Hypergamy: How the harebrained notions of white nationalist F. Roger Devlin took the Manosphere by storm

Hypergamy in action?

How manosphere doofuses think the world actually works.

Another in an ongoing series of posts on seminal works in the manosphere canon, as it were. At some point, I’ll make a page for these.

Like Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, F. Roger Devlin’s 2006 essay Sexual Utopia in Power (downloadable here) is a kind of Manospherian urtext, an original source of many of the terrible ideas that are now accepted as gospel wherever misogynists gather in large numbers online. Though the name of Devlin is hardly as well known as that of Farrell, many of his ideas, most notably his reworked notion of “hypergamy” — which we will get to in a minute — are omnipresent in the manosphere.

Among misogynists with intellectual pretensions, Devlin’s Sexual Utopia is considered a must-read. Originally brought to the attention of fellow manospherians by PUA pseudointellectual Roissy — now Heartiste — in 2007, the essay has received lavish praise on such familiar sites as The Spearhead (where WF Price praised Devlin’s “critiques of feminism” as “some of the best out there”) and A Voice for Men (where one post described the essay as “supremely indispensable.”)  It’s listed in the sidebar of The Red Pill subreddit as “required reading.” And Norwegian MRA Eivind Berge gushed that the essay was

possibly the best article I have ever read. My blogging against feminism is almost redundant after F. Roger Devlin has put it so well.

So what exactly are all these guys falling over themselves to praise so highly? To put it bluntly, a strange and sprawling compendium of ideas that range from frankly abhorrent to merely silly, motivated by misogyny and racism. Virtually none of the essay’s many gross generalizations about women (or men) are supported by any sort of evidence.

And did I mention that it originally ran in a white nationalist journal?

Yes, “Sexual Utopia in Power” originally ran in The Occidental Quarterly, an explicitly racist journal that described its mission as protecting “the civilization and free governments that whites have created” from the rise of the evil non-white hordes. Indeed, Devlin is on the editorial advisory board of the journal, which currently features an article on its site praising Disney’s Snow White as “a White Nationalist classic.”

While the bulk of Devlin’s essay deals with gender, not race, it is framed — in the very first sentence — by his concern over what he calls the “catastrophic decline” of “white birthrates worldwide.” In other words, no one who has read his article, even if they don’t know what the Occidental Quarterly is, can possibly miss Devlin’s fundamental racism (which is spelled out even more explicitly at the end of this piece).

There is so much in Devlin’s essay that is so objectionable that it cannot fit in a single post, so today I will focus only on his reworked notion of “hypergamy.”

The term was originally a technical way of saying “marrying up” — that is, “the act or practice of marrying a spouse of higher caste or status than oneself,” as Wikipedia rather unromantically puts it.

In Devlin’s hands, the term comes to mean something entirely different:

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. …

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

This may sound vaguely familiar to you. Brian Eno once said of the Velvet Underground’s first album that only 30,000 people may have bought copies of it, but “everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band.” Similarly, everyone who has read Devlin seems to have started a blog or YouTube channel.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive. That is the female sexual utopia in power.

And yes, we are rapidly moving towards the manosphere myth that virtually all women are having sex with the same tiny number of men.

Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime.

From here, it seems, comes the widespread manosphere myth that women are inherently amoral creatures who will instantly dump whatever man they’re with whenever an alpha strolls by.

Devlin is also the apparent source of the related manosphere myth that most men live lives of quiet celibacy.

An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most males.

Indeed, Devlin is so convinced by this notion that he simply hand-waves away all data to the contrary.

Survey results are occasionally announced apparently indicating male satisfaction with their “sex lives” and female unhappiness with theirs. This creates an impression that there really is “more sex” for men today than before some misguided girls misbehaved themselves forty years ago. …

It is child’s play to show, not merely that this is untrue, but that it cannot be true. … What happens when female sexual desire is liberated is not an increase in the total amount of sex available to men, but a redistribution of the existing supply. Society becomes polygamous. A situation emerges in which most men are desperate for wives, but most women are just as desperately throwing themselves at a very few exceptionally attractive men.  …

Sexual liberation really means the Darwinian mating pattern of the baboon pack reappears among humans.

And …. scene!

Devlin is sometimes described as an “independent scholar,” but even aside from its misogyny and racism “Sexual Utopia in Power” is anything but scholarly. There are only a relative handful of footnotes, which don’t come close to backing up Devlin’s numerous factual claims. Most of the footnotes refer to the writings not of scholars but of conservative and far-right journalists. One links to an article on the racist hate site VDare.com; another favorably cites this article by Henry Makow, an early Men’s Rights Activist turned conspiracy theorist who literally believes that feminists are in league with an evil Satanic-Illuminati cult that rules the world.

Devlin offers precisely zero evidence to back up his claims about hypergamy — aside from a couple of surveys, whose conclusions he rejects, and several quotes from literature, including that one from Oscar Wilde. The rest is, to use the formal term for it, assdata.

Nonetheless, the manosphere has adopted Devlin’s new-and-not-improved version of “hypergamy” with enthusiasm. I won’t even bother citing examples; a Google search for “manosphere” and “hypergamy” brings up 17,700 results. Hell, there are several dozen articles about hypergamy on A Voice for Men alone. And of course I’ve written about the manosphere obsession with hypergamy many times before.

But so far essentially the only people who have picked up on this particular definition of hypergamy have been misogynists, pickup artists, MRAs and others vaguely associated with, or around, the manosphere. The only academic I know of who has ever even addressed Devlin’s peculiar thesis is libertarian economist Tyler Cowan, who wrote about it briefly, and I think accurately, on his blog several years back.

This essay is not politically correct and at times it is misogynous and yes I believe the author is evil (seriously).  The main behavioral assumption is that women are fickle.  So they are monogamous at points of time but not over time; Devlin then solves for the resulting equilibrium, so to speak.  The birth rate falls, for one thing.  The piece also claims that the modern “abolition” of marriage strengthens the attractive at the expense of the unattractive.  Some of you will hate the piece.  I disagree with the central conclusion, and also the motivation, but it does seem to count as a new idea.

As an actual idea, new or old, this is probably all the consideration  Devlin‘s version of “hypergamy” really deserves. But as a case study in the history and sociology of bad ideas, the strange story of Devlin’s hypergamy is a bit more interesting, and I no doubt will return to it in future posts.

There is also a good deal in Devlin’s essay that’s a good deal worse than his discussion of hypergamy, and I’ll be coming back to that as well.

About David Futrelle

I run the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, which tracks (and mocks) online misogyny. My writing has appeared in a wide variety of places, including Salon, Time.com, the Washington Post, the New York Times Book Review and Money magazine. I like cats.

Posted on May 16, 2013, in a voice for men, a woman is always to blame, alpha males, antifeminism, eivind berge, evil sexy ladies, evil women, evo psych fairy tales, f. roger devlin, heartiste, hypergamy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, oppressed white men, playing the victim, racism, rape culture, reactionary bullshit, warren farrell and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 863 Comments.

  1. And from the grandmaster douche,

    Of course, no women ever lead men on with the intention of taking their emotional support and intimacy without offering anything back. That never happens.

    And I’ve never known a young woman to enjoy playing around with guys feelings just to get them to put their cards on the table and admit they have feelings for her – before pocketing the ego boost and casting the

  2. An Inconvenient Truth

    there’s no ‘universal ubermensch’ who can literally have any woman just by walking into the room.

    They don’t have concerts where you live?

  3. The irony is that the patriarchal systems (particularly any that involved polygamy) are much more “hypergamous” than the feminist system, and it isn’t the women who were doing the deciding.

    But it all makes sense: if women can’t really earn money or own property of their own, and aren’t really deciding who they marry, and if polygamy is allowed… yeah. Richest men get first dibs despite what the women involved might think.

    On the other hand, if women can earn money, they don’t need to marry someone who can support them, and are free to go with their desires. Which, ironically, means that MRAs are less likely to get laid: MRAs might be able to earn money, but their personalities are distinctly off-putting.

  4. Oops, that got cut off and I’m too lazy to go find it again, but basically he crows about how now he’s an asshole to women and that works for him.

  5. “That’s the difference between MRA/MGTOW and PUAs. The former complain [sic] the latter adapts.”

    Truthy is such a cute troll. 1-accepts biological determinism. 2-Therefore, women cannot circumvent their hypergamous nature, that’s the law. 3- A miracle occurs, voiding biological determinism only for the Chosen Ones, or Roosh’s disciples. 4-PUAs circumvent their own nature by “adapting” (negs and peacocking = pinnacle of manhood).

    I introduce you to the special pleading argument.

  6. Aw, Troofy thinks all rock stars are attractive to all women.

  7. @hellkell:

    People choose to go to concerts for whatever reason. If rock stars are popular at concerts, it’s due in big part to the fact that everyone who was there chose to be there. Pretty self-selected sample to be basing biotruths off of.

  8. Kirby: uh, yes? I’m just pointing out that (and should have clarified) that just because a woman may like a band, it does not necessarily follow that she wants to fuck the lead singer, which is what Troof is getting at.

  9. I’m also pretty sure there has never been a concert where literally every woman there would have sex with the star, so even accounting for the self-selecting Truthy’s example is bunkum.

  10. @hellkell:

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was just adding to what you said, not trying to be combatative. I really should have had an “also” at the beginning or something…

  11. No worries.

  12. Wait seriously though Choofles

    You honestly believe that once some(male)body is a rock star, there exists no heterosexual woman that he can’t seduce without effort?


  13. I guess lesbians and asexual women aren’t allowed at concerts?

    This is going to make my social life awkward.

  14. Darth Conans

    To pick the most obvious example, Truth seems to believe that Meat Loaf is irresistible to all the women at his concerts. Ditto for King Diamond (obligatory metal head jokes about whether he’d wear his corpse paint to bed or have a falsetto for his orgasm sounds).

  15. CassandraSays

    Yeah, can we not promote the myth that rock stars can fuck any woman they like because all women want to fuck any rock star they meet? That myth can create a lot of dangerous situations for the women who work around those guys, and the young girls who do want to meet them (because they’re fans) but don’t necessarily want to fuck them.

  16. Why do they constantly use the animal kingdom to defend their mythos?

    Because if that is all you need then you could pick any number of animals (including various primates) with a totally different mating patterns.

    Primates across the board don’t behave the same way.

    Some have alpha females and those alpha females decide if any other female is going to mate beyond themselves (the idea being that if only they mate their children will survive).

    Neither females or males in chimpanzee are monogamous. Males chimps also PREFER older female chimps as partners.

    And as far as Baboons are concerned which type is he talking about? Hamadryas baboons (1 male many females), Chacma baboon (promiscuous similar to chimps) ect.

  17. Why on earth is it wrong to want to date and maybe marry someone makes you happy?

  18. mollymixtures

    It’s strange, because I managed to watch many a band when I was in my 20s without getting into bed with any of them.

    Was I supposed to?

  19. Just when you thought using Sex and the City as evidence of anything was the nadir of scholarly citation, along comes Devlin citing a 2400-year-old Greek comedy. And, as freemage notes, getting the plot wrong.

    Also, who did she trade up to in that picture, Uncle Sam?

  20. becausescience

    Their alpha male theory only works if you selectively ignore all real world evidence that refutes it. The number of heterosexual couples where the guy is a billionaire industrialist, a male model or a rock star would have to be extremely small, simply because most men are none of those things, and yet most men still manage at some point to meet and date women, settle down, have kids, etc. Also the fact that most women find men attractive who aren’t rich and powerful (I’ve heard this is supported by the increasingly popular Women Don’t All Share The Same Brain, You Ignorant Jackass hypothesis).

    It’s almost like these guys get all their info about how the world works form manosphere sites, trashy reality shows and porn. Oh, and assfax.

  21. Oh dude, you seriously think rock stars can have any woman they want to fuck. That is the most hilarious thing I’ve read all day.

    BTW, I’ve never wanted to have sex with a rock star. Well, maybe Jonathan Coulton, but only if he shaves ;P. (Actually, my plate is pretty full right now, I’ve got two SOs and a handful of friends-with-benefits, so he’d have to wait. . . hypergamy so utterly fails to explain any of my behavior ;P)

  22. thebionicmommy

    It’s strange, because I managed to watch many a band when I was in my 20s without getting into bed with any of them.

    Was I supposed to?

    Yes, according to the code of hypergamy, women are supposed to sleep with singers at concerts. Now I am really glad that I recently turned down some free tickets to the Baldknobbers Jamboree in Branson. No offense to those guys, but even if I weren’t married, they aren’t my type.

  23. mollymixtures

    @ becausescience

    Yeah, the idea of a very small percentage of males getting all the females (or something) is daft beyond measure, as well as the idea that every woman can have her billionaire cake and eat it. Not only would the entire world population be extremely inbred, but you’d never see couples just hanging around doing coupley things together. Instead, you’d just see one single guy with a throng of women running after him while he tries helplessly to escape. A typical town centre on a friday night would look like a scene from a Beatles film.

  24. thebionicmommy

    Also, who did she trade up to in that picture, Uncle Sam?

  25. thebionicmommy

    Crap, that was supposed to have a link to my imgr pic I made about that. I forgot what link code to embed. I’ll try again.

  26. mollymixtures

    @ thebionicmommy

    Yeah, I mean, don’t get me wrong, I liked Amen a lot at that age, but when the lead singer announced there were some very pretty women in the audience, I didn’t automatically drop my knickers and waddle towards him in the hope of bagging myself an ‘alpha’ (seriously, has anyone actually come up with a definitive description for these guys?) I guess there must be something wrong with me?

    And yes, having googled the Baldknobbers, I agree with you, but just in case, I now know to stay away from them lest my dainty, hypergamous lady-brain force me to sleep with them all!

  27. bionicmommy, I laughed out loud. And that’s real.

  28. thebionicmommy

    @mollymixtures, If I had to choose, I’d pick Amen over the Baldknobbers. I have to give them credit, though. They are the most famous hillbilly clown themed concert in the Ozarks.

    @serrana, thank you *takes a bow*. Don’t forget to tip your waitress.

  29. Bob Goblin,
    Sure, except for Jericho, Ai, and the entire Book of Joshua. Hunter-Gatherers are restricted by population, weapons, and ritual. As soon as violence is organized, some men die without issue and their wives are stolen to bear other men’s seed. Generally the least aggressive and least weaponized tribes suffer the most.
    Rei: If not Tennessee sour mash, what do you prefer? I have JD, Bushmills, and Maker’s Mark and love them all.

    Rei, is it the Tennessee thing, or the charcoal? Or JD’s bad corporate history of sexual harassment?

  30. Yonkers, thebionicmommy, that is hilarious!

  31. Zanana the Pegging Queen

    I’ve heard this is supported by the increasingly popular Women Don’t All Share The Same Brain, You Ignorant Jackass hypothesis


    A highlight of my week was that the same a-hole called me both “hypergamous” (because my boyfriend is older than me) and “having low standards” (because I’m poly).

  32. CassandraSays

    Wait, what if you’re poly and will only fuck people who’re really hot? How would that fit into this theoretical framework?

  33. I am reminded of the time I had an online argument with a guy who tried to convince me that women were “naturally” prostitutes because female chimps had been observed having sex with a male chimp who had earlier given her some fruit he found. To my unworthy opponent, this was clearly a transaction; it didn’t even occur to him that maybe the two chimps were friends, and he gave her food because friends do nice things for each other, and she had sex with him because she liked him.

    God, I remember when that study came out, and the media universally reported it as “Chimps Engage in Prostitution!” rather than the more accurate but admittedly less grabby “Chimps Share Food!”

    If I remember correctly, the actual behavior observed was that some of the males in a captive group saved up special treats to share with females they liked. Which, even if you insist on anthropomorphizing animals, is more “romantic gesture” than “cruising for monkey hookers.”

  34. @Shaenon
    Wait, seriously? There was nothing better to write an article on besides monkey whores?

  35. @Rane – “Why on earth is it wrong to want to date and maybe marry someone makes you happy?”

    Because that person will never, never be an MRA.

  36. mollymixtures

    Am I weird in thinking that the female chimps who accepted the shared treats were more likely to become familiar with the male chimps who shared said treats with them, and thus became more comfortable/emotionally close to them? After a while this shared emotional bond could lead to sexual feelings that culminated in a much easier/understandable mating experience.

    Or is it just a case of one slice of banana = ape blow-job?

    That must mean that after 4 years of my friend at work disposing of my waste cardboard for me, I must by now owe him some seriously elaborate sexual favours.

  37. thebionicmommy, love your Uncle Sam poster! I too laughed aloud. At work.

    Another thing that makes this “hypergamy” shit so stupid and offensive is that it’s like a twist of how women’s status was tied to men’s, which was an actual thing controlling their marriages and class divisions. I know that in Mr K’s earthly days a noblewoman marrying someone lower in rank than herself lost her place, and if she married someone not of the nobility she’d be cut off from her family. The misogyny shows in that men controlled it, and didn’t lose status by “marrying down” – it’s the old thing of a nobleman being able to marry a woman of the third estate (ie everyone not in the nobility or clergy) for her wealth, for instance, instead of her rank. They had a charming way of putting it, too: that even the best land needed manuring occasionally.

    It’s fucking typical of MRAs to warp something that was misogynistic in its class setting centuries ago and blame women for it when it isn’t even a thing in modern Western society (and never existed in the way they whine about anyhow). Though I doubt any of these stinking turds of ignorance knows any history at all, any more than they know anything about biology or sociology or psychology.

  38. Eurosabra — would it kill you to try 5 min on google instead of pulling shit out of your ass — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure

    Do explain how matrilineal societies fit your worldview.

  39. thebionicmommy

    My in laws are going to take me and my family to Silver Dollar City this month, and May is when they have their bluegrass festival. I’ll have to do an evo psych experiment and see if I can control my female hypergamy there.

  40. Recently a lawyer I consider a friend became single. He makes buckets of money. One would think all of the women (including me) would be chasing him. And yet, he is still single and I would not touch him even if it meant that the world would be saved from a super volcano or some other disaster.

    Could it be that this theory is nonsense? Nah. I am sure it our fault somehow for being female. How, I do not know but I am sure it is.

    Also, I think cruising for monkey hookers will be the name of my first novel.

  41. They don’t have concerts where you live?

    *pictures symphonic band concert* *pictures the trombonists* *shudders*

    Although I may be judging too soon. My girlfriend is a flautist, never saw that coming.

  42. Hmm. Last concert I went to was The Chieftains.

    … nope.

  43. thebionicmommy

    I guess I will ruin my marriage when my hypergamous lady brain makes me have sexy times with some old guy that plays a banjo. Either that, or I will say “This concert is boring. Let’s go ride Outlaw Run, the new roller coaster”. One of the two will probably happen.

  44. *guesses the latter and wonders if she will get a prize*

    I like cookies. Cookies are a great prize.

  45. thebionicmommy

    The Chieftains don’t look too bad, kittehserf. They do have two fiddlers, so that’s pretty cool.

  46. thebionicmommy

    Don’t worry, princessbonbon, I will make a responsible decision and not ride such a wild roller coaster. And you win a cookie from the Silver Dollar City bakery.

  47. My sister offered to buy me a ticket to the Springsteen concert here a couple of months back. Much as I love his music and use his face in dozens of photo composites, I don’t see myself leaping into bed with him. In fact such an opportunity would cancel itself out, because hello, he’s married, not happening. But even were he single and interested, it wouldn’t happen ‘cos I don’t fancy him!

    But this is too complicated for Troofy & co to figure out.

  48. And you win a cookie from the Silver Dollar City bakery.

    Yay! *nom nom nom* Anyone want some of the extra?

  49. CassandraSays

    Since I love both punk and metal my record collection is full of guys who fell from the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. Chances of me fucking any of those guys? Zero.

    I mean, it’s not like groupies don’t exist, but acting as if every woman who likes music is a groupie is pretty much like writing “sexist asshole” on your own forehead with a sharpie.

  50. I will trade you a box full of kittens for a bite of your cookie, princessbonbon.

  51. Last concert I went to? Emilie Autumn, so yeah, she’s gorgeous, and I hear she’s actually a really nice person, but HELLO! She’s a woman. So how’s hypergamy work here?

  52. I will trade you a box full of kittens for a bite of your cookie, princessbonbon.

    I will accept your trade but at least the cookies look like kitties so you are not giving up too much.

  53. Sorry, still living between Schehem and Jerusalem. I would tend to think matrilineal groups do well in high-carrying-capacity terrain, rich lands with easy pickings. Agriculture means warfare, no?

  54. As soon as violence is organized, some men die without issue and their wives are stolen to bear other men’s seed

    I think you mean their wives are KIDNAPPED (stolen implies they’re property) and raped.

  55. Ok, obvious problem here is obvious Eurosabra. We were talking about hunter gatherer societies, you are apparently thinking of agricultural ones.

  56. I am reminded of the time I had an online argument with a guy who tried to convince me that women were “naturally” prostitutes because female chimps had been observed having sex with a male chimp who had earlier given her some fruit he found.

    So if a dude’s wife makes him dinner and he later sleeps with her, all men are naturally prostitutes? Hey, it’s the logical extrapolation.

  57. Everyone’s property in Schechem.
    Did any “Westerners” live as hunter gatherers more recently than ca. 10,000BCE?
    I think the errors are in the absolutist claim to universality. But Devlin may be right about the USA now.

  58. My first blockquote fail, it’s like a rite of passage.

  59. I think you mean their wives are KIDNAPPED (stolen implies they’re property) and raped.

    I noticed the word usage too, but I’m even more fascinated by the notion that women being kidnapped, raped, and enslaved, and their husbands murdered by the kidnappers, is an example of women exercising “hypergamy.” Yeah, they totally chose that situation.

  60. @Eurosabra

    Women are not property, period. Don’t try to brush this off with an “everyone’s property in Schechem” or w/e, especially since women have been treated as property in LOTS of places and LOTS of time. And it would still be KIDNAPPING. Being treated as property doesn’t mean that you BECOME property

    Also, you’re forgetting that even if people are treated as property, that doesn’t mean you have to contribute to it. You have the choice not to be misogynistic.

  61. Cookies that look like kitties can only lead to tears.

  62. Eurosabra,

    Sorry, I was referring to the human evolutionary environment, in which any hypothetical inherently human mating strategy would have arisen. Jericho, Ai and the Book of Joshua are all at least 100,000 years too late.

    And as others have pointed out, being kidnapped by men from alien tribes or city-states is not hypergamy.

  63. CassandraSays

    Well, if they interpret things that are done to women as things that women choose to do then that does rather explain how they reach such ridiculous conclusions.

    What I’m saying is that you guys are dumb, really really dumb.

  64. I don’t think either Bob Goblin or myself claimed that h-g society or post-ag violence and hierarchy were female-driven hypergamy. As for “stolen”, perhaps too much Biblical perspective. Ba’al/Ishah =/= “husband/wife.”

  65. So your misogyny was okay because there’s misogyny in the bible?

    Reminds me why I don’t go to church anymore…

  66. The real problem to me is that these guys are completely re-defining a word, so when you first hear them talk about hypergamy you think they’re going to say something with some merit and meaning (until you understand what MRA’s/manosphere mean by the term.)

    As for the ACTUAL definition of hypergamy… yeah… that’s really common, a lot of women do “marry up” or want to. (But then I’m sure by many definitions many men would be considered to have “married up” as well.) This is not in any kind of real dispute, though I think this is also influenced by opportunities. Women who have stable, secure finances outside of a man don’t “need” to “marry up” because it’s not a survival necessity like it once was (and these guys conveniently forget that… that women weren’t ‘hypergamous’ because they were evil shrews but because they… wanted to live… and not starve… and have enough for their children. Oh how evil and horrible! Those bitches!), maybe some still want to, but my guess is (and I have no scientific basis for this just personal intuition) is that for a lot of women it doesn’t become nearly as big of a deal whether they “marry up” or not. But, women for whom it “isn’t” a big deal if they date or marry a man of lesser means than them… they may still have to deal with it being a big deal “to him”.

    I think both genders in a culture of serial monogamy often experience “grass is greener” syndrome. I don’t think it’s limited to women. I also don’t think people must act on every feeling they ever randomly have. i.e. you might have a fleeting feeling that “What if I’d married that person instead” but it doesn’t mean you run out and have an affair. The implication that women are just cheating harlots who, even if they did have a hypergamous feeling, are therefore obligated to act upon it is pretty disgusting.

    If the only kinds of women these men know is women like what they describe, then maybe they should look at who they are and what they are doing, because like attracts like. You can’t always blame attracting low rent people into your life on an entire gender. (Actually you can never do that, but it doesn’t stop these guys!)

  67. Argenti: Ehh, I haz a wary on your logic Bob, it needs the note of “if you’re hurting people in the process” — see that conversation on the trans* thread (the thread is trans*!) about otherkin. I really don’t care as long as they aren’t hurting anyone.

    But the PUA/MRM aren’t limiting this to how they deal with the world as it is. They are arguing the rest of the world needs to change to meet their expectations.

  68. Eurosabra, let me work North to South?

    Attikamekw — a Cree band
    Iroquois — partially hunter-gatherer, matrilineal

    Amazonia still has more than a few hunter gatherer tribes:


    You want more? All of those are within the last couple hundred years, or still hunter-gatherer, so yes more recently than ca. 10,000 BCE

  69. . The book Sex at Dawn is crap.

    The problem with mapping any animals behavior to ours is that we aren’t them. There is no way to say, “we are most like them, because they are most like us,” because we aren’t them.

    In some ways we could compare ourselves to dophins (no visible estrous.

    The thing is that studying ourselves teaches us one thing of critical importance: there is no biologically determined pattern of mating.

  70. Dave: Also, I love that you guys know about eleventy billion times more about baboons and apes and evolution than Devlin. Also, that he even got the plot of the Aristophanes play wrong. And that you guys posted all this stuff utterly and totally demolishing him less than 2 hours after my post went up.

    This is our “tribe”. Smart people who like to share information: and think people ought to be treated well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,150 other followers

%d bloggers like this: