The Broken Social Contract (Female Hypergamy 101)

-I have to dedicate this one to Karen Straughan. I never have met you Ma’am, but you are one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen, simply for your mind (though with long hair you’d be up there). Your arguments against feminism are unquestionably the best and most well thought out arguments I have ever heard. Keep on making more! I also have to shout out my cousin Kim, who is the inspiration for much of my scrawling on these things, as she is the one who began my deeper musings, even if she doesn’t realize it.

First off, I won’t be explaining the social contract theory between men and women, or hypergamy in-depth, because these good folks do it so much better. Check them out, I insist. Then come back here, and the rest of this will make more sense, because this is only a very brief overview with my small extra spin thrown in.


Welcome back! Now we can begin. First of all, we will be discussing hypergamy. Take a look at those pyramids. The most astute Reader can actually stop right there, because that picture really does sum up this post. It has a factual basis as well. Think of it as the Pareto Principle of Female Attraction, or the good ole 80-20 rule. And it has screwed many a man (Sadly, I am included in that number) over. I tell these things as a warning to the next men to come along. One last thing: I will put a bit of a different spin on it, in that I will relate this stuff to female solipsism and female career advancement, and then that’ll be my 2 cents.

This 80-20 principle is born out of biology and social interaction principles. For one, nobody wants somebody nobody else wants, as the saying goes, and for two, women are evolved to carefully choose which man they give themselves to, because for 99% of human history, sex meant pregnancy for women, and pregnancy meant she would be out of action for a few months and dependent on others to care for her, and she might die in childbearing. In addition, now as then, women only are sexually fertile for a relatively short period of time (roughly mid teens to late thirties/early forties) compared with men (basically teens until death). So women are evolved to be picky.

On the other side, men evolved the opposite tendencies. For example, I, as a man, effectively cannot view most women as nonsexual beings. Moral training and early care mean I do not think of my mother or female relatives that way (mostly) and the for ones I do, I simply unconsciously suppress those thoughts. In general, men are fine giving themselves to many women. Harems date back to the ancient world, and even the Bible mentions them. Lil Wayne for sure wants to “f every girl in the world”, as he says.  This is because men bear basically no costs in sexual activity other than STDs. A man can sleep with 9 women in 10 hours and move on without a care, because he will not have to be out of action more than a few extra seconds. Add to this the fact that the male sex drive is much more potent than that of the female, creating a net imbalance of demand and supply of sex between the sexes, and it all begins to take shape. Hence this axiom: “Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.”

An interesting thing I add to this is that I personally learned how female sexuality is less. In a way, it is slightly stronger than that of males in intensity, but, and here is the key, it is aimed only at that 20 or so percent of men. I have a girl who I broke up with who still calls me at night even though I ignored her for months and we live 3 states apart. I also recently tried to flirt with a girl I’d been friends with for a while, and she basically laughed at me (another saying: “The girls you want, don’t want you; the girls who want you, you don’t want”). Now we get into unquantifiable anecdote, but the saying is that a woman knows if she wants you within the first 5 minutes of meeting you (some say it can be mere seconds). Any change of those initial impression-filled first minutes may take years, or may never happen. This is a good operative theory, simply because women have a unique ability to see men as simply platonic. Basically, if a man is not sexually attractive to a given woman, then he is sexually invisible to her. It is upon this very principle which the infamously dreaded “freindzone” stands.

At this point I will mention the principle of female solipsisim. These guys all define it in stellar fashion, so I will simply add that if you combine the 80-20 principle of female attraction with female solipsism, it becomes obvious where the phenomenon of this statement comes from, the statement being: “Where are all the men?” Many women ask this question, and there is a twofold answer: One, you may simply be so fat/vulgar/homely that the men will not want you, or two, they are all around you, but you literally cannot see them because they are outside of your 20% window. Often, the answer is both; women aim too high for their sexual attractiveness. In the West, feminism and the “you go girl” and “female empowerment” dogmas make this phenomenon much more common (the saying again, but reversed: “The guys they want, don’t want [to marry] them; the guys who want them, they don’t want.”). Sadly this creates the interesting problem of multitudes of men and women who want a partner but can never seem to find one, because of invisibility or rejection. Such is a struggle of life, and such is the reason for arranged marriages. Sometimes, an older, wiser person can see more clearly. Many Eastern countries do this, and we laugh, but then again, they have been around a lot longer than we have, and in a much more stable fashion overall. Maybe it is time we learned from them.

Now we must note the effects of female economic production on hypergamy. In short, it increases it, and most readers will be able to see why, but here is the longer answer. I have noted in other posts how men are better at economic production than women overall. Well, women are, because of the sex-drive imbalances we have discussed, in possession of a valuable commodity: their sexual attractiveness. In general, this is where a lot of restrictions on female sexuality come in (i.e. the Burqa in Islam), because if unchecked, it can quite literally cause violent chaos among men, as they would kill each other for it. Of interesting note is that the root word for “cosmetics” (cosmos) is “order” in ancient Greek, so when a woman is putting on cosmetics…she’s “putting on order”. The Greeks were onto something…

This is why every major religion and foundational institution must in some way regulate female sexuality. This is also the functional basis of marriage, and is why men are to be providers for women economically. Man says: I have resources (note that protection is being counted as a resource here). Woman says: I am pretty. I will have your children. Man agrees, man and woman marry. This is how it has been for thousands of years, until now.

What has basically happened in the last ~100 years is that women were given political influence, and with it, they voted in government policies which gave the provisioning of security (police and more punitive marital/domestic violence/rape/ect. laws) and resources (welfare/child support laws/maternity leave/ect.) to the State. Don’t worry, I have a long post about that planned too where I break that down into minutia. For now, we simply will say that the State does the job that men used to do for women, and so this has caused a massive decline in marriage in the West. It also has ushered in the Independent Woman. This woman needs no provisioning by a man (though without the State, she would), but men still want her sexuality and fertility. This causes an imbalance in her favor.

The question now arises: what can the men give her? The answer: whatever she says they can. This means that the men must now completely redefine large chunks of, if not all of, their masculinity, because masculinity is in many ways in service to femininity. Even worse for them, they must now define it as women see fit. By “liberating” themselves, women have now effectively shattered the definition of traditional marriage. They still trade in sexuality, but they no longer need resources from men, meaning they are no longer really bound to men. Since they can influence law, they can change it so that they can have a series of top-quality partners. This is called serial monogamy, and it is a function of hypergamy.

In short, women’s hypergamy makes them want the best able man to care for them, but “best able” measures many things. This is why women look for so many qualities in men. Also, men have historically had fairly short and turbulent lives. In other words, one man may be king today, but be killed tomorrow, and another man may in under a year rise up to be king killing other men. If women were forced to be tightly bound to one man, they may end up starving because he was great and declined, or rich because he worked his way up the ladder. This makes choosing a challenge, because you never know which man will rise or fall. However, in cultures where remarriage after death was permitted (and this is still very common, as the US is one), if men’s lives were short, then women may be able to latch on to another rising star, but that tends to be a race (will his life or her fertility run out first?). It would be easier for the women if they could just jump from one man to another based on social/economic status, but part of their deal in the old marriage trade involved that pesky “for life” part. The solution? Poison, or No-Fault divorce (which, it can be argued, is actually worse than poison).

For those of you who don’t know the history of fault-and no-fault marriage systems , for the purposes of this post, the former made it nearly impossible for women to leave their men, but the latter has helped make marriage one of the easiest-to-break contracts in Western legal contract law. This aids the female desire to hop from one top man to the next, and was instituted in the USA starting in 1969…by, of all people, Ronald Reagan.

Another interesting product of female economic independence is the professional careerwoman. This type of woman is highfalutin’, high-powered, and usually single and childless. Black American women provide some of the best examples of this type of woman. Interestingly, some of these careerwomen still want to have families, and are currently working employment laws in their favor, but have a fairly standard definition of which men they see as sexually viable: Men with more money, influence, and social status than they have.

This part of the argument I make is the one I specifically dedicate to Kim, because she is exactly the type of woman it applies to. All of these factors cause an interesting effect: The higher a careerwoman climbs, the fewer men she will be attracted to, because she fundamentally wants a man with more than her. At the same time, feminist indoctrination has taught millions of American women that their career strivings make them more attractive to men, but in fact the opposite is true past a point, and in general they mean nothing to men, as men historically had “provide for my women” written on their hearts by social teachings in societies that grew on marriage like the West has done. Also, the male bar is usually just “Is she hot?” Seriously, men are not that picky when it comes down to it, just be a little hot and nice and you can get away with basically anything. Anyway, in mathematics, we would call what these women are doing “working at cross purposes”; they are literally working themselves out of being attracted to men at all. However, these women are aided in their fruitless endeavors by their very hypergamy; they are attracted to a choice few men with high net worths/social status/income/ect., and as they climb the corporate/career ladder, they will notice (when their impending end of fertility forces them to) that they cannot seem to find a man.

They will phrase it exactly this way, too. They lament about a lack of men who will marry them, and many men are confused (and now, increasingly, angry as they figure out what these women actually mean). Why, there are many men out there…but there are very few with all that money and status. What these women really mean is “I can’t find a high status man to mate with!” They will lament this even as many good, decent men walk past. They simply will not widen their (romantic) vision. To them, those men simply aren’t there. The higher these women climb, the more men disappear. By their own ambition, they damn themselves.

I will say, in closing, that this all bodes poorly for the west. It is, for the sake of replacement rates of childbearing, a horrible idea to continually push more and more young women into the office rather than the nursery, and Western nations’ birthrates bear this out. A lot of the Wests’s problems arise from this as well, and I didn’t even get to the depression of wages caused by forcing women into the workforce when men are there already…this is all very heavy stuff. I will simply offer 2 words of advice, one to the women and one to the men.

Women: Make up your minds. Feminism has lied to you. You cannot have a CEO’s career and a family and it all works out. You will either need to forgo childbearing until later (and you may then not be able to conceive) and much of the time seeing your children grow up (as you will be spending hours upon hours working), or you must elect to forgo earning enough to support yourself and the kids, and let your husband do that, as part-time work or flexible careers like teaching simply pay less in money (the payoff, though, is that you can be with your kids and actually raise them), or you can try manipulating maternity laws even more in your favor, except that will increase taxes, and men will be increasingly unfavorable to foot that bill going forward.

There are 24 hours in a day, and kids require many, and work/career requires many, and your fertility is much shorter than men’s. You must choose between career first or children first; you cannot choose both, though if you have kids young, you could just go do career after that, just sayin’. If you do choose career first and find yourself single years later…tough. You are a casualty in the war feminism waged against the family. Warn your younger sisters and female friends not to make the same mistake. Perhaps God might save you, but you must do more than just pray; you must begin reworking your entire lifestyle. It is not easy to switch from being independent to codependent. The old maid was a trope for a reason, and so was the little old lady in the shoe.

To the guys, simply this Bible verse: “Do not waste your strength on women, on those who ruin kings.” (Proverbs 31:3). Take it from me. I have been slapped, stepped over, spat on, laughed at, ridiculed, mistreated, ostracized, cursed out. I have wasted years of my life, lost friends, lost tens of thousands of dollars, blood, sweat, and tears (and nearly committed suicide)…all in pursuit of women, when I had no business doing that. This goes counter to your biology, but in this mad era in history, a man needs self-discipline of steel if he is to make it, and even have a shot at a good wife. These women are too busy doing careers or fornication and in general won’t notice most men romantically ever, or until they are at least in their thirties.

So, what is a man to do? Pray. Live. Achieve. Be great in spite of them. The best revenge is success. When you have thrown all your energy into pursuit of a noble craft or discipline, and are fulfilling your purpose for living (not sure what it is? Ask God.), and are burning on all cylinders, look up. God knows and sees how messed up our society is, but He can work miracles, and He does hear prayers. You may have to pray a long time, but Proverbs also says that he who finds a wife finds a good thing, and receives favor from the Lord. Surely the One who made us all will help His children fulfill their noble longings, and the want for sex and marriage is not inherently sinful, it is just easily corrupted. If you look in Genesis, God made it, and He promised to keep us going, and children have to get here somehow! So live purposefully and pray. God will sort the mating thing out.

Just don’t end up like me. I wasted years, tears, and drank way too many beers over this…and never did I ask God about any of it. And you know what I have to show for all that pain? Other than my scars, not one damn thing.



Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s