Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

Why Does Hypergamy Piss Us Off?

This is a guest post by Admiral Boom.

Hypergamy: a woman’s sexual imperative to find the biggest, baddest, richest, handsomest, most awesome mate possible – has been making the rounds yet again. Articles on The Spearhead and HUS point out that it shouldn’t have the oft-maligned reputation that it has garnered in the manosphere. My view on this: they are completely missing the point.

Yes, this is certainly a natural instinct which has enabled the human genome to persevere on this little blue orb for quite some time. Our issue is not so much with the woman’s sexual desire itself… but rather the way in which it gets completely ignored, or even sometimes glorified by our popular culture and familial influences—and how a man’s complementary natural instinct to inject his abundant seed into as many broads as possible is simultaneously scoffed at, mocked, shamed.

Society used to do a pretty good job of balancing the natural instincts of both men and women with the ideal environment for family rearing and modern society maintenance/growth with “marriage 1.0.” Men’s and women’s contributions to the sexual relationship, the natural dynamics of him as the pursuer and provider, she as the gatekeeper and mother, complemented each other naturally. Women have the upper hand by default. They’ve always had the sexual “power,” and always will. But then suddenly it became convenient for women to have their cake and eat it too, under the guise of “equality”; which on the surface, sounded pretty good to a lot of us.

Starting with the bra burnings in 1968 and the utterly idiotic bromide that a “woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” (ironically it is the exact opposite which is true… we’ll get to that in a bit), the perception of men as fathers, providers, and pillars of society began to radically change. While many of our fathers and uncles were being shredded in the jungles of Vietnam, they were recast by women’s studies departments as worthless, potential rapists, and inherently evil.

Male sexuality was said to be the cause of everything wrong with the world. Never mind the fact that it was actually men who built the USA into the great nation of old; men who authored and passed the 19th Amendment; and men who spilt their blood on the battlefields through the past three centuries to pay for the freedoms that ultimately led to, and enabled, the displays of bra burning in the first place.

With second wave feminism, the natural hypergamic instinct was given its first dose of steroids as women were encouraged to break up their families and divorce their husbands for the promise of something “better.” All for the crime of being too “boring.” All for the sin of doing what was expected of them by their ancestors and their country—no, never mind—what became Western civilization—for the past few thousand years.

Now that we’ve covered the first bit of cognitive dissonance—the completely unbalanced and progressively worse treatment of men’s co-equal sexual imperative in the popular culture over the past 45 odd years—let’s address a more insidious one.

Despite the fact that the societal mores of getting a job, marrying a “good” girl, and starting a family have been completely turned upside down in the country writ large, men have been asked, if not ordered at length by their parents, pastors, and professors, to continue footing the bill for an agreement that has long since been shattered. Women have simultaneously been encouraged to pursue their sexual imperative of riding the cock carousel, jettng off to the hypergamy hall of fame, and into a poor sucker’s arms at the altar. And if it doesn’t work out, there’s that wonderful social safety net to catch them.

If you’ve been raised in a traditional family, odds are you’ve taken cues from your parents about how everything is supposed to end up. You get good grades, you get the job, you get the girl. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way anymore.

Men are being sold a bullshit bill of goods in order to maintain the superficial edifice of society, while at the same time women get to indiscriminately fuck the absolute dregs of the barrel at will (but the bass player with all the tattoos and noserings was sooo SEXY and EXCITING), but still expect to, and often do, get the cash and prizes at the end of the rainbow. The men that shun the traditional path, often living off government largesse or conning some “innocent” little cupcake or whatever, get the benefits of sex while those that “do the right thing” get the friend zone. Good stable job? Sorry, not sexy enough.

Our empowered women are breaking through the glass ceiling with a mix of gusto and grrl power, and often matching or outearning the salaries of their erstwhile mates in the SMP. This is a major problem, because the hypergamy hamster DICTATES that the man should make more. (Wait, what? Feminism? Crickets…)

Back to the irony about fish and bicycles. If a man doesn’t have kids or a family, he might be a little down about it, but he’ll find other ways to fill his time and be happy. He’s been doing it long before we set quill to papyrus. But women are preternaturally designed towant to make little babies. Their hormones make them miserable every month when they don’t conceive. Despite all the lies that have been fed into their heads, deep in their souls, most of themwant to be mothers. And in order to do that, they are programmed towant a man’s seed to be deposited inside them. Science proves that creampies cause girls to feel incredible happiness, just like chocolate and bunnies. There are special hormones in love juice that induce positive feelings.

Not achieving motherhood often leads to baby rabies, then misery, cat litter bills, and visits to psychotherapists. Granted, there are exceptions… but we’re not talking about them here.

Second, and now third wave feminism, have done a great job of sweeping this all under the rug, and yet again and again the truth is popping through the cracks like grass on a Detroit sidewalk. Articles are constantly coming out in the mainstream press where women categorically state that they do not want to marry men that aren’t making more money than them, and how pissed they are that there aren’t enough of them to go around. About how to maintain work life balance so they can becomemothers. They’ve come to expect it all as a kind of birthright.

We often refer to the realization that something about all of this noise is “off,” and then once the mosaic suddenly comes into focus—the “red pill” moment. “Wait a minute… why does character not really matter while all these girls say that they want the ‘perfect’ guy? Why should I shackle myself to some frat stud’s sloppy seconds and be miserable for the next thirty years? What the hell have I been doing working hard and going to school all this time when I could have been out tooling around, having fun, and learning how to properly seduce women?”

Then if we do the male equivalent—get in shape, learn how to walk in between the raindrops of a girl’s psycho-sexual triggers (effectively “giving” her what she really wants, in the deep dark place we don’t talk about in polite company) and earn just enough to get by—we get shamed as slackers. Losers. And yet… more and more frequently, in the movies and TV shows, art imitates life: these are the guys that get all the girls in the end!

Mother Nature dictates that both of us—men and women—satisfy our sexual needs in order to keep the human race going. (God wants us to keep all of this in balance with His broader intent of course… but that’s another topic; no need to digress). Yet in our current society, men are often castigated for figuring out how to overcome all the hurdles and satisfy her insatiable demands. At the same time, women are actively encouraged to let their inhibitions run wild, early, often, and on our dime.

So given what we covered about women’s and men’s biologically programmed sexual natures; the false bill of goods still being forced down the throats of good, decent guys that are the backbone of the next generation; and the way the popular culture treats them; now for the real 800-pound rationalization hamster in the room, the ninth circle of hypergamic feminist hell: we have an utterly perverse system of incentives when it comes to marriage.

Once the marriage contract is inked, the rings are exchanged, and we say “I do,” a measure of loyalty is to be expected from husband and wife. There’s a contract that is supposed to be upheld by both parties. Honoring, cherishing, and so forth.

We all face temptations; certainly no one is perfect. We’re all sinners. But here’s the problem: if men break up the marriage, they face an utter ass-raping in family court. Women get the custody and the house about 85% of the time. So given this, and also that their hypergamic instinct dictates that they marry “up,” the man stands to lose a great deal from the divorce, while the woman also stands to gain a great deal. So from his perspective, having an affair is financial suicide, and even if his wife is disloyal, it’s probably not a good idea to break up the marriage.

Now, if the shoe is on the other foot (which is the case in about 75% of divorces, give or take depending on the statistical source) and the Missus serves the papers, the man still faces an utter ass-raping in family court. She isincentivized to follow her instinct if a bigger, better deal comes along.

Case in point: the Petraeus affair. Both of the broads involved were married to pretty alpha dudes. Multi-millionaire doctors. And yet the power and perks that come with being a four-star flag officer were too much to pass up. Vagina tingles and catfights abounded.

If their marriages break up, these guys are utterly screwed. The family courts will destroy their families at will, take away their rights to their kids, and award cash and prizes to the camp followers. If the good doctors did the equivalent, perhaps going a few rounds with the cute admin that always wears the low-cut sweaters, tight little skirts, and crosses her legs just so, hoping he’ll take notice…why, they’d still be utterly screwed. Cash and prizes to the wife.

So you take all this into account: heavy societal burdens heaped upon the man with absolutely no semblance of reciprocity from the woman; huge financial risk if he “does the right thing” and get married; a “good girl” that is often MIA when he does all the right things, and is an objectively “good guy”… and you wonder why we might be just a little bit peeved?

In the end, it ain’t so much about the hypergamy: it’s about the soft bigotry of hypocritical expectations.

Read Next: Women Are Not the Enemy