that. It's a cultural, not biological thing.

Societyand women will respect you LESS

Insecurity does negatively affect a woman's sexual attraction to a man, but going by what red pill women have said, it's only if it happens very often or goes on for a long period of time with no recovery in sight. And when it isn't compensated for by other sexually attractive traits that the man has.

See, the only way to survive as a man is to succeed

People in general are motivated by self-interest, so they won't support you if you have nothing to offer. That means that success is the only way to survive for everybody, not just men. The only difference is that half of that success will be useless in attracting the opposite sex for a woman, whereas every bit of success increases a man's attractiveness to the opposite sex, so men are more able to compensate for a lack of success in one area by excelling in another.

Do you still think it's very fair?

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma8830/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Their feminism is different from ours.

Their women are actually less traditional than ours with regards to careers. Women there are MUCH MUCH more career driven, and take higher risk jobs than the women in the West, meaning they're much more likely to take jobs in the maths, sciences and businesses. Thus women's hypergamy in Japan is in total chaos.

The women in Japan are so high status (in terms education and career) that they can no longer find a guy who is of equal or higher status. If they do, it's rare as fuck. And even if there ARE higher status men, why would he date a career-driven woman over the young, beautiful Japanese girl? If he's so high status, then according to hypergamy, he can get literally ANY girl he wants. Why choose the career-driven woman who VERY likely doesn't have any feminine traits? Traits that men LOVE about women? Traits that the young, beautiful Japanese girl are more likely to have?

EDIT: in -> than EDIT 2: Added 2nd paragraph.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

This is why feminists are lonely as fuck. Not physically attractive and feminine at all.

False. TRP men are just hysterical about feminism, and they create these crazy delusions in their mind to justify their hatred of women and feminism. I'm sure that Emma Watson, while dating Prince Harry, is doing just fine and is not lonely as fuck. Would probably be debatable that she's not attractive or feminine at all, too, since she's dating a prince. How about Taylor Swift? Gorgeous, successful, it's no wonder men are intimidated by her. A TRP man could never date a woman like Taylor Swift so she'll have to look for a real man. And remember, those are just TWO examples to disprove your what is already a completely laughable and pathetic point. Let's not even forget to bring up Beyonce, who is a self proclaimed feminist. Basically, please have a seat. In fact, have all the seats.

If she's hot, she's hot.

Dear God, are men really that one dimensional? And you think that's a positive trait? Lol.

If a woman is physically more attractive than the guy and she happens to date/fuck him, then his status must be relatively higher than hers, be that a combination of the physical, social, mental, financial or all of the above.

I realize that you think if you just string together meaningless sentences then you've proven a point, but no, in fact, life is not this black and white. No matter how much you tryyy tryyy tryyy so hard to believe that it is, it still isn't. I'm not going to go into why because you're really convinced that you have it all figured out (you don't), and it's going to be a waste of my time to explain all of the reasons you're wrong because you won't listen to them.

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Firstly, starting off your rebuttal with an ad hominem makes me not want to take it seriously. But I'm gonna bite (o shit what have I done?!).

Your three examples are models. They weren't feminists THEN became models. You notice that right? And the person Emma is dating just further proves the fact of hypergamy, just an fyi. She's dating a fucking prince for godsake. That's high status if anything.

And Taylor Swift? She is gorgeous and she is successful. Does that mean men are intimidated? Probably the betas. But look at how many men actually WENT for her. Those guys surely weren't intimidated. If you just play the simple numbers game, you can already tell that your argument is flawed. Intimidated? Nah, there are so many men who dated her. And see, here's where hypergamy kicks in again (well, it depends on who the guy was).

First, we have to look at the facts of what happened with each relationship. Did they dump her, or did she dump them? If she dumped them, then that is still hypergamy in action. These men weren't alpha relative to her. They weren't of 'high enough status', so they get dumped. And if they dumped her? Well, who knows? Maybe, like she sings in Blank Space, that she's actually crazy. Hahaha. And I do believe there is a quote of T.Swift saying that she's not a feminist, just an fyi. And just to add more to this, T.Swift dated CELEBRITIES. ONLY CELEBRITIES!! You know that right? Is that not hypergamy in action AGAIN? Dating people of equal or higher status? Jesus, your own examples make your arguments so bad...

And BEYONCE? She became a feminist WAY after becoming successful. Notice how she wasn't one before? Yeah. It took her like 10-15 years for that to actually pop up. And why? Because in that time, feminism started to get popular for some god awful reason. The victim mentality, perhaps?

To add to these 3 examples, they are just so BAD to begin with. They were good looking PRIOR to announcing their feminism.

And remember, those are just TWO examples to disprove your what is already a completely laughable and pathetic point.

LOL as if "TWO" is supposed to be a huge rebuttal. TWO in a sample of billions? Yeah right.

Dear God, are men really that one dimensional? And you think that's a positive trait? Lol.

You're assuming that I said it was a positive trait. I did not. And I didn't say hypergamy was positive/negative either, so assume as much as you want, that wasn't my argument. The level of argumentative ability in you is astounding.

I realize that you think if you just string together meaningless sentences then you've proven a point

LOL ok I'm done. Ad hominems to the point of uselessness. You sound so emotional at this point that I could care less to take you seriously or read the rest of this 'rant' of yours. I'm actually surprised at myself for even replying to this nonsense. Sorry honey, your argument is falling apart.

So take it easy and let me get that chair for you. Take a seat, m'lady.

It was my privilege.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Ugh fine. Apparently you're just verbose and do want to have a debate. I'll bite on this. You'll be the only one having a seat, though.

They weren't feminists THEN became models. You notice that right?

You could not have made a more irrelevant point if you tried to make it more irrelevant. It doesn't matter who they were/are before they 'became' feminist (which means realizing that they are for female equality..it's not a revolutionary thought process). There is not a before and after feminist...there is only as a woman are you a feminist or are you against your own interests? These women are smart enough to figure out they are for their own interests.

She's dating a fucking prince for godsake.

Hypergamy is not proven because high status males date. That's what you don't understand. High status males have to date someone, and by your logic, them dating ANYONE at all is a sign of hypergamy. What flawed reasoning. Prince Harry cannot date above himself. That doesn't exist, so therefore he, by default, must date 'down.'

Re: Taylor Swift. We really don't know enough about her personal relationships to speculate on which ones 'went for her' and which she CHOSE based on traits that probably had 0 to do with their 'status' being above her (she's much like Prince Harry in that that is virtually impossible.)

They weren't of 'high enough status', so they get dumped.

More likely, they were assholes who didn't respect her and cheated, which is what her songs indicate. She doesn't have to settle for any man's bad behavior (you know, the behavior touted by TRP). I literally am laughing aloud thinking that you ACTUALLY believe TAYLOR SWIFT is going to stay with some asshole 'alpha' because she's really just a lowly woman looking to be dominated by her "higher status" man. I mean really...you guys are not even trying to make sense.

And just to add more to this, T.Swift dated CELEBRITIES. ONLY CELEBRITIES!!

Your point? People date people who are similar to them. That's not hypergamy. Can we please try to stick to the point. You don't just get to make statements and then pretend it's ALLLL hypergamy. Dating celebrities that understand her lifestyle is not an example of hypergamy; it's an example of people selecting like people to date. "Higher status" than her in celebrity form? Does not exist. So therefore she does not practice hypergamy.

You sound so emotional at this point

The reason you think I sound emotional is because I am female. I'm not at all emotional, and I could care less what faulty logic you use to justify being a massive douche. I'm just going to point out to you your ridiculousness so you can see how women ACTUALLY think and not how you have been taught we think.

This is the second time I've been called emotional in this discussion, and the only thing I was even remotely pissed off about was the dude that implied that victims are to blame for their plight. Being convinced of my rightness and your wrongness is not emotion, FYI. If and when I ever get emotional, you'll know.

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I can't believe I'm replying to this again. But I'll humor you.

You could not have made a more irrelevant point if you tried to make it more irrelevant. It doesn't matter who they were/are before they 'became' feminist (which means realizing that they are for female equality..it's not a revolutionary thought process). There is not a before and after feminist...there is only as a woman are you a feminist or are you against your own interests?

It matters SO MUCH who they were before they became a feminist. Think about it: The feminist ideal is to not judge somebody for their looks. And look at Emma, T.Swift and Beyonce. Do you see anything similar about them? Oh yea, they're good looking. If they were feminists to begin with, they would've gotten into the 'fat acceptance' bullshit and likely not have kept up with taking care of their selves. And even then, T.Swift has quotes of her saying she's not a feminist so you shouldn't be using her anyway. The feminist ideal is to have society accept a woman, no matter her background, be that fat, slutty and whatever bad shit is going on. They want to be accepted for whatever they are and not be shamed for it. Essentially, they want to remove all responsibility from their selves, believing that they can do whatever they want with no consequences. This is equivalent to accepting the mediocre. LITERALLY. If someone tells you you're getting fat, and you scream at them "NO! This is the way I am! If you don't like it, fuck you, you misogynist!" then you're quite literally accepting the mediocre. Why is being fat considered mediocre? Because being fat translates to being lazy and not taking care of yourself. Put a little effort, please?

If these celebrities had that same mentality throughout their ENTIRE lives, the mentality of accepting the mediocre, would they have become the celebrities that they are now? Nope.

These women are smart enough to figure out they are for their own interests.

You can say that these women are strong. I can actually agree with that. They're celebrities after all. They've achieved what they have though good habits and talent. But their own interests? They're celebrities. Say it with me: CELEBRITIES. They are FAR beyond our status. Their interests are almost ALWAYS accepted and followed through with. They have nothing in common with an average woman because they have succeeded in all aspects of the male definition of status: Physical, social, mental and financial. And to imply "own interests" is redundant. They are above most men. They are in the top 5%. To say that they are 'equal' in any way to the average man or woman is batshit crazy.

Hypergamy is not proven because high status males date. That's what you don't understand. High status males have to date someone, and by your logic, them dating ANYONE at all is a sign of hypergamy.

You're so close, it hurts to see you just not reach for it a little more. You're actually agreeing with me, whether you realize it or not. But you will in a second. "...them dating ANYONE at all is a sign of hypergamy." False. Them dating any woman of lower status is a sign of hypergamy. Which is what you'll ALWAYS see. You'll never see them date HIGHER than their own status, because that's not what men do: Men are not hypergamous.

Prince Harry cannot date above himself. That doesn't exist, so therefore he, by default, must date 'down.'

I think you just countered your own argument and you don't even realize it, so I'll let this sink it.

Re: Taylor Swift. We really don't know enough about her personal relationships to speculate on which ones 'went for her' and which she CHOSE based on traits that probably had 0 to do with their 'status' being above her (she's much like Prince Harry in that that is virtually impossible.)

Again, you seem to be countering your own arguments with that last line: "(she's much like Prince Harry in that that is virtually impossible.)"

HENCE WHY SHE'S NEVER LANDED A LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP! BOOM! Since she's so high status, her finding a man of equal or higher status is next to impossible. HENCE ALL OF HER SHORT TERM RELATIONSHIPS! I'm getting so giddy at the way you're destroying yourself, I'm starting to feel like a little girl.

More likely, they were assholes who didn't respect her and cheated, which is what her songs indicate. She doesn't have to settle for any man's bad behavior (you know, the behavior touted by TRP). I literally am laughing aloud thinking that you ACTUALLY believe TAYLOR SWIFT is going to stay with some asshole 'alpha' because she's really just a lowly woman looking to be dominated by her "higher status" man. I mean really...you guys are not even trying to make sense.

That's all speculation. Since I do not know all of Swift's songs, I can't make a comment on this. But think on this:

If all of her relationships fucked up, what is the only constant in those relationships? Hm? What you've been saying is that all of those guys were assholes. All ~11? Hmm... Typical feminist. This is the exact thought process I knew you'd go into: "Blame everyone else but me!" or "Blame the men, not the woman!" It's sickening. You try to remove all responsibility while attempting to keep all the power. Disgusting. Just disgusting. It's people like you that fuck the world up, believing that you can do anything without taking responsibility for your own actions/outcomes. This is why feminists are so fat. They want society to accept them for being fat and ugly, removing all responsibility from their selves to even remotely look good.

If Swift has that many exes, then the only reason why that is, is herself. Do not blame society. Do not blame men. Do not blame the guys she dated. Relationships are a two-person deal. You cannot put all accountability to one person.

And you know what? There is a chance that some of the guys were assholes. YET SHE STILL DATED THEM! Just goes to show you, TRP works in getting laid.

Your point? People date people who are similar to them. That's not hypergamy. Can we please try to stick to the point.

Of course people date similar to them. I didn't deny that. But why go for ONLY celebrities after she's become famous? "Can we please try to stick to the point." LOL.

You don't just get to make statements and then pretend it's ALLLL hypergamy. Dating celebrities that understand her lifestyle is not an example of hypergamy; it's an example of people selecting like people to date. "Higher status" than her in celebrity form? Does not exist. So therefore she does not practice hypergamy.

AWALT. All women are like that. They are all hypergamous. To deny that, is to say that women like low status men (at least, lower status than her own). Do you like men who are beneath you? Do you like men you don't respect? Didn't think so. They disgust you in a primal sort of way. It's the difference between this and this.

By the way, there is no "practice" hypergamy. Wtf do you think this is? A choice? A democracy? LMAO. It's human female nature. Hell, it's not even just HUMAN female nature. You can see it in animals too, mostly mammals and more apparent in our ape/monkey relatives. The lioness does not mate with a weak male. The female gorilla does not mate with a weak male. The female human does not mate with a weak male. And if she does, she'll either be quick to end it, or keep him around for validation/resources (and send him to /r/DeadBedrooms.) The difference between us and the animals is that our human females are smarter. They keep the betas in line for resources and validation. Animals don't do that shit.

The reason you think I sound emotional is because I am female. I'm not at all emotional, and I could care less what faulty logic you use to justify being a massive douche.

How cute. You think I thought you were emotional because you're female? Do you look down on yourself that much or something? Because that's what you're implying and not at all what I was thinking. I thought you were being emotional since the first thing you did in your first rebuttal was an ad hominem: An attack on the person you're arguing against; instead of doing what NORMAL people do and argue against the ideas. THAT is why I thought you were emotional.

Get off your high horse. Learn to improve yourself. Don't accept the mediocre. Don't tell yourself that society has to cater to you, because it really doesn't have to. Society does its best in giving everyone the same treatment. You cannot change human nature, and so will never win the battle against hypergamy and the fact that you will always like high status males and be sexually repulsed by low status. The most you can do with low status males is befriend them and use them for validation (to make yourself feel better) and resources (because hey, moneyz right?). But I'm sure you've already got this all figured out, right? You're a strong woman after all. You don't need no man teaching you not to get angry at society for human nature, right? You don't need no man for teaching you to take all responsibility for yourself, right? (Because that's what parents are for... Unless they didn't teach you to be responsible?)

And while I have been giving you good, concrete examples of my ideas, you have not done the same. In fact, most of your arguments are against yourself in this rebuttal. What do?

The seat's over there.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Nice job avoiding seeing your argument get destroyed.

It's funny because you feminists are SO concerned about how society views you and what every body else thinks, you're completely neglecting yourselves. You start looking outward and stop looking to develop yourselves. But hey, that's what a 'movement' is, right?

But you get so EMOTIONAL and DEVOTED into this movement that you forget to look at yourselves and take responsibility for yourselves that you ask everyone else to change, to cater to you, instead of you trying to be a better person. You accept the mediocre. You take part in the 'Fat Acceptance' movement and protest against 'Slut Shaming'. Do you know what you're actually doing? You're literally trying to get society to cater to your faults. Faults that are grounded in the biological. In our nature. You're so far into this crap that you actually believe that you don't need to take responsibility for yourself.

See, the difference between a feminist and a TRP member is that TRP members look inward. We accept reality for what it is and develop ourselves to the point of being successful in this reality. Feminists? They look outward and only seek to blame others for their own faults. This is why places like TwoXChromosomes and Tumblr are quite literally just circlejerks to help each other THINK that they're okay with the way they are instead of actually improving their selves. Now before you say that TRP is a huge circle jerk, think about what they're trying to get men to do: TRP is trying to get men to be successful physically, socially, mentally and financially. If you circlejerk that enough, I think TRPers are still going to end up being better in life than feminists. So go do you. Believe what you want. TRP success is evident in the dating scene. Don't believe it? Doesn't matter. Our success is our own. Best start looking for your own.

Peace.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]savingalphalinks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you honestly not find high status males attractive? Hugh Jackman, Daniel Craig, Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling, Matt Bomer, Alexander Skarsgard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, The Backstreet Boys, NYSNC, the fucking main male cast of The Avengers, are ALL unattractive to you? And if you DO happen to find at least one of these guys attractive, what do you say? That he's "cute"? That he's just "good looking"? That's the female rationalization for something they don't understand. They don't understand what they actually want in men because hypergamy is subconscious. You will never find Fat Lard Fedora Pussy Slayer, who plays video games all day in his mom's basement, attractive. NEVER. And if you do, you're most likely a high school girl whose SMV and sense of self-worth is VERY LOW to be even attracted to that type of guy.

What TRP and the PUA community (such as /r/seduction) has figured out is what all of these high status males have in common: Alpha characteristics.

They are all physically, socially, mentally and FINANCIALLY superior to most of the world's population. This is why they can get laid like rock stars. Fuck, this is why rock stars get fucking laid left and right. HYPERGAMY.

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

check the appendix for the long list of studies they used, only a smaller percent of the total meta study sample was from speed dating. the married and dating sample (non speed) did not show the difference in women valuing money/status more than men (and again this study deals with actual couples not what people say they want, as i think your study measures). and why did you take one thing i said, out of context, and make such a blanket statement ("that explains everything", "that seems pretty obvious"), apparently without even reading the study of which i posted the full text to (i'm guessing you haven't even read the full text to the study you posted an abstract to)? do you want to know what the actual truth is? or do you just want your current belief upheld?

if men/women care the same about looks/money, how would that change your world view, approach to women?

[–]savingalphalinksRed Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TurnDownForWhat2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UniversityofToronto 25 points25 points25 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For the n^69th time, TRP doesn't deny men don't engage in (what you call) hypergamy. Heck, their entire fucking subreddit is dedicated to gaming multiple/as attractive as possible women. Their argument is that women do it too.

How different is the rate of hypergamy in females now that women are actively involved in the workforce? Very different. The reason for that is women now have access to the resources and can build their 'status' for themselves and are not reliant on a man to 'provide' for them.

Actually terper theory lists higher social mobility as a reason that so many women engage in hypergamy. So they don't disagree with you here.

Further, women that don't engage in 'hypergamy' are seen as less than women who do by these "Red Pill" men (think of how career oriented women are mocked by these people) yet their circular logic acts as if the hypergamy itself is a negative trait.

What?

It's such backwards logic, it's truly surprising that these RP men are convinced they've got it ALLLLL figured out. LOL. No.

Salty

[–]homo_homini_lupus 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]UniversityofToronto 8 points8 points8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]taiboworksrational idealism > toxic egoism-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FullRedvolution2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are not ATTRACTED by either female status vis a vis other people nor them being of higher status vis a vis themselves.

This ignores the fact that women are given status in society based on their looks.

men are attracted to hot women irrespective of any status.

No. The attractive features create the status. That's why you see attractive women gaining money, fame, and acclaim for NO REASON other than their looks. Also, prior to the induction of women into the workforce, women were traded and bartered with by men based on looks alone. This is unequivocally an indication that women gain status and power based on looks.

From Wiki: "Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference arising out of sexual selection, with men driven to seek women who will give birth to healthy babies and women driven to seek men who will be able to provide the necessary resources for the family's survival."

"healthy babies" = physical attributes of a healthy female.

[+]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

Actually, I've talked to some of them before, and if you think they think that men engage in hypergamy, I'm not sure which ones you're talking to, but I don't think they're the mainstream ones. They don't think that. There is an entire blog dedicated to why women are incapable of love DUE TO hypergamy, and how men are the only ones capable of love (indicating men apparently don't engage in hypergamy).

The problem with discussing the RP is that there are probably people with differing beliefs, which is why you think I'm coming out of left field on this. I've seen them say it verbatim that since women practice hypergamy, they are incapable of love and deserve to be treated like objects. They do not think the same about men, obviously.

Re: "what?" Women that don't engage in hypergamy (i.e. women that 'provide' for themselves and marry for other traits that have NOTHING to do with 'social status') are looked down on by men like this. Then, in the same breath, they say hypergamy is a negative trait in women that is the reason that women can't be trusted, are incapable of love, etc. Basically career-oriented non-hypergamous women aren't good enough because they're not 'submissive females,' but hypergamous women that marry for status, wealth, etc. are incapable of true love. I'm saying there's no way to win for a woman with these men.

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man[🍰] 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UniversityofToronto 6 points6 points6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem with discussing the RP is that there are probably people with differing beliefs, which is why you think I'm coming out of left field on this

Yeah

Re: "what?" Women that don't engage in hypergamy (i.e. women that 'provide' for themselves and marry for other traits that have NOTHING to do with 'social status') are looked down on by men like this. Then, in the same breath, they say hypergamy is a negative trait in women that is the reason that women can't be trusted, are incapable of love, etc.

I actually personally don't look down upon women that provide for themselves, but some TRPers definitely do.

But anyways, your logic here is a bit off.

Engaging in hypergamy (versus only having sex with a serious LTR) and "providing" for oneself (versus being dependent financially) are two discrete traits.

There are women who don't do hypergamy and don't provide (what a lot of TRPers want, because a lot of them want housewives)
There are women who don't do hypergamy and do provide (which TRPers will like for the lack of hypergamy, but won't particularly care for in terms of that woman's career successes)
Women who do hypergamy and and aren't financially independent (I guess TRP's detested post-wall gold diggers?)
Women who do hypergamy and are financially independent

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

[–]UniversityofToronto 7 points7 points7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]UniversityofToronto7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"it has nothing to do with "providing for themselves", it has to do with the man's relative status vis a vis both other men and herself."

Actually, according to the definition, it has everything to do with trying to find a 'provider.' I don't think you even know what it is if you think differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

Studies of heterosexual mate selection in dozens of countries around the world have found men and women report prioritizing different traits when it comes to choosing a mate, with men tending to prefer women who are young and attractive and women tending to prefer men who are rich, well-educated, ambitious, and attractive.[6] Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference arising out of sexual selection, with men driven to seek women who will give birth to healthy babies and women driven to seek men who will be able to provide the necessary resources for the family's survival.

Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is felt to be in slow decline: for example, it is becoming less common for women to marry older men.

Hypergamy is in decline. It's not 'the nature' of what 'women' are attracted to. Please get a clue.

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

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]Sansa_Culotte_0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sansa_Culotte_0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Sansa_Culotte_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

RPW are aware of and work WITH female hypergamy

Hypergamy as a subject is conspicuously absent in your sub, despite your insistence that it is within our female nature to be hypergamous and constantly on the lookout for a "better deal" sexually-socially speaking.

A lot of the threads in I RPW seem to be about trying to teach how to be a proper submissive housewife - which is not a bad thing mind you - how to suppress their "inner hamster", how to "stop being a harpy" how to reject feminism etc.

But by your own theory, all RPW would eagerly ditch their SOs if a marginally better (higher status, more monies, bigger cock) came along. So why teach devotion to a single SO when our female nature compels us to leave them for someone better ASAP?

Monogamy and devotion to a single man is not within our female nature, so why are you trying so badly to make it so? Innate hamster? Inborn female Machiavellianism?

[–]homo_homini_lupus2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The TRP concept of hypergamy does not state that all women at all times are seeking to immediately jump ship the second a higher status male pops up, but that it is the nature of female attraction to be attracted to and to continue being attracted to over time a man she perceives of as higher status in some manner. The entire point of redpill for marriage and LTR is too help men continue giving the impression of higher status (aka, remain attractive) so their wives don't PERCEIVE them as lower status and start itching, for women it is to help them maintain their attraction to their men by not lowering their men's status through competing with them for dominance, infantilizing them, and bringing them down. RPW helps women NOT engage in the very behaviors they engage in to lower their man's status in their own eyes. That women do this once they lock down a man's commitment is also part of females sexual strategy. RP LTR advice is about attempting to harmonize conflicting male and female nature to achieve a goal, not pitting male and female nature against each other so that one side wins

Just because hypergamy is the female tendency does not mean every women acts every time,any more than the fact that male tendency towards ephebophiliac polygyny means that every man will cheat at every opportunity at every time. All human LTRs are an uneasy compromise between male and female nature in which the participants determine its in their best interests to work to CHECK their nature for a greater cause. Humans do this all the time, they don't kill at will, eat at will, steal at will

[–]We_Are_Legion1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

"some TRPers definitely do." Most TRPers do.

So if you believe that hypergamy is in fact not a biological imperative or something practiced by all females, then do you also believe that TRP sexual strategy works on all of these different types of females or just the first set, the ones that "don't do hypergamy and don't provide" and the third set "who do hypergamy and aren't financially independent?"

By admission, you agree that not all women are hypergamous, which is what I'm saying. So ironically, we're saying the same thing, which is that hypergamy is not a feminine imperative. This is not what TRP believes to my knowledge. I believe one of those blogs has an article on how female hypergamy means women are not capable of true love.

Here it is: http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/

"Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of."

"Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy. By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it."

And TRP beliefs on men in love: http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/10/men-in-love/

[–]Pilot9 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pilot9 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UniversityofToronto 5 points5 points5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]UniversityofToronto 7 points7 points7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You quoted me saying:

some TRPers definitely do

And took that out of context to start making a different argument. When in reality, that statement preceded an entire debunking of your main argument (in your original post).

No worries, I'll repost the argument you didn't reply to.

Engaging in hypergamy (versus only having sex with a serious LTR) and "providing" for oneself (versus being dependent financially) are two discrete traits.

There are women who don't do hypergamy and don't provide (what a lot of TRPers want, because a lot of them want housewives)

There are women who don't do hypergamy and do provide (which TRPers will like for the lack of hypergamy, but won't particularly care for in terms of that woman's career successes)

Women who do hypergamy and and aren't financially independent (I guess TRP's detested post-wall gold diggers?)

Women who do hypergamy and are financially independent (just a post-wall chick)

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You are reading way too much into it. I quoted you to let you know I was responding to that specific part of your post. I disagree with you that 'some' TRP men look down on career-oriented women. I think it's more like 98%, with the other 2% neutral, from the posts I've read. If you go to the Red Pill reddit, you can see where most of my negative biases on this topic have been formed. Or maybe you don't see it? I don't know. Maybe you think it's normal to talk about women the way they do.

You are not getting what I am saying which is why you think you made a revolutionary argument then with your four bullet points. I AM SAYING that not all women are hypergamous and that many men are hypergamous. That is the entire point of my post, and what your four bullet points do is reinforce MY idea that not all women are hypergamous. To be clear, this is not a Red Pill belief. Red Pill theory is centered around all women being hypergamous. So when I tell you that you and I are saying the same thing, THAT is why, and also I think your four sub groups are irrelevant to the overall point which is that hypergamy is not a female imperative. Don't repost these bullets because they don't support the point I think you think you're making. Rephrase and start again please.

[–]UniversityofToronto 3 points3 points3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you scroll back up this thread, then you will see this thread is in response to:

Further, women that don't engage in 'hypergamy' are seen as less than women who do by these "Red Pill" men (think of how career oriented women are mocked by these people) yet their circular logic acts as if the hypergamy itself is a negative trait. It's such backwards logic, it's truly surprising that these RP men are convinced they've got it ALLLLL figured out.

To which I say:

Engaging in hypergamy (versus only having sex with a serious LTR) and "providing" for oneself (versus being dependent financially) are two discrete traits.

There are women who don't do hypergamy and don't provide (what a lot of TRPers want, because a lot of them want housewives)

There are women who don't do hypergamy and do provide (which TRPers will like for the lack of hypergamy, but won't particularly care for in terms of that woman's career successes)

Women who do hypergamy and and aren't financially independent (I guess TRP's detested post-wall gold diggers?)

Women who do hypergamy and are financially independent (just a post-wall chick)

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

ok I think part of the confusion is that you say they are discrete traits (as in 'under wraps') when I think you mean distinct traits (as in 'different from one another'). You haven't corrected it in every subsequent reposting and honestly it kind of makes the entire point you're trying to make confusing.

I don't relate hypergamy to only cheating on an LTR. I think of it as a variety of different scenarios which could include any of the following:

-Casually dating multiple men but attempting to LTR the most 'high status' one with the best job, most money, etc. -Breaking up with your LTR to date a more 'high status' male -Cheating on your LTR with a more 'high status' male

Hypergamy is rooted in the idea that women want a man that will provide either resources or status so they're not completely distinct if that's what you're saying. No you don't HAVE to be FINANCIALLY dependent to engage in hypergamy (I guess), but it's pretty much the root of what traditional hypergamy is.

[–]UniversityofToronto1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

ok I think part of the confusion is that you say they are discrete traits (as in 'under wraps') when I think you mean distinct traits (as in 'different from one another').

Yes, you haven't heard of that defintion for discrete before?

(Literally from dictionary.com)

adjective

apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts.

.

No you don't HAVE to be FINANCIALLY dependent to engage in hypergamy (I guess), but it's pretty much the root of what traditional hypergamy is.

No it isn't. There are women who are hypergamous who do and don't rely on men financially. They have nothing to do with each other. And I would think this would be somewhat of an important point because you made the following statement based on this conclusion:

Further, women that don't engage in 'hypergamy' are seen as less than women who do by these "Red Pill" men (think of how career oriented women are mocked by these people) yet their circular logic acts as if the hypergamy itself is a negative trait. It's such backwards logic, it's truly surprising that these RP men are convinced they've got it ALLLLL figured out. LOL.

[–]AlphaFemale92 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Discrete just seems like an obscure word to use in that context, even though the dictionary definition is accurate. Discrete is typically used in scientific settings, and I was misreading it anyway to be discreet because that's the version of the word that is most often used. So on a perfunctory reading, I kept stumbling over it when I was trying to ascertain what your point was with those bullets.

But ANYWAY, moving on, back to what I originally said. My initial post is referring to a specific type of woman - a feminist, career oriented woman who does not want to be controlled and dominated by her "Alpha" partner. I realize that I didn't elaborate on those specific traits, but that's what I mean. I'm not talking about good little submissive girls that work and have climbed the corporate ladder to middle management. I'm talking about take charge women that control their relationships and are high rollers in business and in their career. You're talking about something totally different. Those type of women are not only not dependent on their man financially, they are not dependent on them for status or for anything else, so they do not fit into the TRP narrative.

At the same time, while TRP men reject those women (the career oriented ones that DON'T rely on men ever for any need material, physical, or otherwise), the ones that do rely on them and are hypergamous, they have determined are incapable of loving them the 'right way' or whatever nonsense.

Is a woman truly hypergamous if she doesn't need her partner's money or status or resources? No, not really in the traditional sense.

Wiki: "Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference arising out of sexual selection, with men driven to seek women who will give birth to healthy babies and women driven to seek men who will be able to provide the necessary resources for the family's survival."

We're not going to water down the definition of hypergamy to make it fit this narrative where it doesn't mean what TRP says it means. Hypergamy, the way it is discussed in TRP, is women selecting mates based on their wealth and status and branch swinging at any time to the nearest dick with more wealth or status. Period. That's what the discussion is about so let's not make it more convoluted than it already is.

[–]cheesepythons4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale92 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale94 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale93 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale92 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]deepthrillAlreadyRed Mod, TRP Endorsed Contributor4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deepthrillAlreadyRed Mod, TRP Endorsed Contributor3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sansa_Culotte_-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]teeeloRed Pill7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Having it explained to me in the most straight forward, brutally honest way that women I had initially been interested in as well as women that I was 'with' didn't do so much as leave me because I did anything wrong, but because they could swing to a higher branch and knew it.

As it turns out, being myself (my special snowflake of a self) was not enough to keep a 'quality' girls attention.

Pre Red Pill Men saw this behaviour as a betrayal. For me it was a huge hit to my emotional self esteem because I was convinced there was something beyond wrong with me, when it really came down to a basic lack of RP truths regarding women's sexual preferences.

My original feelings on the matter were originally: Why did she swing that way when I have so much to offer? now I realize it as: The Other Guy had MORE to offer, it's obvious why she jumped ship.

Reading about women's Hypergamy was a huge step to my unplugging. It makes quite the impression on a young Beta guy who is constantly dumped for the Alpha option. Red Pill draws back the curtain on everything I thought was true then whips me in the face with it. And for that I am grateful.

As I see it, Women are always Hypergamous and so are Men. But we reach a point where swinging to a higher branch does not become a possibility. For Women it's hitting the Wall. When their looks fade so does their hypergamous goals. For Men when their looks/status/wealth fades, hypergamy is also pipe dream.

ALSO it's worth mentioning that Men ultimately would prefer multiple simultaneous sexual options while Women would rather have 1 Alpha cock to ride. So much that they would accept sharing that cock with other women.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I see this happening all the time. Young, vulnerable, broken-hearted boy doesn't know why he lost the girl, and seeks out advice from what he believes are well intentioned men. Then, those men poison his mind with half truths and uninformed ramblings and fake 'field reports' so that the young man who was once just a broken hearted boy looking for answers becomes a cynical, cruel, heartless man incapable of looking at a woman as an actual human being anymore. You start to believe that women are predictable, and then you see more and more evidence to support it because you are expecting to see it. It's like one time I was reading a RP forum, and some guy goes "Saw this movie "Into the Woods" in theaters, and the baker's wife totally cheats on the baker to make out with the prince." And that was just the end of the post because it supported TRP philosophy. The actual storyline went something like this: baker and baker's wife get separated. Baker's wife makes out with prince (who is cheating on his wife, the princess). The princess decides she's not in love with the prince anymore (she doesn't know about his cheating), and falls in love with the 'beta' baker and runs away with him and leaves the 'alpha' prince behind. See why other integral elements were left out? Because the alpha DOESN'T always get the girl. Sometimes the beta guys get the girl...actually, most often the beta guys are the ones that keep the girl in my experience.

[–]teeeloRed Pill13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pilot9 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminazis_stalk_mePounding Her Tuna2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminazis_stalk_mePounding Her Tuna0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminazis_stalk_mePounding Her Tuna0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hello. I just made this account like yesterday, but it's because this is the first time I've ever posted on Reddit. I probably would agree with The_Mermaid though so I'm okay with you continuing to think I am that person.

Men do not chose to marry women more attractive than they are.

I disagree. It is much more common for a man to marry a more attractive woman than the other way around.

they usually don't offer commitment at all.

This has nothing to do with it. This is about mate selection. Just because male promiscuity is more socially accepted and is therefore more prevalent does not in and of itself negate the existence of male hypergamy which is very common. Trading for a better looking and/or younger woman is hypergamy in male form.

They are biologically hardwired to want capable men with ambition and potential.

Actually, no. Women are biologically hardwired to want a man that will complement them. If SHE provides, she's going to look for a man that will nurture and/or be good with the children. EDIT: Or that will support her goals and help her achieve her ambitions..whatever SHE, THE INDIVIDUAL, needs.

Your very narrow viewpoint is limiting your ability to understand that all women are different, and that women who provide are very common nowadays. You can either dig your heels in and pretend it's not happening, or you can get with the program and realize that women are looking for different traits now, unless their strategy is to marry rich and/or to not work.

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (113 children) | Copy Link

[–]dragoness_leclerq🚑 Vagina Red Cross 🚑0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale93 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dragoness_leclerq🚑 Vagina Red Cross 🚑0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (90 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

"Women marry across or up, never down." This is not even slightly true across the board. In what way is Oprah's husband 'across' or 'up' from her in social status?

We could even argue about a couple like Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen (I'm mentioning them because they're famous, and everyone knows who they are). In all respects, she is above him. Attractiveness, her career, her wealth, her 'status' as one of the most successful super models of all time. Even though he is also successful, he is not more successful than her in any quantifiable way. I suppose one could argue for the sake of arguing that they're kind of similar, but again, she is on top of him in every quantifiable way -- as a world famous super model, she has more money (by a lot) than he does, and she has literally topped out her career in every quantifiable way.

[–]cheesepythons8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cheesepythons3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafay 4 points4 points4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You'll find out REALLY quick that I'm not one of those little ladies you can order around like a dog.

I'm not going to lie. I chuckled. That's some nice victimcy there. Other women here don't seem to need it but whatever. The main point here, since you seem new and don't get, I'm going to point it out for your benefit:

Hamster does not mean rodents. Threat-point does not refer to threats. Shit-tests do not involve shit. And plates too have surprisingly little to do with plates. RP lingo, like much colloquialism in insular groups, tends to be... colloquial. AWALT is part of this trend. Its not a sentence. Its a word, for a reason. With a meaning attached.

I'm not a RP EC(people with a reputation for not sugar-coating or going back on their words), but this guy definitely is, and he references plenty others. From several years ago to recently... on the meaning of the word "AWALT".

https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2vdlqf/what_does_awalt_mean_to_you/cogus0b

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I live to entertain.

I know what shit-tests and plates are. Fuzzy on hamstering and threat point.

What is an RP EC?

AWALT is a stupid concept created by idiotic men that want to be able to look at a 'trend' and say 'see this applies to all women!' If we treat women like X, it will yield Y result 98% of the time. Oh didn't work for you? Doesn't mean there's not a 'trend.' It's like me saying AMALT - men are shallow, one-dimensional cads who are incapable of understanding basic ideas about women and reject feminism because they're insecure about their status in society. I mean there ARE men like that. Do they really represent a trend? If I ONLY look at men like that, yes there's a trend, but if I look at men as a whole, that's not the trend. That's what AWALT does, it looks at a subsect of women, impresses on unwitting men that all women are like that (or most depending on the level of intelligence of the TRPer pandering it) and then refuses to understand that the 'trend' in question is only a 'trend' in certain women at certain points in life for certain men and is therefore, not a trend at all.

[–]M_rafay2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale90 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am new, but I do know enough to make the very valid argument that hypergamy is not a trend (if anything the opposite is a trend, thanks feminism), AWALT is stupid (even in the sense that exceptions are not the norm...the "exceptions" are the norm because they're, in fact, not exceptions), and that TRP is misogynistic tripe. I am qualified to speak on all of those topics, and I don't need be a TRP dictionary in order to do it effectively.

It's baffling that you think me reading one subreddit is going to change my mind and I'm magically going to be like, "You know what! You misogynists are totes right on hypergamy! All this time I've been choosing mates based on how I FEEL about them when really it's been me selecting the most high status male and in fact, that's what all my friends do too!" Nope nope nope. Hypergamy is not a trend, as I already explained in a previous comment. Women are evolving AWAY from hypergamy, not towards it.

[–]I_GOT__BAKING_SODAsuave as heck3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILU250 shades of purple3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I understand that you think I don't understand what AWALT means, but I do understand. Do I think all of the TRPers understand that it means exceptions don't count? Yeah probably. You'd have to be stupid as fuck not to realize that there are not exceptions to human behavior, and do not get it twisted, some Red Pill men DO believe there are no exceptions. AWALT is really not that difficult a concept.

"First and foremost, AWALT is the insistence that exceptions do not define the norm."

Even if it is admitted that a small subsect of women are 'not like that' it focuses on promoting a trend. Now how are we defining trend?

TREND: a general direction in which something is developing or changing.

If there was a trend in female sexual behavior, hypergamy is definitely not it. Hypergamy is a traditional practice that is rooted in environmental inability of women to procure resources at the same rate as men. Hypergamy is on the decline, therefore, cannot accurately be labeled a trend based on the definition of the word. A trend would be the movement AWAY from hypergamy in women.

[–]M_rafay2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]M_rafay2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale90 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women consistently and cross-culturally across all age-groups report attraction to men who are successful.

Nope. As I already mentioned previously (possibly to someone else), we're not just going to change the definition of hypergamy to include "all times that people date good looking or successful people." The person MUST OBJECTIVELY be of a higher 'status' than her or it does not matter. Also, the 81% of marriages is an inflated number that is influenced by the fact that women were not able to have jobs, support themselves, or be in the workforce at all until less than 100 years ago. In addition to that, misogyny plays a role in how many marriages include a male partner who makes more since women routinely make less than men make on the basis of gender alone. So while your argument is compelling to YOU and people with your mindset ONLY, it does not take into account any environmental, social, or geopolitical factors, and it is a woefully inaccurate representation that actually lends credence to my philosophy which is that hypergamy is on the decline. Wonder how many marriages had women that earned more than men in say, 1920?

Men are extremely unaffected sexually by a woman's achievements.

The preponderance of TRP advocates that think they speak for all women and all men is truly outstanding. You don't.

[–]M_rafay2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale90 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_homini_lupus 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]herpterp2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Actually, TRP theory states that women never do it so it's REALLY easy to disprove. I've already provided 2 examples of high status females Gisele Bundchen and Oprah who definitely did not marry across or up. Gisele is much wealthier than Tom Brady, and he does not 'provide' for her. She is also a world famous super model and marrying him did not give her status in any way. Oprah - that one is self explanatory.

Any sexual strategy can work. I'm not giving it any more credit than I would give bar hopping to find a one night stand. Anything can work; that doesn't mean it has any basis of being taught as something that works often or is the right way to approach dating, sex, relationships, etc.

In my opinion, TRP strategy works on low self esteem females. That's why I don't say it 'never works' because I have met women who think getting bullied is normal in a relationship. Unfortunately, girls like that haven't built strong self esteem and/or are just naturally submissive people, and TRP men exploit them for their own gain.

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Are these women that are supposedly being taken advantage of, not individuals who are responsible for their actions and able to make decisions for themselves?

That's like saying a kicked kitten has agency just like a regular protected kitten. These women have been thrown to the metaphorical wolves (i.e. the alpha man), and I've seen the negative effects these types of abusive men have on the female pscyhe.

If they are, why is it the man's fault that they slept with him?

The "man" in this case is attempting to sexually manipulate the woman through cruel and heartless methods when he has no intention of treating her like an actual human being.

They could have said no and stopped interacting with him at any time.

Look, you either recognize the problem - disgusting sexual manipulation by men propagated through TRP - or you don't. Pretending that the one that was played is stupid for being played is like saying a woman that was almost beaten to death by her drunk abusive husband is at fault because she didn't 'leave' first. What am I saying? I'm sure that's exactly what you psycho TRP men think. Gross. Just gross. Please don't remind me what you really think again because I'll have to disengage and go talk to people with at least half a brain and a modicum of empathy.

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That's like saying a kicked kitten has agency just like a regular protected kitten. These women have been thrown to the metaphorical wolves (i.e. the alpha man), and I've seen the negative affects these types of abusive men have on the female pscyhe.

Okay, now you're comparing men and women to wolves and kittens. That's implying that men have some kind of overwhelming power over a woman's psyche which she is helpless to resist, so it is the man's responsibility to exercise his power benevolently. Doesn't really jive with the whole idea of men and women being equals. Ironically, that paints a picture very close to the TRP narrative of men being the true adults while women are emotionally more like children.

The "man" in this case is attempting to sexually manipulate the woman through cruel and heartless methods when he has no intention of treating her like an actual human being.

So? Does a guy having bad or selfish intentions somehow change a woman's ability to refuse him?

Look, you either recognize the problem - disgusting sexual manipulation by men propagated through TRP - or you don't. Pretending that the one that was played is stupid for being played is like saying a woman that was almost beaten to death by her drunk abusive husband is at fault because she didn't 'leave' first. What am I saying? I'm sure that's exactly what you psycho TRP men think. Gross. Just gross. Please don't remind me what you really think again because I'll have to disengage and go talk to people with at least half a brain and a modicum of empathy.

More ranting and pretty severe ad hom as well ("you don't agree with me so you're a psycho, you have no empathy, you have less than half a brain, etc."). You're not helping your case with stuff like this. Remember, this is a debate sub. TBP is the place to go if you just want to shame TRP freely.

[+]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Victim blaming is a pretty heinous offense to me. Sensing hostility? That's probably why. The type of man that would blame someone for being abused is the type of man I have no time for. If you are one of those men, consider this more than a basic disagreement. We have no reason to continue communicating. There are some things I can 'debate' on and blaming abuse victims for their plight is NOT one of them.

And I've already said multiple times that high self esteem women do not go for TRPers (no matter how much they've convinced themselves of the opposite). I see the women that fall for men like this as kittens. And I see 'alpha' 'men' as creatures that have very little self control, no self awareness, and use any manipulation or means they can think of to try to game women into sleeping with them for their own gratification. Pretty accurate huh?

Does a guy having bad or selfish intentions somehow change a woman's ability to refuse him?

TRP is based on lies and manipulation. In all likelihood, she doesn't know his intentions are not honorable, so why would she refuse him?

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Victim blaming is a pretty heinous offense to me. Sensing hostility? That's probably why. The type of man that would blame someone for being abused is the type of man I have no time for. If you are one of those men, consider this more than a basic disagreement. We have no reason to continue communicating. There are some things I can 'debate' on and blaming abuse victims for their plight is NOT one of them.

Okay but we don't even know what you mean when you refer to "abuse victims," except perhaps that you consider any girl who sleeps with a TRPer to be one. So we don't know whether we are actually arguing about girls that have been abused or not.

TRP is based on lies and manipulation. In all likelihood, she doesn't know his intentions are not honorable, so why would she refuse him?

So women want to sleep with guys who have some kind of higher motive besides getting laid? What would that be, though? Does a guy have to fulfill some kind of obligation to go out on more dates with the girl in order to be "honorable?"

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

except perhaps that you consider any girl who sleeps with a TRPer to be one.

I consider any man that treats a woman like total shit and refuses to communicate with her and 'spins' her like a plate to be emotional abusive unless she likes it I guess. But no I don't think everyone who sleeps with a Terper is physically abused. I think the 'sexual strategy' touted by TRP is emotionally abusive though.

So women want to sleep with guys who have some kind of higher motive besides getting laid?

Well yeah. Usually girls want to sleep with guys that actually like them. Some women just want a quick lay, no disrespect, but most women do want a guy that has some interest above just hitting it and quitting it. You probably know the difference between girls who want to date and girls who just want to have fun for a while. If you're plating girls who want nothing serious, you're not doing anything wrong. If you're plating girls that want something serious and you know it, you're doing something wrong imo.

Does a guy have to fulfill some kind of obligation to go out on more dates with the girl in order to be "honorable?"

I can't speak for all women, but in my personal case, I don't want to just sleep with dudes randomly so if you're interested in hopping in the sack and hopping right back out, I'm just not interested in that kind of relationship. When I was single, I would want to at least date you for a couple of months before jumping in bed because I don't like the thought of not knowing who I'm sleeping with. Other women are different so you have to gauge it based on the woman you are dating.

[–]YaBoiTibzz2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Actually, TRP theory states that women never do it so it's REALLY easy to disprove.

Sigh. That's a nice strawman you have there. Now that you've built up your absolute rules for the opposing side, its really easy to knock em down. Basically you pretend probabalistic generalizations are absolutes in order to pretend like you have a point.

Let me try: People have two arms. / Mammals give birth to live young.

Answer: No they don't./ Platypuses

In fact, let me try it with you:

In my opinion, TRP strategy works on low self esteem females. That's why I don't say it 'never works' because I have met women who think getting bullied is normal in a relationship. Unfortunately, girls like that haven't built strong self esteem and/or are just naturally submissive people, and TRP men exploit them for their own gain.

My last girlfriend was a 33yo senior regional manager for Toyota with her shit thoroughly together. Not only did she have an overabundance of self-esteem, she was not a naturally submissive person by any means. I played her like Pacman.

Behold my mad debating skillz.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]M_rafay2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yea that's the usual absolutist argument, taking "women won't marry down" as a statement meant to be 100% true for every woman ever.

Yes that's what TRP argues - an absolutist philosophy about women which is the only reason it would even be practiced as a philosophy and AWALT is the entire basis of it.

It's meant to describe a general trend and therefore what you can expect.

It's meant to describe whatever a TRPer decides it's meant to describe. Most TRPers believe it describes all even though rational TRPers (oxymoron? Kinda) can see that ascribing that behavior to all women is false and irrational; it doesn't negate the premise that the entire philosophy is founded on the idea that women react a certain way to certain types of men and always go for the 'highest status' man. That IS what TRP believes and it's WHY there is now a cult-like following. Men justify treating women like garbage BECAUSE of TRP's assertion that women cannot love men the right way and that women are always going to engage in hypergamy. You clearly don't see how damaging the mindset around hypergamy in TRP is.

[–]YaBoiTibzzenjoying the blueper reels1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I don't think women are told that all men are potential rapists, although that IS what people like that Roosh and other Red Pill men say that women should believe. Like they should never be in a room alone with a man, thus reinforcing the stereotype that men are dangerous by nature and cannot control themselves. I certainly never grew up thinking men were dangerous. I was too trusting of men because I had a good father and didn't realize men could be bad until I went to college.

Women are taught to fear because men don't want to be responsible for their actions. If men were taught to be responsible and not put women in danger or hurt women, then women wouldn't be taught to fear them. Red Pill men are one of the main reasons IMO that men are feared in society because they reinforce the notion that ONLY women are responsible for protecting themselves from rape, domestic abuse, murder, etc. and that men are not and should not be held accountable for their actions against women. The reason men aren't 'warned' is because the most they'll experience at the hands of a woman is a bruised ego or a broken heart. If only women were that lucky.

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup9871 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How many men are killed at the hands of their intimate female partner? Now, how many women are killed at the hands of their intimate male partner?

one man is killed because on DV every 10 days and that doesn't take in to account proxy violence., one woman is killed every 7 days

IPV of women on men exists, but is very rare in comparison to the very common male on female intimate partner violence. Both are important to discuss, but females are at much more risk physically from men than men from women.

Thats a myth

http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

thats a meta study of ~300 IPV studies all putting DV as percentage of relationship at around 25% and with that subset over all at 70(m)/30(f) in terms of victims bi direction perpetration and putting unidirection IPV as 30% of that 25% in which 70-75% of that is perpetrated by women. in fact that major diffrence between uni directional IPV and bidirectional IPV is weather the guy hits back. Also women at 70 % more likely to use a weapon and 50% more like to attack while their partner is unguarded (sleeping, back turned ect). Also the lack of services for men correlate with higher rates female death from IPV where as the abundance of service for women correlates with a decrease in the amount of deaths for men If you look at IPV stat from the 50 and upward prior to the shelter movement. Also if man hit or restrain even is self defense he risks jail. So he is less likely to even report much defend him self.

I really don't know what you're talking about as far as traits to look for in dangerous women, which I guess supports your point. What makes a woman dangerous? Are you talking about emotionally or physically dangerous?

Both, Women tend to needle men when they are abusive. they also DARVO (Deny attack reverse victim order) and gas light there victims. Play large amounts of psychological mind games. Isolate there victims from friends and family. File false reports, spread lies. When violent attack until the police come then play the victim.

As far as what to look out for going in. Love bombing, attachment issues, need to constantly stay in contact, Controlling, substance abuse, How they describe they're ex, what they did to their ex after the break up (slashed tires, property damage getting a group of guy to tune him up ect.). Looks for someone to be the solution to there problems.

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is just misleading. The actual figures are as follows: (figures from US Department of Justice)

Women - Women account for two out of three murder victims killed by an intimate partner. The number of women killed by an intimate partner fell from 43% in 1980 to 38% in 1995, but rose to 45% in 2008.

Men - The number of men killed by an intimate partner fell from 10.4% in 1980 to 4.98% in 2008.

There is absolutely no way that intimate partner violence against men is even similar in frequency and severity so please stop arguing that.

Most of those warning signs you mentioned seem to refer to emotional manipulation. There's no way for women to really know going in that they are entering into a relationship with an abuser either or no one would do it.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/us/domestic-intimate-partner-violence-fast-facts/

[–]wazzup9871 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I cite 300 studies and i am misleading? All of which avg out to those stats.

Cite me a study not news article. The news has nasty habit of spinning stats. lowest credible number for IPV is 40 percent male. you can get lower than that with questionable methodology.

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Dutton_GenderParadigmInDV-Pt1.pdf

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf

All of which show at least gender symmetry or women are more violent. Please cite me a critical analysis to these studies.

Men - The number of men killed by an intimate partner fell from 10.4% in 1980 to 4.98% in 2008.

Which correlates with a drop in violence as a whole.

I specifically said if you look at IPV studies prior to the the shelter movement, so around about 1950 you see gender symmetry in terms of deaths from ipv. when the shelter movement started the amount of male deaths went down and the amount female death remained the same. Why? the shelter movement gave women in bad situation an escape hatch out of the relationship that didnt involve killing their partner. the lack of shelters for men restricted there option and didn't give them an escape hatch.

Women - Women account for two out of three murder victims killed by an intimate partner. The number of women killed by an intimate partner fell from 43% in 1980 to 38% in 1995, but rose to 45% in 2008.

Women have a nasty habbit of ussing proxy violence to get shit like that done. Women tend to use more discrete method of getting rid of men, like proxy violence, poison, hit men, ect. 2 of which wouldn't count as the women murdering her SO, and the third might not get detected.

[–]AlphaFemale90 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wazzup9871 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale90 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wazzup9872 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the doj study only takes case that went the legal system. Not all case go through the legal system. Also because of primary aggressor policies it skews the results. primary aggressor policies if you didn't know are mandatory arrest policy which states the more apparently heavier, stronger, taller, less emotionally affected party gets arrested. the problem is is that if you have 110 pound 5'4" woman who has stabber her 6'1" 210 lbs BF friend the cops show up the boy friend still get arrested even though he is the one who has been stabbed. And that the rub. Also is a guy say restrains a woman who is attacking him by grabbing her by the wrists that can get him arrested, even though it is purely defensive. So the doj study actually has a lot bias baked in.

Also its one study against 45 years of research.

[–]AlphaFemale90 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wazzup9872 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale90 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jsalatheMostly Red Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Female hypergamy is probably biological. If you are a smaller, weaker creature with less aggression, you will look for the biggest, strongest and most aggressive creature to bond with. Hence most great apes have harems, which pro to-humans almost certainly did as well.

Move forward an epoch and we have women who still look for the protection and resources of the top 10%, but are now in monogamous relationships. It seems to me that the older impulse to seek out the strongest would still be latent in the female.

Now that women are providing for themselves, the impulse toward hypergamy is still there, but there are far fewer men who are clearly superior to their position in life. Hence we have a lot of women bemoaning that there are no good men left. Good Man == higher status than me.

I think the hypergamy is not usually referencing SMV and so physical attractiveness is not part of the equation, but I am open to being corrected on this.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If you think comparing humans to primates proves a point, you are wrong. I'll still address your points though.

"Female hypergamy is probably biological." I think it is environmental due to the fact that the preponderance of it is dropping as women are more easily able to access resources without having to rely on their husband as a provider. Hypergamy has diminished substantially over the last decade for this reason.

"If you are a smaller, weaker creature with less aggression, you will look for the biggest, strongest and most aggressive creature to bond with." Why do you have to? How are you defining small and weak? Physical size or ability to acquire resources?

"Good Man == higher status than me." Haha no. It's just...interesting...that you think this is what "Good man" means to a woman. I just have to ask, what women are you around on a daily basis? Gold diggers? It's sad to me that so many men think all women are gold diggers.

A woman's SMV is determined by her level of physical attractiveness, traditionally and in the sense that hypergamy is discussed with TRP. Women never had status or wealth because they weren't able to acquire any except as an heir to a fortune created by a man. Women were traded by men based on their beauty, nothing else, which is why it's how women are evaluated in the 'sexual marketplace' as we talk about with TRP (which is all based on a very narrow, conservative, traditional viewpoint).

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hypergamy has diminished substantially over the last decade for this reason.

To like 20% couples having a female who earns more in the US. This figure includes men who are unemployed. You're selling the picture awfully short.

Furthermore, where social factors do not shame hypergamy, it runs rampant. Look to the rest of the developed(non-western ) and developing world. East or South Asia for instance. Increased earning power makes the stresses of hyper-gamy on the sexual marketplace more apparant, because there is no shaming women for it.

Why do you have to? How are you defining small and weak? Physical size or ability to acquire resources?

Both. Now though, its instinct. Women gravitate to strong, successful men. Men do not care for women's success.

Haha no. It's just...interesting...that you think this is what "Good man" means to a woman. I just have to ask, what women are you around on a daily basis? Gold diggers? It's sad to me that so many men think all women are gold diggers.

It doesn't matter what women consider to be a good man or report to be a good man. It is irrelevant to the sexual marketplace except in picking a provider. And when picking a provider, that's what a good man is. Other factors are negotiable. Not this one though.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

To like 20% couples having a female who earns more in the US. This figure includes men who are unemployed. You're selling the picture awfully short.

By your own admission, 20% of women are not hypergamous and that number is on the rise. That also doesn't count ALL of the women that are unmarried, dating, etc. So again, hypergamy is not a biological imperative - the entire point of my post. Glad you agree.

Also, expect that number to continue to rise and with it an inverse relationship in the likelihood that women will accept 'alpha' men when they could have a man that doesn't quantify his manhood by how easily he 'games' unsuspecting women.

Men do not care for women's success.

So men that marry very wealthy women...where do they fall in this philosophy?

And when picking a provider, that's what a good man is. Other factors are negotiable. Not this one though.

Foolish and wrong. Some women don't select men based on how well they can 'provide' because there are only a small handful of men that can provide better than they can. Some women don't select the highest earning male because they are in love with a low earning male that may have other desirable traits - attractive, funny, caring, etc.

TRP theory is complete bullshit except in some rare cases. It's in fact like saying 'walk down the street at 3am to get a one night stand.' Sure once in a while that might work, but on average, every girl is going to be like "get away from me creep." You've been warned. And don't let your propensity for confirmation bias convince you that I'm wrong.

If you want a 'little woman' that is submissive and will cook and clean for you and has no ambition, TRP could help you find that woman (through callous and heartless sexual manipulation). Other women would never be attracted to someone like this, and you're wrong to think the majority of women are.

Edited.

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

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Phokus19822 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus19822 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus19825 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus19824 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus19823 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is a revolutionary concept to someone like you, I know, but some women don't evaluate their man based on his supposed 'status.' When they talk about not being able to find a man, they could mean, "I can't find a man that makes me laugh." "I can't find a man that makes me feel the warm and fuzzies." "I can't find a man that I think is really attractive and has the other qualities I'm looking for in a man like sense of humor, good with kids, happy go lucky, down to earth, whatever else it may be." The fact that you think either of these women would have trouble finding a man with more money and status than them is laughable. THEY COULD EASILY DO THAT. Grasp this so we can move on to a more salient topic.

Let me reiterate this very obvious point: neither of those women speak for all women or even a majority of women.

I don't need to watch the video to point out the obvious which is that neither of those women are ambassadors for all women, thus they prove no point other than that you think YouTube videos act as 'proof' of a concept that you really don't understand. You think when they say they 'can't find a good man' or whatever they're saying they are actually saying they cannot find a higher status man than themselves, when that is NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. It's not what is coming out of their mouths, nor is it what they mean.

[–]Phokus19822 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TurnDownForWhat1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TurnDownForWhat 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

So your thread is dumb.

You may notice how "dumb" is not a word which is focused specifically on your thread, but still describes it pretty well.

Same deal here. While the term hypergamy is not gendered, it is used to refer to an economic phenomenon that in the vast majority of cases, is displayed among women.

Men marrying women of a higher attractiveness would not fall under hypergamy because the word is not about subjective qualities like "physical attractiveness, intelligence, personality, etc" but specifically about the social and/or economic status of people. That one study on dating website described that hypergamy has an analogue in males(aka if women are gaining money, what are men gaining) does not make hypergamy suddenly refer to something other than money or status. The one phrase you are referring to is this:

> Despite this skewed sex ratio, they found that "On education and socioeconomic status, women on average express greater hypergamic selectivity; they prefer mates who are superior to them in these traits... while men express a desire for an analogue of hypergamy based on physical attractiveness; they desire a mate who ranks higher on the physical attractiveness scale than they themselves do."[11]

If your point was that there is an analogue to hypergamy in males, than that's a concept so obvious I'm not sure why we're even bringing it up.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Your comment is dumb. See how dumb refers to your comment specifically and allegedly my thread (if by proxy since it discusses TRP philosophy, it is dumb by nature so I agree). That means that all comments and threads are dumb. We ahve observed that your comment AND my thread are in fact dumb which means all comments and threads in existence (minus a few rare exceptions that we will henceforth refer to as 'unicorns') are dumb. Voila!

the vast majority of cases,

Conjecture.

because the word is not about subjective qualities like "physical attractiveness, intelligence, personality, etc"

Except all definitions define it as exactly that.

specifically about the social and/or economic status of people.

Yes and that is determined by attributes, traits, characteristics, and qualities. "Status" does not just exist independent of all physical space, time, and reality no matter how much that seems to make sense in a very non-physical way in your mind.

(aka if women are gaining money, what are men gaining)

More status. Obviously. Men that are able to pull a very attractive woman are instantly revered by other men in society (and some women by way of group think) as some sort of master, and it is implied that through his courting of a high value (attractive) woman, he brings a lot to the table. I shouldn't need to explain this to you. You guys wrote the book on this kind of conjecture and half formed logic so apply it in the reverse. We have ALL observed at one point or another in our lives this phenomenon of a man being revered by other men for being with the most attractive woman he can find, and as TRPers do, then say that since it has been observed by most people at some point in time that it applies to all scenarios but like 0.002% exclusively. And make sure to say 0.002% exclusively so that if someone tries to challenge your claim, you can come right back and say "but exceptions do not disprove the trend." That completes the circular logic that you use all the time but somehow can't seem to figure out how to use in this scenario of hypergamy in men. Not convenient for you to see that men actually aren't superior to women in any way.

Once you move out of the 'denial' phase of this realization, we may be able to have a productive conversation. Until then, I'm off to create more satire on the blue pill.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedRisingHoodBetter red than dead1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RedRisingHoodBetter red than dead1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I realize that the comments are all over the boards, but my reading of the Red Pill view of sexual dynamics is that a woman's reproductive strategy is generally hypergamous (secure the best mate possible to pass the genes along) whereas a man's reproductive strategy is generally polygamous (secure as many mates as possible to pass the genes along).

Prior to Reddit, I thought that this was generally seen as common knowledge, hence the "women are more selective and men are more opportunistic when it comes to sex" tropes that are evident, well, everywhere.

I still feel like I could trot that out in any random gathering of fairly self-aware adults and the majority of them wouldn't take much issue with it.

I think that institution of monogamy has certainly attempted to mitigate those tendencies (especially in the case of men), and have probably encouraged men to act in a hypergamous fashion as well (if you can only get one, get the best one), but my observations regarding the sexuality of the different genders certainly seems to support that general dichotomy.

(And I swear that my research on sexuality pointed to the same basic idea, though it's been so long since I studied Sexuality 101 that I can't remember exactly how it was stated)

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I'm Purple Pill so I somewhat agree with you.

"Hypergamy" or the desire for an extremely high-quality/high-attractiveness partner is something which is clearly true for both sexes. Men who divorce the old wife to "trade in for a new model" are basically precisely this. Male hypergamy.

But I think the point about the RP emphasis on female hypergamy is that women in general skew more towards hypergamic behaviour on average whereas males, due to their on-average higher basic-need-to-bust-a-nut combined with cultural norms which emasculate males who don't get laid a lot, will skew more towards being willing to "settle for less" in order to get more.

So basically, whilst both men and women are driven to get the best quality partner, men have a stronger drive towards quantity than women do. In women, the "balance" skews towards quality (relative to men), and in men, the "balance" skews towards quantity (relative to women).

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Yes on the male hypergamy analogy. Agreed.

I don't know how to properly quote on Reddit so I'm probably doing this wrong, but:

"But I think the point about the RP emphasis on female hypergamy is that women in general skew more towards hypergamic behaviour on average"

Yeah but I think there's a reason for that, which is that women are still gaining the ability to acquire resources for themselves in the workforce. Women were JUST able to begin accessing resources and creating financial stability for themselves the way men have been able to for centuries beginning in the early 1900's, and while it's possible now, there are still some challenges that women face that men do not. Thus, some women still look at it as easier and morally upright or preferable in some other capacity (like pressure from parents, religion, etc.) to allow the man to take care of them because of society. I think the preponderance of hypergamy has 0 to do with biology and 100% to do with access and self esteem.

Because to me, a statement that says 'everyone seeks the best partner in terms of qualities that are most important to them' is very accurate. It's the RP philosophy that seeks to make 'hypergamy' a female imperative that is focused on acquiring 'high status' males is just...total crap. Everyone tries to find the best mate they can, and there are different traits that are important to each person.

I guess my other point about this is that a lot of this is influenced by society and not biology. How much of this do we expect because society has told us it is this way, i.e., most men want to have many partners while most women want to have only a few or one partner? What about the men and women that don't fit that paradigm? Are they a biological anomaly or do they disprove the theory?

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but I think there's a reason for that, which is that women are still gaining the ability to acquire resources for themselves in the workforce. Women were JUST able to begin accessing resources and creating financial stability for themselves the way men have been able to for centuries beginning in the early 1900's, and while it's possible now, there are still some challenges that women face that men do not. Thus, some women still look at it as easier and morally upright or preferable in some other capacity (like pressure from parents, religion, etc.) to allow the man to take care of them because of society. I think the preponderance of hypergamy has 0 to do with biology and 100% to do with access and self esteem.

I certainly agree that a woman's hypergamic tendencies are culturally encouraged (just as a man's more quantity-focused tendencies are culturally encouraged). But I wouldn't say its "0" to do with biology. I'm a biosocial interactionist so I think both factors contribute. I certainly agree culture polarizes the genders and exaggerates the natural differences to a significant degree however...

I should also argue that in my judgment, most sexual desire on the part of both men and women is based on looks. I don't think women are sexually attracted to wealth in and of itself - Bill Gates is not a sex symbol.

Everyone tries to find the best mate they can, and there are different traits that are important to each person.

I agree, but its not unfair to suggest that there are some traits which are generally preferred by members of one specific gender, and nor is it unfair to suggest these general/typical preferences may be rooted in biology to at least some degree. Most people will accept this is true about male sexual attraction... child-bearing hips and ample breasts and general youth are found attractive by the majority of opposite-sex-attracted men and all of these traits are correlated with fertility. Is it unfair to suggest that female sexuality may be similarly aesthetically-inclined towards certain features in males for similarly biological reasons?

I guess my other point about this is that a lot of this is influenced by society and not biology. How much of this do we expect because society has told us it is this way, i.e., most men want to have many partners while most women want to have only a few or one partner?

That's a very difficult and complicated issue to say the least and I take the middle-ground "both factors matter" position. That said, men do in fact get mixed cultural messages about the issue of promiscuity too... after all, we're ALSO expected to 'eventually' settle down, find a wife and practice longterm monogamy. Jesus wasn't a man-whore and we do live in a mostly-Christian society. Male promiscuity may be given a less negative reception than female promiscuity but it hardly gets universal acclaim.

What about the men and women that don't fit that paradigm? Are they a biological anomaly or do they disprove the theory?

That's also a very big and important question. I agree that TRP underestimates the frequency of "unicorns" (i.e. atypical women) and as a gender-atypical male I also think guys like myself could do with a little more consideration (from society in general).

I think that biology is probably part of things, although biological atypicality is very very common... if it weren't, why would our society need so much vicious normative policing of outliers?

[–]Vornnash0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Is it unfair to suggest that female sexuality may be similarly aesthetically-inclined towards certain features in males for similarly biological reasons?

No but that's not what hypergamy is. If the TRP philosophy contended that women went for the best LOOKING mate they could find, well then duh yes I can see where the thought process is behind that (but even then, women still marry men less attractive than they are all the time). However, the TRP philosophy is that women ALWAYS without fail marry 'higher status' men than they are, which is just laughably false. And you have men on this very thread arguing exactly that. It's mind boggling.

I think your assertion that there are some traits that women look for in men and those traits are appealing on a biological level is accurate. I'm not saying there are no biological traits (physical) that women find attractive; I am saying 'wealth' and 'status' the way it is discussed in TRP are not part of the biological imperative of both sexes to find an attractive and desirable mate. I think marrying 'up' for wealth and status is an environmental phenomena necessitated by women not having access to the same resources or ability to create financial stability as men throughout the centuries.

Male promiscuity may be given a less negative reception than female promiscuity but it hardly gets universal acclaim.

True, but you can see how differently it's treated even today in society by looking at how popular the TRP philosophy is (basically trick as many women into sleeping with you as you can, and if they do sleep you with, they're 'sluts' that can't be trusted and if they don't sleep with you, they're just secretly begging for you to break through their resistance.) TRP = a manwhore's mindgame. If you look, you won't find anything like this for women (especially not accepted on such a massive scale) because it is not at all societally acceptable for women to engage in attempting to break men down and manipulate them (even though we do, but there's not an entire philosophy around it because we are not encouraged by society to do it like men are.)

I think TRP underestimates the frequency of women that don't fall within the paradigm they've decided is convenient so they can perpetrate their mind games, and I think that includes unicorns and other types of women, too, that might be looking for say 'the hottest guy' to date or 'the funniest guy' to date. Women are A LOT less black and white than TRP gives us credit for.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

No but that's not what hypergamy is. If the TRP philosophy contended that women went for the best LOOKING mate they could find, well then duh yes I can see where the thought process is behind that (but even then, women still marry men less attractive than they are all the time). However, the TRP philosophy is that women ALWAYS without fail marry 'higher status' men than they are, which is just laughably false.

And I'd contend that you're misunderstanding TRP's concept of hypergamy.

"Hypergamy" doesn't refer to marriage, for one. TRP is referring to raw sexual attraction in females, which isn't necessarily the same thing as marriage (although clearly it is an important component within a successful marriage).

Second, you're presuming that "status" means "social status" which means "money." This is a great oversimplification. For one, money doesn't necessarily mean one will have social esteem or acclaim, and for two, if money were what made women attracted to men then TRP simply could not work nor would it focus on improving things like social charisma or physical appearance.

TRP have linked hypergamy to numerous biological features like height, muscularity, handsome faces, etc. Clearly they do not equate hypergamy with gold-digging.

Indeed, TRP describe gold-digging with the phrase "beta bucks" - she isn't attracted to you, she's fucking you because she wants your money.

If hypergamy were all about monetary status then Bill Gates would be a sex symbol.

I'm Purple Pill so maybe I'm just reading TRP charitably but seriously, I've never seen TRP to argue that women are genetic gold-diggers. Indeed, I've seen the opposite being argued; the victim of a gold-digger is the ultimate beta bucks.

I think marrying 'up' for wealth and status is an environmental phenomena necessitated by women not having access to the same resources or ability to create financial stability as men throughout the centuries.

I'm very tempted to agree with you, however the fact is that women have had the ability to secure financial stability for at least one-and-a-half generations through non-marital means and still there are few women willing to marry a man less wealthy than they are.

I should also reiterate, TRP concepts are not attempts to explain marriage decisions but rather attempts to explain raw sexual attraction. Marriage decisions can be very calculated "business" decisions, whereas raw sexual attraction is by definition involuntary.

That said, do I agree that culture contributes to "marrying up" for money? Absolutely! It truly does. All those princess fantasies we pump little girls full of when they are children basically teach them that they are all worthy of Prince Charming and anything less than that doesn't deserve the time of day.

True, but you can see how differently it's treated even today in society by looking at how popular the TRP philosophy is (basically trick as many women into sleeping with you as you can, and if they do sleep you with, they're 'sluts' that can't be trusted and if they don't sleep with you, they're just secretly begging for you to break through their resistance.)

Popularity of the TRP philosophy? How is TRP popular? Its a pretty fringe set of ideas.

In addition, I don't think its fair to characterize TRP as "tricking" women into sleeping with them... boiled down, TRP is merely a set of techniques designed to make oneself more sexually appealing to women. How is this "tricking" women? If working out, dressing nicely and learning to be more charming is "tricking" women, you could argue that wearing makeup to look younger is "tricking" men.

I think TRP underestimates the frequency of women that don't fall within the paradigm

I absolutely agree here. Ditto for men. And I certainly don't agree with every statement TRP makes about women.

Women are A LOT less black and white than TRP gives us credit for.

Again, I absolutely agree. However, I think TRP has some general validity at a very highly abstract, broadly-speaking-across-the-population level.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

"Hypergamy" doesn't refer to marriage, for one. TRP is referring to raw sexual attraction in females

If so, it's still incorrect. RAW sexual attraction in females is physical (does he have physical attributes that I find stimulating?) and sometimes emotional (will he make a good life partner?). Think Channing Tatum in Step Up.

For one, money doesn't necessarily mean one will have social esteem or acclaim, and for two, if money were what made women attracted to men then TRP simply could not work nor would it focus on improving things like social charisma or physical appearance.

An interesting theory, but there's no way to quantifiably measure a person's physical appearance in comparison to another person's physical appearance so we have to use quantifiable measurements to determine status (like wealth, job title, etc.). Otherwise we're just using subjective criteria, which is an unreliable indicator at best.

I mean think about it from a male perspective. Some men like short women and think they're cute and sexy. Some men, however, think that petite women don't look womanly or curvy enough and have a Napoleon complex. You can't mitigate for personal preference in physical appearance is what I'm saying, and you can't determine unequivocally that Person A is going to be more attractive than Person B without, well, asking the person who they think is more attractive.

What's the point of all of that? The point is that the trend has to be able to be quantifiably proven or it is as good as disproven.

TRP have linked hypergamy to numerous biological features like height, muscularity, handsome faces, etc. Clearly they do not equate hypergamy with gold-digging.

False. That's exactly what it is typically equated with. The argument is that a high status man that is in good shape regardless of physical features can attract a 'better' woman and that he will have more access to a larger pool of women. To act as if wealth is not part of status is being either intellectually dishonest or short sighted. Physical attraction, in my opinion, is MUCH more important in terms of determining a male's desirability as a mate than wealth, but that is my personal opinion because I do not need wealth so I am free to choose a mate based on their physical attributes. Women in a different place, for example, that are looking for financial stability and someone to take care of them, are going to be more focused on a man's ability to create wealth. Do you see why it's not a reliable trend? Women that are in different places look for different things in their mate. You can say GENERALLY, physically attractive men that make a lot of money will have the most availability to date the most beautiful women, and then all people will say duh. It's the obsession with hypergamy and 'social status' that is incorrect. Women determine which traits are important to them based on their unique situation and their desires in a partner.

I'm Purple Pill so maybe I'm just reading TRP charitably but seriously, I've never seen TRP to argue that women are genetic gold-diggers.

I do believe you're being generous. TRP argues regularly that women branch swing from high status male to higher status male. Status is loosely defined, and I think your definition is much MUCH closer to reality than what they think - which is that women are one dimensional and look for the most successful man around them to mate with.

When I say gold-digger, I believe that the majority of TRPers believe the majority of women are wired genetically to select mates based, not on feeling, emotion, or love, but on evaluating 'status' level relative to theirs and selecting accordingly. It's a very vague and poorly defined concept which is what makes it difficult to argue against.

A typical discussion between a TRPer and a TBPer goes something like:

TRP: "AWALT"

TBP: "No they're not. X exception disproves the theory."

TRP: "Exceptions are not the norm therefore are irrelevant."

TBP: "The exception is not an exception; it's the norm."

TRP: "No it's not. AWALT." ...circular argument begins again.

It's such faulty logic there's no way to argue against it because they can just say that any point refuting it is an exception and if you show lots of exceptions, they either completely ignore it or find some way to 'hamster' (for lack of a better word) around the point.

TRP is merely a set of techniques designed to make oneself more sexually appealing to women.

I think you're being generous again. It's more like, a set of practices used to manipulate women and to get them to agree to sleep with you, even if they indicate they don't want to, to validate your manhood. Not only that, it also has to do a lot with fucking with women's emotions while pretending they're not good enough to actually LTR, only to 'plate.' Overall, it's a set of practices that has really damaging effects on women's psyches if they get in too deep or are not prepared for the level of mind fuckery that's about to go down in a TRP relationship.

And that's before we even begin to get into the misogyny angle and why THAT in and of itself is such a damaging and harmful mentality for men (and women) to hold.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If so, it's still incorrect. RAW sexual attraction in females is physical (does he have physical attributes that I find stimulating?) and sometimes emotional (will he make a good life partner?). Think Channing Tatum in Step Up.

Speaking as a Purple Piller, I agree that for the most part raw sexual attraction is mostly physical. However, hypergamy doesn't conflict with this.

What traits do women seem to like? Height, an athletically muscular build, handsome faces etc... These traits, particularly height, have been shown to increase the amount of social esteem/respect a man receives from other people. They create an impression of powerfulness and presence... in effect, they create the impression of a "more alpha" male.

As for emotional attraction, I agree this does exist but I don't think it operates on a sense of "long-term partner." Frankly, a lot of women like personality traits which many would consider undesirable over the long term... this is the whole "women like jerks" thing TRP goes on about. If one wants a One Night Stand then one doesn't go out of their way trying to appear sensitive and thoughtful and intelligent... one tries to cultivate a 'bad boy' aura. Frankly, most women like this.

UNLIKE TRP, however, I do not think women like this because they want to be dominated or abused. I think they like this because on a very basic, biological level these traits are indicative of agency and thus (at least in the evolutionary past) the ability to provide and fight... good traits from a survivability perspective in a harsh environment, although these traits are far less useful in today's civilized world.

Of course, for a long-term relationship, women want emotional support and the like. TRP calls this a "beta" trait but I've seen several TRPers on this forum argue that the ideal situation for women and men is a man having a mixture of both alpha and beta traits (to "cover all the bases" so to speak). Pure alphas don't make dependable husbands and pure betas don't get women particularly horny.

Again, you need to keep in mind that TRP is primarily about understanding pure biological primal hunger in women. Its mostly about short term sexual strategy, not long-term satisfaction.

An interesting theory, but there's no way to quantifiably measure a person's physical appearance in comparison to another person's physical appearance so we have to use quantifiable measurements to determine status (like wealth, job title, etc.). Otherwise we're just using subjective criteria, which is an unreliable indicator at best.

Untrue. Social status can be measured by looking at relationships within a group of men - the "highest ranking" member (or AMOG to use RP terms) for example. This is essentially a comparative measurement rather than a purely objective one, but its still a valid measurement.

And yes, there's a significant level of "subjectivity" (in the economic sense) involved here - after all, being "hot" means other people finding you hot. Ergo, your hotness depends on their judgment of you. But I don't think RP actually disagrees with this.. there's a reason for their concept of "social proof" (read: intersubjective proof). In addition, just because something is subjective in this economic sense doesn't mean its completely arbitrary - after all, we both agree that some traits are far more likely to be perceived as hot than other traits.

False. That's exactly what it is typically equated with.

I've read my share of TRP and frankly I've never seen any TRPer argue that all women are genetic gold-diggers. I don't know what you've read but seriously you seem to be going on a very inaccurate impression of TRP. Sorry. It is you who is misreading TRP theory.

The argument is that a high status man that is in good shape regardless of physical features can attract a 'better' woman and that he will have more access to a larger pool of women.

Erm, no, that isn't precisely true. You're conflating "women will want to have sex with him" with "women will find him sexually attractive." The former, as we both agree, can be a simple business decision. The latter means she will have "'gina tingles" over him.

TRP focuses on teaching men to be sexually appealing on the primal, "'gina tingles" level.

To act as if wealth is not part of status is being either intellectually dishonest or short sighted.

And you're misconstruing things. What I said was that wealth doesn't cause women to have "'gina tingles" (seriously, I hate that term but I don't know of any alternative besides "ladyboners"). It could certainly encourage women to be willing to make a business-decision to fuck him but that isn't the same thing.

And wealth doesn't buy respect and it doesn't buy social status. Indeed, the opposite can happen, particularly when many people subscribe to political ideologies that treat wealthy people as evil oppressors simply for being wealthy. A wealthy person who lacks social charisma or physical presence won't necessarily be respected or admired by other men or even women.

"Social status" is something which others grant to you. It is a subjective thing, at least when coercion/violence is out of the equation. Because of its subjectivity, you can't try and objectivize it by defining it as a function of wealth; being wealthy doesn't necessarily grant one the respect of others, particularly in a Christian-influenced society where "blessed are the poor" is part of the Sermon on the Mount.

Physical attraction, in my opinion, is MUCH more important in terms of determining a male's desirability as a mate than wealth, but that is my personal opinion because I do not need wealth so I am free to choose a mate based on their physical attributes. Women in a different place, for example, that are looking for financial stability and someone to take care of them, are going to be more focused on a man's ability to create wealth.

I absolutely agree with you, but I think you're again conflating pure primal sexual attraction to someone with a willingness to engage in a relationship with someone. One of the core points TRP makes is that these are somewhat separate (they use the phrase "dualistic mating strategy" to talk about this).

Women determine which traits are important to them based on their unique situation and their desires in a partner.

Of course, but that doesn't invalidate the overall argument that speaking very generally, the typical woman is more likely to find traits X, Y and Z more appealing than traits A, B and C.

I do believe you're being generous.

And I believe you're being a little unfair to TRP. I can understand why their rhetorical causticity would frustrate you (I find a lot of what they say to be similarly frustrating) but if you read them with the proverbial salt shaker nearby and treat what they say as broad generalizations rather than specific statements about all individual women, it comes off as a lot more reasonable.

A typical discussion between a TRPer and a TBPer goes something like:

I know their use of AWALT is just extremely frustrating but here's the thing: it isn't meant to be taken literally.

TRP is deliberately rhetorically caustic and inflammatory. They're trying to be unfair and jerk-ish. I think this is stupid of them, but the reason they do it is that they're venting their anger at a society which they believe has systematically deceived them about how to attract women.

I wish they'd tone it down, and I think if they did they would have more success. But I think its fair to suggest that if TRP stuff offends you, you aren't really their target audience.

It's more like, a set of practices used to manipulate women and to get them to agree to sleep with you, even if they indicate they don't want to, to validate your manhood. Not only that, it also has to do a lot with fucking with women's emotions while pretending they're not good enough to actually LTR, only to 'plate.' Overall, it's a set of practices that has really damaging effects on women's psyches if they get in too deep or are not prepared for the level of mind fuckery that's about to go down in a TRP relationship.

I agree with you to some degree with respect to certain TRP techniques. However, on the other hand, there are some TRP techniques which aren't nearly as sinister as they sound.

For instance, "text game" - when a girl sends you a text, don't reply back too quickly because that will make you sound needy and insecure. It basically works out as "playing hard-to-get."

Is this manipulative? I don't really think so. The "thrill of the chase" is something which for many men and women is enticing and mysterious and part of the sizzle.

Sure, on a rational level one should obviously reply as quickly as possible to any communication in order to facilitate ease and convenience of interaction... but a lot of sexual attraction is unfortunately sub-rational and purely biological.

And that's before we even begin to get into the misogyny angle and why THAT in and of itself is such a damaging and harmful mentality for men (and women) to hold.

I absolutely agree that a lot of TRP ideas are needlessly malevolent about female sexuality. On the other hand, society in general promotes many misleading positive stereotypes about female sexuality, so the malevolence can be argued to be a necessary corrective. That said, I'd personally prefer more levelheaded and realistic assessments about the sexuality of both men and women... i.e. no more demonization of males, no more pedastalization of females, stop trying to say either sex has a "worse" sexuality, start admitting that we're all complex composites of social and biological pressures which all need to be taken into account, start accepting that there are traits which are generally more attractive and traits which are generally less attractive to the opposite sex, etc.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

hypergamy doesn't conflict with this.

No it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

Studies of heterosexual mate selection in dozens of countries around the world have found men and women report prioritizing different traits when it comes to choosing a mate, with men tending to prefer women who are young and attractive and women tending to prefer men who are rich, well-educated, ambitious, and attractive.[6] Evolutionary psychologists contend this is an inherent sex difference arising out of sexual selection, with men driven to seek women who will give birth to healthy babies and women driven to seek men who will be able to provide the necessary resources for the family's survival.

Note how attractive is the last trait listed. I don't think that's a coincidence and it's not listed at all in the second part of the explanation. Wiki also agrees that hypergamy in women and men is on the decline:

Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is felt to be in slow decline: for example, it is becoming less common for women to marry older men.

Back to your post:

Pure alphas don't make dependable husbands and pure betas don't get women particularly horny.

I think the real kicker in all of this is that the dichotomy does't actually exist. There's a whole grayscale spectrum where most men fall, and that's a good thing because both extremes are undesirable.

understanding pure biological primal hunger in women.

Maybe this is my bias, but I think it's kind of ridiculous to focus so much on pseudo scientific 'female imperatives' when women are evolved and are multi-faceted, complex, and continuously evolving beings. It's like trying to study the surface of the earth, which is ever changing and as soon as you figure something out and nail it down, you will realize that the thing you 'figured out' has already changed. TRPers, whether they realize it or not, are behind the times with women. This very traditional viewpoint surrounding female behavior is not as prevalent as TRP contends that it is.

A wealthy person who lacks social charisma or physical presence won't necessarily be respected or admired by other men or even women.

The subjectivity of it makes it impossible to prove and challenging to disprove. Literally TRP cannot be proven with the way you define it because you can't quantify or measure status objectively. Charisma, physical attractiveness, and other such factors are intuitive and I know what you are saying, and I don't think you're wrong, but what I mean is that you can't objectively measure how much status X person has compared to Y person therefore you could never make a valid analysis that random hypergamous woman moves from X status male to Y status male. You can't prove that Y is better than X, because even if on the surface Y seems like he might be better, X could have other mitigating factors that would objectively bring his SMV up above Y since there are so many variables at play and women ARE complex, multi-faceted creatures with different wants and needs (so she could think ___ quality in X is more important than ____ quality in Y.

the typical woman is more likely to find traits X, Y and Z more appealing than traits A, B and C.

Can't be measured. Can't be proven. Not trying to be a stickler about this specific point, but you really can't unless it's a glaring difference in SMV. You can guesstimate and approximate, but it's not very accurate.

It's actually much worse than malevolence towards female sexuality. I'm not sure what your personal views on this are, but most TRPers are taught to be openly misogynist, e.g., women are inferior to men. That is so damaging, it's hard for me to even process how to begin addressing why. I'm sure you know why. You seem very reasonable.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

I'm going by hypergamy as discussed in TRP discussions with respect to sexual attraction. In the Wikipedia article you linked to, the traits discussed seem to be more related to decisions regarding marriage/long-term-partner selection.

I totally agree that culture encourages hypergamy in a long-term-selection sense with women (although there may be some biology involved but its hard to do experiments on this), and I can see why it would be on the decline over the long term.

However, when TRP discuss hypergamy in the sense of women wanting an alpha blah blah, they're talking about getting one-night stands rather than getting commitment etc. The RP position is that on a short-term timeframe, its all about alpha-ness, and on a long-term timeframe what is required is a mixture of alpha and beta traits. Beta traits are defined in terms of material and emotional support, which means wealth in and of itself is technically "beta."

I think the real kicker in all of this is that the dichotomy does't actually exist. There's a whole grayscale spectrum where most men fall, and that's a good thing because both extremes are undesirable.

I agree entirely but TRP doesn't deny this... at least not the TRPers I've read. And like I said, TRP argues that a successful long-term marriage requires both alpha and beta traits.

Again, your version of TRP doesn't resemble the one I'm familiar with.

Maybe this is my bias, but I think it's kind of ridiculous to focus so much on pseudo scientific 'female imperatives' when women are evolved and are multi-faceted, complex, and continuously evolving beings.

The same is true of males, yet our culture has no problem believing that men are pretty much exclusively looks-driven, are sex-crazed, always want sex and will eventually fuck anything in a skirt. TRP, for all of its flaws, does have one specific virtue: it treats female sexuality as no less animalistic than male sexuality.

The subjectivity of it makes it impossible to prove and challenging to disprove. Literally TRP cannot be proven with the way you define it because you can't quantify or measure status objectively. Charisma, physical attractiveness, and other such factors are intuitive and I know what you are saying, and I don't think you're wrong, but what I mean is that you can't objectively measure how much status X person has compared to Y person therefore you could never make a valid analysis that random hypergamous woman moves from X status male to Y status male.

By the same logic there's no way to make any valid predictive statement about anything that happens within the social sciences. Even economics uses money as a proxy for utility/satisfaction - we can't directly observe satisfaction in an objective sense. You're basically arguing that there's no way to come up with a general theory that explains why-people-do-what-people-do.

You can't remove subjectivity from the equation when dealing with subjects.

But that doesn't mean there's no way to generate theoretical explanations for general tendencies in observed behaviours. All you have to do is remember that these are broad generalities rather than "there are no black swans" style predictions. Evolutionary psychology, and indeed any social science, cannot be held up to the same standards we'd accept in something like physics or chemistry or biology.

Status is an intersubjective matter, not an objective one, I agree. But there are some objective factors which are more likely than not to increase one's status. Do you deny that being a taller and more brawny male will generally contribute to one's status (within the group of males) compared to being a shorter and less brawny male?

Can't be measured. Can't be proven. Not trying to be a stickler about this specific point, but you really can't unless it's a glaring difference in SMV. You can guesstimate and approximate, but it's not very accurate.

In the social sciences, approximations and generalizations are the best we can do. So if those generalizations/approximations hold true in general then surely they have explanatory power and shouldn't be thrown out.

I'm not saying RP theory is correct, I'm just saying that it isn't the type of theory to which a Black Swan Argument (i.e. "unicorns") deals fatal damage... unless, of course, you take them literally when they go on about "AWALT."

It's actually much worse than malevolence towards female sexuality. I'm not sure what your personal views on this are, but most TRPers are taught to be openly misogynist, e.g., women are inferior to men. That is so damaging, it's hard for me to even process how to begin addressing why.

I agree and I think this is a huge problem with TRP. They are too often preoccupied with trying to make women the "worse" gender. As much as I think female sexuality is currently pedastalized and needs to be understood in a less flattering and more realistic light, TRP goes beyond a "necessary corrective" in my view.

You seem very reasonable.

Thank you, I appreciate it. The sentiment is mutual.

[–]AlphaFemale9Angry Elf[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

However, when TRP discuss hypergamy in the sense of women wanting an alpha blah blah, they're talking about getting one-night stands rather than getting commitment etc.

See I do think that's a common misunderstanding about TRP. You are probably correct that they are generally talking about ONS's because at times they act like alphas don't even engage in LTR's. However, I have heard them say specifically that a woman will TRY to get an 'alpha' to commit to an LTR but will marry a beta if he won't settle down.

While I understand that we're looking for general 'trends' or approximations of trends, I just don't know that the alpha vs. beta one pans out. I have seen some women in my life that ended up with a man that was domineering and 'alpha,' but I think it's more of a self esteem problem than an 'alpha' guys are just inherently more attractive. If we viewed the 'trend' while also factoring in approximations of true self worth, I think we would see this in practice also.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

However, I have heard them say specifically that a woman will TRY to get an 'alpha' to commit to an LTR but will marry a beta if he won't settle down.

And I've heard the same thing. By the same token, a man will try and get the 10/10 hottie (aka Alpha Female) to sleep with him too and ideally most men want to marry a woman who is very hot.

Remember also that being committed and being a good provider are the "beta" traits. A woman trying to get a commitment from an "alpha" is a woman trying to get a man who provides both alpha and beta qualities... which is precisely what Red Pill argues is what women ideally want and what is necessary for a successful long-term relationship.

I just don't know that the alpha vs. beta one pans out. I have seen some women in my life that ended up with a man that was domineering and 'alpha,' but I think it's more of a self esteem problem than an 'alpha' guys are just inherently more attractive.

"Alpha" doesn't necessarily mean domineering... at least not domineering to women. The term has a very imprecise meaning that RPers themselves aren't settled on, however speaking generally it is defined as "the set of traits which the typical woman finds sexually attractive on the pure hot-hungry-aching-spicy-tingling level"... the issue of what traits are in that set is a little less settled than you might think.

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And I've heard the same thing.

I wasn't agreeing with it. I was just reiterating that that's what TRP says. I think there are times when one could subjectively view Person A and Person B and on the spectrum of "Alpha-ness" the person selected by the high SMV woman would rate as more "Alpha." But any anomaly in that (which is not really an anomaly but actually an entirely separate trend) is seen as her 'settling' for a 'beta bux.' See what I mean about how TRP protects itself from criticism this way because nothing is reality and all revolves around the false equivalency that this trend exists and is fact and cannot be refuted so if you believe that, everything that is said to refute it is somehow magically irrelevant. The whole premise of TRP subsists on confirmation bias (and a healthy dose of 'ignore reality and other things that don't confirm my bias').

commitment from an "alpha" is a woman trying to get a man who provides both alpha and beta qualities

Personally, I never see TRP argue to be beta, but then maybe you have more experience with them. They talk about LTR's in the sense of manipulating their long term partner by using similar but slightly adapted 'alpha' man tactics.

"Alpha" doesn't necessarily mean domineering

Alpha men are domineering by nature. Fake alphas (like TRP creates) try to be domineering, often fail, and then come up with a whole bunch of reasons women are inferior because they failed.

the issue of what traits are in that set is a little less settled than you might think.

That's because they don't exist. ;) Beyond the obvious - be hot. To me, it must include 'treat women with respect,' which is quite obviously not a part of TRP. The 'rules' as TRP sees them don't exist. They just make up rules that work about 25%-50% (I'm being generous) of the time on low self esteem females and then they declare they have all the answers. If the percentage is higher for any specific man, it's because he's likely attractive enough to negate his other negative TRP qualities.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Personally, I never see TRP argue to be beta

The reason for this is that TRP is targeted towards and audience of men who, by and large, were all taught that the way to make women want to have sex with you is to be kind and helpful and emotionally supportive and a good dependable provider.

TRP's readers weren't really in need of the advice of "being more beta."

Alpha men are domineering by nature.

You're presuming there's such a thing as natural alphas on a characterological level. This is contestible. In addition, even if such a being were domineering by nature, there's an interesting question regarding whom they are domineering towards.

Some would argue that alpha-ness is about dominating women. Others would argue that real alpha-ness is about dominating other men, and that it is this which women find attractive.

That's because they don't exist. ;)

You don't think that there is a set of traits which the average woman generally considers "hot"? Really?

Our culture is more than happy to accept that there's a general set of traits which men find hot in women. Why is the inverse hard to conceptualize?

To me, it must include 'treat women with respect,' which is quite obviously not a part of TRP.

I certainly don't disagree with you that TRP often fosters disrespectful attitudes, and I wouldn't contest the notion that women in general want to be respected by their partners.

But is being respected by a man a sufficient condition for you to find them hot? Clearly not. It may be a necessary one, but its not sufficient.

[–]AlphaFemale91 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

TRP's readers weren't really in need of the advice of "being more beta."

They are in need of advice on being more balanced. What TRP fails to do is talk about the balance they apparently expect most men to master.

You're presuming there's such a thing as natural alphas on a characterological level.

You believe there are no natural alphas? Based on...what?

Others would argue that real alpha-ness is about dominating other men, and that it is this which women find attractive.

If the goal is to dominate other men, it's done through covert manipulation. I mean it's almost like, TRP men are not any better than the women they pretend to hate. You know the psycho manipulative ones.

You don't think that there is a set of traits which the average woman generally considers "hot"?

Yes, they are mostly physical, and also include things like "treats me with respect," "shows interest in me but not over the top interest," "takes me on fun dates," "makes me laugh," Not. Manipulates me 'real good,' acts interested in other women while I'm present, and treats me like shit. Again, low self esteem females are attracted to that. If that's what you're LOOKING FOR, then you will find it. But at what cost? A woman's fragile self esteem will probably be destroyed even further by these tactics.

But is being respected by a man a sufficient condition for you to find them hot?

You mean the only condition? No. But then again, I don't think there's one condition for anyone. Women look at the whole human being, not one or two characteristics to determine if they are suitable. Snap ONS judgments are made on physical appearance and confidence. LTR decisions are made based on physical attraction, chemistry, mutual respect, and other qualities like sense of humor, charisma, passions (do we share the same interests?), etc. TRP is not necessary because it's a prescriptive mindset that focuses on the wrong things. Leave it at improve your physical appearance, stay fit, take good care of yourself, and be confident and all the other bullshit is totally needless. That's all the value TRP provides to men.

[–]YetAnotherCommenter1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They are in need of advice on being more balanced. What TRP fails to do is talk about the balance they apparently expect most men to master.

This is probably due to the fact that in the TRP worldview, men are ALREADY unbalanced towards the "beta" side because of cultural training. Thus, pushing for "more alphaness" is seen not as going over entirely to the other side, but correcting an unbalanced equation.

I should also point out that yet again you're conflating short and long term. TRP advocates alphaness for short term fucks but balances towards the middle for long-term relationships. As most TRPers are out for short term fucks, naturally things will be alpha-centric.

You believe there are no natural alphas? Based on...what?

On a looks-based level I agree there are "natural alphas" in the sense of those born with genetic predispositions towards looking hot.

But on a personality-based level... IF we define "alpha-ness" as having a domineering personality then the existence of natural alphas would effectively mean the Jerk Jocks and Regina George's of this world aren't really responsible for their behaviour. And as a school bullying survivor I refuse to let those pack-animal brutish/shrewish subhumans off the hook.

If the goal is to dominate other men, it's done through covert manipulation.

You're a woman I presume? Because your above statement indicates a complete lack of understanding about how the Macho Dominance Hierarchy works amongst men. No offense but this is something which I find quite common amongst women - they know nothing about the male experience whilst, in at least some cases, consistently demanding an endless supply of "empathy" from other people about their own problems (note: I'm not intending to allege that you are like this... merely that I've seen plenty of examples of women who are... I've seen women who are counterexamples to this as well).

Yes, they are mostly physical, and also include things like "treats me with respect," "shows interest in me but not over the top interest," "takes me on fun dates," "makes me laugh," Not. Manipulates me 'real good,' acts interested in other women while I'm present, and treats me like shit.

"Shows interest in me but not over the top interest" is one of the things Red Pill teaches, certainly with "text game." The idea is to not come across as needy.

You seem to be going on the basis of particularly extreme Redpill tactics. "Dread Game" for instance, which I believe is only meant to be used to salavage genuinely troubled relationships. And many of these tactics are used by women too, even unknowingly or passively.

I'm not saying everyone should sink to a vicious level, because ideally we'd all be much better than we currently are. But I wonder how much TRP is retaliation against Toxic Femininity... and apart from the Men's Human Rights Movement (which is distinct from TRP), absolutely no one is talking about how to combat Toxic Femininity.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]M_rafayCrimson Red8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-2 points-2 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ppd_FrameEnforcerRed Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nemma8830/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Why do "Red Pill" men think hypergamy is an exclusively female imperative?
Author	AlphaFemale9
Upvotes	8
Comments	302
Date	February 22, 2015 6:36 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2wqmr8/why_do_red_pill_men_think_hypergamy_is_an/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-do-red-pill-men-think-hypergamy-is-an.283361 https://theredarchive.com/post/283361

Comments