How to Tone Down Your Hypergamy… any ideas?

A woman’s hypergamy tends to be viewed as a bad trait, and I can understand why some women would want to tone it down in themselves. It’s easier to find someone to be happy with if your standards are not too high.

I’ve never been good at giving great advice, but my thoughts still often lead people to new conclusions, so I’ll express my ideas about how to tone down hypergamy. If it sounds stupid, tell me. If you  have ideas yourself, share. Also, I was never terribly hypergamous myself, so I’m not sure how strong this tendency is in other women, maybe my ideas would be like trying to convert gays to heterosexuality, but I might as well try. Now, these ideas are for women who want to lower hypergamy whatever the cost and nothing more, not necessarily 100% true statements and not necessarily uplifting. I’m not responsible for you if you try this and hurt yourself.

1)      Have really low self-esteem in youth and feel really ugly and sexually worthless to everyone, which might in turn make you identify with betas and omegas. That might even make you like them more and feel sympathy for them. You might even go for them because deep down you’d feel that if someone fell for one of those, someone will surely love you. To make this worth it, you’d have to develop self-respect in other areas than your attractiveness, because someone who hates themselves might not be able to accept anyone’s love at all. So learn some skills, become a better person, develop morals and character, and thus earn some true self-respect even though you’re really ugly and undesirable and stupid.

2)      Realize that no man is alpha to the core. They all need sex, and you got it. Needing is beta, so they are inherently needy, so you will never find a terribly self-sufficient man anyway, so why try to find an imaginary man who truly doesn’t need women?

3)      Men are in general not as strong as they look, too. They kill themselves more, they get more cancer and heart problems, and their testosterone sometimes makes them do stupid stuff and hurt themselves. And they don’t express their feelings of fear and pain as much as women (cuz we can get away with it and they can’t in a relationship), which leads to more chronic stress and artery problems. If you ever wanted a man who’d “take care of you”, think about this. You’d have to do the same for him, he can’t always be the unmovable steady oak you can lean on.

4)      Don’t have sex with alphas, ever. The experience might become unforgettable and spoil you for everyone else.

5)      Realize that alphas can afford to be picky, spoiled and they can cheat if they wanted to, and love is a poor incentive to keep a man, since alphas do cheat a lot. Only incentives like fear of losing you can stop them better. And you don’t want any STDs… Remeber, chronic STDs can ruin your sex life and future children, so fear them and avoid them by avoiding those with whom everyone sleeps.

6)      Look at yourself in the mirror, think of how your male equal would be like, and think really hard if you deserve a high status man. If not, then realize that wanting someone better than you is arrogant and entitled, and at the same time selfish, as you think it’s ok that this high status person should be stuck with someone lowly like you.

All those things might bring on low self-esteem and perhaps desire to kill yourself, so it’s best to counterbalance it with developing yourself as a person. Then, even if you feel ugly and unworthy of alphas, you’ll still have a lot of personal worth, even more than what alphas might have. Develop things like honesty, trustworthiness and empathy (read my Submissiveness and Strength post for more details). And don’t forget to work on your mind.

[EDIT]: Got attention of Manboobz people! 😀 They make really good points, and I have a response: https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/how-to-tone-down-your-hypergamy-part-2/

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to How to Tone Down Your Hypergamy… any ideas?

  1. yo says:

    Nice post. About the last point you made, I notice a lot of woman who are very picky if they were a male version of themselves would probably never get laid and the guys they decline would be out of their league if they were born female

    • Emma the Emo says:

      I know, I’m glad I’m not a guy, I’d have such a hard time getting laid if I was one… Which is why I don’t give guys who are really like that a hard time. To pick up a woman, you have to be charming and good with words and everything.

      • Lele says:

        That is: you ought to have game 😉

      • Mark says:

        I loved your comment, Emma. It is refreshing to see women who are actually sympathetic to the plight of sexual deprivation amoungst men. Usually, men are mocked and shamed for even mentioning the imbalance.

  2. Firepower says:

    How to drive down hypergamy? ema, suggestions are you should not dye your hair –especially NOT the red. Red hair has many symbolic and subtextual meaning

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Like what? Something to do with aggression?.. I think it’s the color of love and blood 🙂

      • Firepower says:

        precisely.

        girls who go red have many secret fantasies raging in their subtext. the redder the girl, the more subconscious and deep are her fantasies, kept hidden from all but a select few. if you want to tone down your primal sex, you must return to natural plain brown hair.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Well, I have a different theory. Keeping your hair color natural means sticking to what you naturally are. And changing it might mean becoming what you want to be. No scientific proof for this, but I think it can work. Plus I don’t have any hypergamy left to tone down, so as long as I think before I act, I don’t have anything to worry about. As for “subconscious deep fantasies”, I’d rather not tone them down 😉

  3. Kazan says:

    Boost your self-esteem. Be ambitious on your own behalf. If you are the main person in your life, you will look for a partner to fulfill YOUR needs, not your vanity or aspirations for social climbing. What you want is a man who is:
    a) really grateful for being allowed to be with you and therefore does everything to please you
    b) faithful
    c) invests a lot of time in you and your children
    d) low on aggression
    d) mallable – so you can make him into YOUR type of guy
    Ergo: What you really want if your self-esteem is high is neither a Don Juan, a “bad boy” or a career minded guy (YOU provide the social status, the excitement and the money, after all).
    Of course you also want a good looking guy, but keep in mind that you can always get him to work out, diet and give him a makeover: to a large degree the old saying that clothes do make the man, is correct.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      It’s good advice. I always thought – if you have all the status, money and all that, the man doesn’t have to. But I also heard that accomplished women are not any less hypergamous. They get accomplished and rich, and as a result only want men even more accomplished and rich… So this is why I suggest terrible self-esteem first. Mental torture would distort everything and have a lasting effect on you, with some bad consequences as well as good ones. I see it as chemo as cure for cancer. It leaves you bald and weakened for a while, but it takes cancer with it. And then you’re fine again (and that is when accomplishments and personal development come in).

      • S says:

        “So this is why I suggest terrible self-esteem first.”

        Is this tongue-in-cheek or are you being serious? In my experience, it’s sometimes people who DO have love self-esteem (but are adept at hiding it) who feel the need to “marry up” or to boost their status with a “high quality” (good-looking/wealthy) partner. Terrible self-esteem does not necessarily equal seeking out partners with low self-esteem (or lower “status”).

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Hmm, you’re right, bad self-esteem alone won’t do it. What you’re describing (bad self-esteem + ability to hide it and seeking status from the outside) sounds like narcissism, which is not what I suggest. I think what is needed is both a feeling of low sexual market value, AND a feeling of kinship with people who, like you, have low SMV. Also, a realization that it’s easier to be shallow when you’re hot, so the probability to get a hot/high status person and keep them is low. In the end, you also have to build up real self-respect by developing a great personality and becoming smart/skilled and wise. If you have that, you won’t need any outer status symbols to feel good anymore. You will, at that point, not consider yourself all that hot, but you will know your true worth.

    • bob says:

      What you want is a man who is:
      a) really grateful for being allowed to be with you and therefore does everything to please you

      d) mallable – so you can make him into YOUR type of guy

      eep in mind that you can always get him to work out, diet and give him a makeover: to a large degree the old saying that clothes do make the man, is correct.

      This is satire, right? You can’t really be serious?

      Because if you are ROTFLMAO!

  4. Kazan says:

    I think a lot is changing now. To the extent that accomplished women seek even more accomplished men, I think it is residue from an old way of thinking when women had to “marry up”, because men had all the power and resources, and that your husbands status was the only way to get anywhere. Today, ambitious women can allow themselves to think more of what they actually need, in other words, take a rational choice based on what actually serves their best interests: Someone who is not intimidated by, or resentful of women more accomplished than himself (and many men are), someone who can be supportive of his wife’s career, pull his weight at home, someone romantic, enthusiastic and sensual in bed, a good and dedicated parent and a trustworthy companion. Parental investment is important- and today that might be more in terms of time and emotional care for the children than material resources. I see around me more and more examples of accomplished women being with men who earn less than themselves and are less career minded. I do not think women in the future will be interested in a man’s material resources at all, once she has her own. The times are a-changing, but old attitudes will not disappear over night.

    • S says:

      This is the truth. Also, a couple might find that one person earns more than the other or is more career-oriented at different stages of their relationship. A good relationship is like a partnership — sometimes you have to take turns being the bread-winner.

      The PUA notion of “hypergamy”, women and “alpha” man is an oversimplification. Now that women AND men are increasingly financially independent, people are able to select partners based on mutual interests and ethical views. E.g. I’d much prefer a poor animal-lover and environmentalist who likes to read poetry and is adventurous in bed than an athletic, handsome banker with a macho attitude who eats steaks for lunch and thinks “Yeats” is a form of yeast-infection. Just saying.

  5. CK says:

    Haaaaa you know none of that shit’s gonna work 😛
    There’s only two types of girls, hypergamous and repressed. Take it from a man, the only ones who aren’t susceptible are the ones who aren’t sexual at all.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Yeah, it’s possible that hypergamy is too strong to tone down in general, but it worked for me, so I can’t refuse to share possible ways to tone it down. It’s not even necessary to completely get rid of it, just tone it down below a tolerable level, and then be careful not to let it get you in trouble.

  6. Kazan says:

    It all depends on how you define “hypergamy”. If we take it in the classical sociological sense, it is used to describe “marrying up” to status and money rather than finding a spouse of equal status (e.eg. homogamy) or marrying down (“hypogamy”). Different societies have different tendencies here, the more rigid the class barrier, the more homogamy generally speaking. Men can also be hypergamous (just think of the the recent marriage of the superrich 85 year old Duchess of Alba with a 24 years younger man – is he not hypergamous?). Hstorically, it was not unusual for young penniless men of the lower aristocracy marry a rich older widow in order to secure themselves financially or avoid bankruptcy.
    If we are talking about this type of hypergamy I see no reason to suppose that for men it is a matter of “rational choice” while for women it is something different and and more mysterious altogether – somehow “ingrained” into their brains (which does not make good evolutionary sense either, because most hunter-gatherer societies are very egalitarian and have small opportunities for accumulation of capital). Like the young men chasing rich widows, socially and economically hypergamous women are making a rational choice, hence the denounciation of the “gold digger”. She is not accused of being genuinely and madly in love with her old rich husband, she makes a calculated trade-off, and that is precisely what she is blamed for!
    Thus, with her own resources, a woman can prioritize otherwise. Which I see a tendency that more women do today, and that I believe they would do in the future.
    This whole discussion will get nowhere before we sort out the different meanings of hypergamous, “alpha”, etc. and what is social/historical and what we think is more biological.

    Besides: even if something is supposedly “hardwired” (like a preference for “alphas” in the sense of very masculine men) women are not only able to choose differently on a more rational basis (like the gold-digger married to a decrepit tycoon), but even feel preference for other traits. Most reseach indicates that womens sexual preferences are more context sensitive than those of men, probably due to the fact that the survival rate of women’s offspring depends on several variables. The man’s parental investment for example, is important, but tends to be somewhat in competition with high testosterone-types. For example: “masculinity”/high testosterone has by psychologists interested in mate preference been seen as a “hardwired” preference in women, since it is supposed to be a fitness-enhancing trait, but new research seems to indicate that in countries with good health care (like Sweden) women actually preferred feminine faces (faces with low testosterone markers) to masculine! (The study is done by psychologist Dr. de Bruine, you can google it). Ergo: “good parent” beats “alpha”. The funny part here is that good health service is also linked to more women influencing the policies of a society, so feminism might actually be good news in some respects for non-alphas. 🙂

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Hey, thanks for that face study, it’s very interesting :). Not sure what it means yet, but it’s interesting. I’m looking for more of those.
      When talking about hypergamy, I’d definitely talking about that alpha/beta thing, not the thing about wealth. There seem to be other studies that suggest there is something to it, so I can’t conclude anything yet.

      • S says:

        But what do you mean when you say “alpha” and “beta”? It seems to me like the definition of these terms change depending on who you ask and that they don’t translate very successfully outside of the relatively narrow world of people who subscribe to PUA and Game.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        What I define as alpha and beta? I have a vague idea about it, but so far I haven’t looked into it in detail. So far it seems that alpha is some socially dominant man who is attractive to most women. I can SEE if someone is alpha, but it’s hard to articulate. Right now I’m reading a bunch of studies and books on gender and sexuality, and that is why I’m so unsure about it. I’m still learning, and I’ll get to the bottom of this. About alpha, beta and hypergamy. I really want to see if it’s really as bad as they say. In the meanwhile, I wrote a post on how to reduce entitlement and standards, for those who need it. I’m not sure it’s a great method, but I did my best.
        What do you define as alpha and beta?

      • S says:

        “What do you define as alpha and beta?”

        As you may have guessed, I don’t think it’s a very helpful way of categorizing people. That said, if I had to, I’d define an “alpha” (regardless of gender) as someone who was very high-powered, ambitious, confident, accomplished, and accustomed to getting their own way. Some people are drawn to other people with (at least some of) those traits, whereas others are repulsed by them.

        Personally, I do actually think confidence, intelligence, and ambition is very attractive, but if those characteristics are not backed up by kindness, caring, a strange sense of humour, and a solid set of ethics I lose interest quickly (this is regardless of whether I’m looking for friends or partners, by the way). I’d rather have someone awkward/slightly shy, but kind and intelligent as a friend or partner, than someone who was confident, striking, and charming, but ultimately self-centred. I’m also not looking for anyone to support me financially or buy me expensive gifts. I’m happy as long as a partner can support themselves financially most of the time. How about you?

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Well, I guess I like guys other women don’t like. As long as they aren’t assholes and aren’t lonely for a good reason. I don’t have any specific ideals… All I know is that I like desperation (sounds bad I know, but there you go). I also value a good moral compass. As for wealth, I really don’t care (I could have been more practical…). I like guys whom I don’t have to impress too much and with whom I have a lot in common.

        What interests me though is how PUA sites say that women say they like one thing and date something completely different. Out of curiosity, I want to ask, have you dated the same men as you describe?

      • Emma the Emo says:

        ..by dated I meant had sex with. You don’t have to answer it if you don’t want to, but I’m just curious.

      • S says:

        <blockquote<What interests me though is how PUA sites say that women say they like one thing and date something completely different. Out of curiosity, I want to ask, have you dated the same men as you describe?

        I’m in a relationship with someone who I’m sure PUA people would describe as a “Beta” (even if I don’t believe in that label) right now. I.e. slightly awkward, music geek, kind, but not incredibly confident.

        ..by dated I meant had sex with. You don’t have to answer it if you don’t want to, but I’m just curious.

        That’s OK, it’s not too personal! I’ve actually been on dates with men who were incredibly good-looking and very confident, where I was turned on by the way the behaved towards me.

        For example, several guys have offered to walk me home after a date, then asked to use my bathroom, and then basically “jumped me” and started kissing me afterwards. These were all very good-looking and otherwise intelligent men (one lawyer, one Rhodes scholar). I was completely baffled and told them they had to go home.

        With others, I’ve been slightly unimpressed with their air of arrogance and self-importance. That stuff doesn’t do much for me. That said, I think there are times when people won’t care that much about their “types” and “ideals” and that’s when they are specifically looking for sex. In my opinion when a woman sleeps with someone who is trying to “Game” her, she’s probably doing that because she wanted to sleep with the guy anyway, not because he “negged” her the right number of times or manipulated her in the right kind of way.

        Presumably you also date (or sleep with) the kind of men that you like? Or don’t you? Why do you think all other women are different?

      • S says:

        …Sorry about the blockquote fail 😛

      • Emma the Emo says:

        I didn’t say I thought all other women were different. I just heard from men that what women say they want and what they go for are totally different. But yeah, I do date / sleep with the guys I describe (what I like is rather obvious to me). But I do believe that some women (and men, actually) don’t know what attracts them. It might be due to inexperience or being told what you are supposed to like. Or maybe they are just lying about what they want, but know it perfectly well. It’s the experience of many men, it seems. The woman tells them they want the opposite of an asshole but then go and fuck them. Why do you think that is so?

      • S says:

        “The woman tells them they want the opposite of an asshole but then go and fuck them. Why do you think that is so?”

        I addressed this in a previous comment (from yesterday), but it seems to be stuck in moderation? :-/

      • S says:

        Hi again, Emma!

        “I’m sorry I couldn’t discuss the nice guy with you anymore, I’m just not very informed about them. I just saw him get called names after he was honest and uninsulting. But whatever.”

        Well, yes, I personally try to avoid calling people names if I can help it, but I can also see why those commenters had such as viscereal reaction to what he was writing.

        “I believe nothing below unwanted groping should ever be punished. Lewd words, licking their lips, making kissing sounds at them, showing interest or whistling – it’s ridiculous to arrest someone for that and fine them.”

        Okay, but what if this is something that person is facing every single day at work, to the point where they can’t concentrate on their job, dread going to work, and start to feel that their colleague(s) do not respect them as a human being? That’s harrassment/bullying — why should it be allowed to carry on?

        Furthermore, what if the person is a superior and makes it clear that if the victim complains they’ll lose their job? Or even worse, suggests that if they don’t return the advances they’ll lose their job? Groping may or may not be involved, but it’s still sexual harassment. Why should the victim have to leave their job and face unemployment whilst the harasser gets to stay?

        “But unwanted touching that is protested, is a lesser sexual attack, and should be treated as such. You mentioned that men who harassed men were not motivated by sex. Does it even matter? Whether it’s motivated by sex or power, unwanted groping is still unwanted groping.”

        Of course untwanted groping is unwanted groping regardless. That wasn’t my point. My point was that sexual harassment cases where are man sexually harasses a woman are often dismissed as simply “flirting” or as the man trying to “flatter” the woman/ask her out/show interest.

        This is a fallacy — it’s not about “flirting” or showing positive interest in someone — it’s bullying and abuse of power, pure and simple. These cases shouldn’t be dismissed as a man simply showing too much interest in a woman or staring at her for too long.

        Say a man asked a colleague out once and she said no. Fair enough, no harm done. But if he kept on asking every day, more and more persistently and more and more lewdly and made it very clear that he was sexually interested in her even after she’d said no, that’s not cool.

        “”Say something offensive and you can be jailed for a year… Why is this right?”

        I don’t think that’s what the law means. You don’t get fined or jailed for a year for calling someone an idiot, for example. But if you send unwanted emails to a colleague explaining in explicit details what you’d like to do to her (or him), that’s more than offensive, it’s sinister.

        Also, you don’t get fined or put in prison for sticking your tongue out at someone or being rude to them. But if you zip down your trousers in front of a 14-year old and touch yourself, then yes, you could get fined if someone sees you. Trouble is, these kinds of things happen all the time (they have happened to me, and I’m sure to many others) but they are certainly not reported all the time.

        “Another thing. There may indeed be unreported rapes, but there might also be false accusations, and cases where someone wakes up after drunk sex and feels raped. They are not mutually exclusive.”

        No, but I didn’t say that either. The point I was trying to make was that yes, false rape accusations happen, but they don’t happen nearly as often as actual rapes, most of which are never reported.

        I agree that someone who has been accused of rape should be considered innocent until proven guilty (and indeed this is still how the law works in most countries, including Norway and the U.S).

        However, why should someone who has been raped also be treated as if she is lying until proven otherwise?

        “You mention the cases where women are asked what they were wearing and how they behaved before a rape. Does anyone (judges, policemen, jury) really think that if she flirted and dressed sexy, she was asking for it and therefore deserved it?”

        No, but they might consider those circumstances to be mitigating for the accused rapist. They might decide that the rapist “didn’t know” that the sex was nonconsensual, for instance. Also, don’t you think it’s unfair that in the cases where men are raped their clothes, underwear and behaviour are not so much of an issue?

        “Even if someday, someone I love or myself gets raped and there is no evidence (and no conviction), I would still regard that standard as most fair, as the opposite is not in any way better (say, a good friend, father, granpa or brother of mine gets falsely accused and goes to jail for consensual sex). I don’t support moving the burden of proof (of innocence) onto the accused party. And even if these laws aren’t hurting that many innocent men yet, it is unfair.”

        I’m a little confused by this paragraph. You would consider it fair if you were raped, but there was no conviction because of lack of evidence? Do you think it would be fair if the court discussed your clothes, underwear and behaviour in great detail?

        What “standard” are you talking about? Also, I think you’re overestimating the extent to which men are falsely accused or rape and then actually convicted. Most actual rapes never even lead to conviction, let alone the false ones! Of course, the burden of proof should be on the accuser (and it is), but that doesn’t mean that it’s “fair” that the majority of rapists are never put away but instead allowed to rape again.

        “Does all this make me an MRA? I thought it was just common sense.”

        Common sense? Well, no — not in the sense that everyone takes these things for granted anyway.

        “I’m not some anti-feminist. I detest that women couldn’t even go to universities at some point in history of Norway. I’m all for giving all people equality of opportunity (that means making laws fair, and creating some welfare programs that aren’t excessive), but not equality of result.”

        Do you think being an MRA automatically makes someone an antifeminist? Why/why not? What aspects of feminism do you agree with and what aspects do you disagree with? Also, what kind of feminism are you talking about?

      • Emma the Emo says:

        S,
        Abot sexual harassment. Let me put it this way: when it comes to work, contract is everything. Informed consent is everything. If you read the contract and signed it, then you should be punished by law, for breaking the contract. If you sign a contract and there it says that you can be fired for whatever reason at any time the boss wants, no matter how good you are, then the boss who asks you for sex does nothing illegal. If the contract specifically says that the boss must not threaten to fire you over sex, then only then is he breaking the contract and should be punished.
        The next question is whether limitations of a contract’s contents should exist. People should be able to do what they like for money, as you can always refuse to sign a contract that doesn’t suit you, or demand for it to change from your potential employer. So I don’t think contracts should have limitations. Employers who offer shitty jobs won’t be liked all too well anyway, and the rumors about them will spread.
        On the other hand, I realize that many people are very poor and would do horrible work just to avoid starvation. In these cases, I see poverty as the culprit, not the people who offer them the jobs. So to make up for this, I think it’s best to do, to make sure people don’t have to take extremely bad jobs with lousy contracts. I know not everyone will agree with me, but that’s my point of view.
        And if other workers are bullying you, you can take it up with the boss. If nothing ever gets better, you’ll have to leave and the harasser will stay. But a boss who chooses to demand sex from employees or keeps bullies, will not keep a good reputation, while good bosses will.

        “This is a fallacy — it’s not about “flirting” or showing positive interest in someone — it’s bullying and abuse of power, pure and simple. ”
        How do you know that? Have you got any good sources on that? If you do, please give them to me, I will be convinced. Right now it seems to me that it can sometimes be simple bullying, but sometimes it’s really flirting. and sometimes even just treating a lady like a lady. My dad knows a man who was almost sued, for offering his seat to a woman on the bus, stopping that bus while she was running late, and other gentlemanly gestures that Russian men learn to do from childhood (but in USA it’s apparently scary and illegal).
        “Say a man asked a colleague out once and she said no. Fair enough, no harm done. But if he kept on asking every day, more and more persistently and more and more lewdly and made it very clear that he was sexually interested in her even after she’d said no, that’s not cool.”
        It might be stalking (if threats come, you can get a restraining order), but it also can be simple persistence. Men sometimes think that if they try hard enough, the efforts will eventually pay off. It’s an experience men often have (the ones I asked), that persistence pays off more often than taking the first no for a no. In that case, you can give him a clear no and tell him his behavior is harassing and scary, and that you could report him.
        “I’m a little confused by this paragraph. You would consider it fair if you were raped, but there was no conviction because of lack of evidence? Do you think it would be fair if the court discussed your clothes, underwear and behaviour in great detail?”
        All I’m saying is that guilt has to be proven. I don’t want convictions to become easier by moving the burden of proof onto the accused. And during negligent rape trials, it’s exactly what happens (why else would they put a man in jail, if there is no evidence for a real rape?), word against word and a guy is still convicted.
        Look at this:
        http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/debatt/article3969621.ece
        Sure, you don’t always get convicted just because someone said you raped them, but these laws (and the sexual harassment one) create a great potential for abuse.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        “Do you think being an MRA automatically makes someone an antifeminist? Why/why not? What aspects of feminism do you agree with and what aspects do you disagree with? Also, what kind of feminism are you talking about?”

        I think MRAs are all different and might have different ideas about everything, but in general, I think being an MRA automatically makes you anti modern feminism, the type of feminism that makes things unfair for men and goes too far. The feminism that doesn’t hurt men probably shouldn’t bother a reasonable MRA. I like the 1st wave feminism. It gave women rights they should have in a fair society. I’m reading a book on feminism right now (Cathrine Holst, “Hva er feminisme”, curriculum for one gender studies subject an UiO), and liberal feminism sounds relatively reasonable (better than all the other types, who all have something wrong with them). It says laws should have good reasons behind them. For example, to forbid something, you must prove that the activity to be forbidden hurts more than the people involved. Liberal feminism has its flaws too, which I don’t like, but it’s better than radical feminism, care feminism and socialistic feminism.

  7. me says:

    The only thing required for a woman is to stop believing fairy tales and imagining the man of her dreams would even want anything to do with her.

    The man of her dreams is the man of every womans dreams and he holds all the power in that regard.

    Aside from that, all that is necessary is for men to dominate their women completely and never let them have anything to do with government.

    Also, a pick and shovel for every child over 5. Male and female.

    That is all.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      “Also, a pick and shovel for every child over 5. Male and female”
      Forgot to reply here. But what does this mean? (although I suspect you won’t come back to reply…).

  8. Sweet_brier says:

    Emma, this blog post is the worst-written post I’ve tried and failed to read in a long time.

    I can’t sum it up, but to say that what you are saying is, basically, the best way to de-alpha females is subject them to the same treatment that de-alphas men, preferably when they are young and impressionable. Am I correct?

    • Emma the Emo says:

      If you find yourself trying to read and fail, then I suggest you read until you stop failing, before you decide to make a comment.
      I’m not sure what you mean by “de-alphaing” a female. It doesn’t sound like something I’m suggesting. How do you even de-alpha a female? She doesn’t need to act alpha to get a good boyfriend. Some men even find it extremely annoying.
      A girl asked me how to tone down hypergamy (desire for alphas and wanting to vomit in the presence of guys your own league). I wrote how, the best way I can. My method is good for destroying unnecessary self-esteem and building up self-respect. You might be right though – something similar is done to guys. They face more rejection than girls. I imagine they build up pretty good inner strength from this (unless they are completely emotionally crushed), and that is a good thing for a woman to get, too.

      • Kazan says:

        In primatology and other animal studies, which is where the concept “alpha” and “beta” originates, it makes perfect sense to talk about “alpha” female. It is normally an older female to with high status within the group. Alpha and beta etc. simply refers to in-group dominance, rank and status when talking about social animals, and is valid for both male and female individuals. Cues to “alpha-ness” would be dominance, deference shown by other group members, and displays of self-confidence.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Ok. I was thinking of alphaness as everything that is most attractive (as it’s defined by Roissy and people who hang out at his blog) , and in women it happens to be beauty and youth. But if you define it as dominance and confidence, then what I’m proposing can be called a de-alphaing (at least to begin with). It doesn’t really matter though, what I define as alpha, this post is for those who want to get rid of extra hypergamy and feelings of entitlement.

      • S says:

        Follow-up questions: When did you first start reading blogs like Roissy’s and why? Do you regularly read other blogs that disagree with the PUA ones (or that reflect a different world view)?

        Do you ever find yourself strongly disagreeing with the things that are being said there? What do you agree with?

        Sorry for bombarding you with questions, but I am curious about what draws people (and especially women) to these kinds of blogs.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Good questions, I will answer them 🙂
        I started reading Roissy a long time ago (maybe in 2008), but then thought it was a funny cruel blog (and kind of cynical about women), so I quit. I found it again later, in 2011, and now I read it mostly for fun. Although sometimes he provides interesting studies. Also, people there are interesting and I get to learn things from them (mostly about how they themselves think).

        I don’t regularly read any blogs that disagree with PUAs, although I liked Manboobz and once read Pervocracy, too. All this inspired me to check out how feminism and gender works, so I have a few books on feminism too (I’m being open-minded about it).

        I guess I don’t yet know if PUA blogs are right, so now I’m looking for the truth. I think it’s likely that their ideas are oversimplified, but to some extent true. Due to interests of my boyfriend, I’m more interested in MRA stuff (what is right and what is wrong for a state to do). So my disagreement is usually directed at something like that (like the law that says women can regret drunk sex and call it rape..), rather than statements about people’s nature. One thing I know… Men value the sex act all on its own (no love and with less pickiness) more than women do.. in general.

        What draws me to these blogs is that once someone told me that “women are hypergamous and love only alphas”, I can’t rest until I know if it’s true. And it’s fun 🙂

      • S says:

        Since you’re mostly concerned with Men’s Rights, have you seen this blog?

        http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/

        It’s a relatively new anti-misandry blog by one of the regular Manbooz commenters. Unlike many other anti-misandry blogs out there, however, this blog is not in any way antifeminist. That is, it doesn’t subscribe to the idea of a “gender war”, rather, it criticizes society/social norms.

        I see you had an earlier post about women’s self-esteem and reading Roissy’s blog. You’ve also mentioned that Roissy is “cynical” about women (an understatement if you ask me! I think he’s cynical about *men*. What he thinks about women I don’t even want to get into). Self-esteem is something you keep coming back to.

        Why do you think self-esteem is a bad thing? (Or have I just misunderstood you?) Someone can have high self-esteem and still be a lovely person. Conversely, people who struggle with their self-esteem can be very arrogant and unpleasant. Of course, the opposite can also be true and self-importance is not attractive, but the point is that self-esteem is not inherently bad! Quite the opposite, I’d say. There’s a wonderful middle-ground in between a hugely inflated ego and crushing insecurity.

        Men on the internet who complain that all women only want to date “alpha” bad boys and who think that women don’t want them because they are “nice guys” often come across as anything BUT nice. You might say that this is because they’ve been rejected by women over and over, etc. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is an excuse to be an asshole or to make generalisations about women. That’s no better than a woman saying “all men are cheating bastards”.

        C.f. this article: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/explainer-what-is-nice-guy.html

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Sorry about the moderation, I don’t know why it ended up there (I turned off all moderation I could). Anyway, I don’t think self-esteem is a bad thing. I respect people for their actions and character, not their self-esteem. I just think that self-esteem has to be earned, and baseless self-esteem (disproportionate to your abilities and true value) is not a good thing. Self-esteem is not something I think about a lot on the daily basis, but I talk about it a lot here, because it’s relevant to the blog post.
        How is Roissy cynical about men?
        Ah, the nice guy issue. I agree with the article that you have nothing to be angry about, if you liked a girl and expected her to just know it, and she never did. But I’ve observed women choose jerks over guys who love them a lot, and guys who DID make their intentions clear. So it can’t be all lies, that sometimes women go for jerks. I’m not sure how common it is, but I don’t automiatically assume that a man who claims this has been his experience, is a whiner or a fake nice guy.

        I read the comments in that Nice Guy article. A commenter with the name “nice guy” came and said how it hurts to be someone’s backup plan, and to realize that your personality type is very ineffective in the dating world. And then everyone attacked him and insulted him in various ways, even though he was very polite. I gotta say I find that type of pointless hatered surprising, disgusting and hope you don’t share it.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Oh, and I looked at that blog you recommended. it looks ok so far, but seems a little lacking in content to me.. Maybe it’s just me, but all these feminist sites focus a lot on gender roles and how they don’t fit everyone. Stuff that is less important (to me) than crazy laws. But this is just my first impression and I might change my mind later. At least it’s not sex-negative. It’s not very intellectually stimulating… But a lot of stuff I read is not stimulating in that way, but I still need to read it because I want to know how different people think.

      • Sorka says:

        I read the comments in that Nice Guy article. A commenter with the name “nice guy” came and said how it hurts to be someone’s backup plan, and to realize that your personality type is very ineffective in the dating world. And then everyone attacked him and insulted him in various ways, even though he was very polite. I gotta say I find that type of pointless hatered surprising, disgusting and hope you don’t share it.

        I’m not a fan of pointless hatred, no. I hope it doesn’t seem that way? I generally don’t insult people over the internet either, at least not unless they’re already being hateful or incredibly rude.

        That said, unfortunately, in the context of that article, I think that’s exactly how the “nice guy” commenter came across. He might seem “polite” at a glance, but if you look more closely at what he’s actually saying, he comes across as incredibly tactless and biased and clearly hasn’t understood what the original article was trying to say at all. I think that’s why the other commenters reacted. Let’s look more closely at what he’s writing:

        it hurts to get rejected over and over because you’re “too nice” or because she sees you “like a brother.”

        It’s hurts to be rejected. For everyone. No one gets rejected because they are “too nice”. People are rejected because their feelings are not reciprocated. This does not mean that person might not be attractive to someone else. I’m sure this poster knows that “you are too nice” or “I see you as a brother” is just letting someone down gently because you don’t want to say “I’m not attracted to you”. Most people know that the line “I’m only interested in friendship” probably shouldn’t be taken to mean “I want to be bosom buddies and hang out all the time”.

        Personally, I have never rejected anyone in that way, and I slightly resent the idea that this way of rejecting someone is universal to all women. I would say “I don’t feel that way, sorry” or maybe “No — but thank you”. I have been rejected by men who have used similar lines (i.e. “I don’t feel the way you do”). This is far from the biggest objection I have to what this person is saying, though. Moving on:

        Many of us (myself included) start out by taking this at face value. We remain friends with the girl even after we’ve asked her out and been shot down, listening to her problems and sometimes staying up with her far into the night if something particularly bad has gone down.

        Okay. So if someone tells you that you are “like a brother” to them and you take that at face value, that presumably means that you know and accept that they are not in any way sexually attracted to you, no? Presumably that also means that you still want to be part of their life as a friend because you care enough about them as people? Or does “nice guy” keep hoping for something more in the future? It gets more muddled:

        It’s usually not reciprocated; no man goes to a woman and says “This other woman rejected me. 😦 It’s really depressing,” but I can promise there have been a lot of guys who get called at two o’clock in the morning to come pick up a woman who has rejected him because her confident, manly boyfriend has thrown her to the curb.

        First of all, this is just not true. Guys talk to their girl pals about other girls all the time. Many men think this is a good chance to get a female perspective/advice. Also, friends are meant to be there for each other, regardless of gender.

        Secondly, why does “nice guy” stay in a one-way friendship? What exactly does he expect from his friendships? Why does he think that “no man goes to a woman and says “This other woman rejected me”? Is that an “unmanly” thing to do? If he wants to say that, why doesn’t he? What’s stopping him?

        Third, apart from being a huge generalisation, this statement portrays women (or at least the women “nice guy” associates with) in a hugely unflattering light. Basically, these are women who uses the “nice guy” for the emotional support that she somehow can’t get from her “confident, manly boyfriend”? I mean, what? If my boyfriend “threw me to the curb” I probably would go crying to my friends, yes. But then I’d also be there for them whenever they needed me. That’s friendship.

        Does “nice guy” think that all women are manipulative emotional vampires who think only of themselves? This is problematic. But it gets worse:

        A woman spends her late teens, early twenties with a succession of men she complains about (to you), then gets pregnant and is staring down a bleak existence as a single mom, and there you are.

        Here we go. Slut-shaming! Shaming single mums! Roissy would approve, I’m sure. “Bleak existence”? Some single mums are perfectly happy that way — and some single fathers too! Not all women spend their late teens and early twenties “with a succession of men”, and even if they did — so what? Should they be shamed just because “nice guy” happened not to be one of them when he asked that person out for a date back in high school?

        How does someone know that they’re a back-up plan? Maybe they’ve just improved themselves over the years and become more attractive than they were as an insecure teenager?

        A spineless pushover says “Sure, girl for whom I have been a free psychologist for a decade, I will give you access to my assets and income in order to allow you to escape the consequences of your actions and so that I might get to have sex with you. I hope you didn’t catch anything from any of your seventeen boyfriends!”

        Whoah, so much going on in this paragraph that I hardly know where to start.
        “free psychologist for a decade” doesn’t sound like a friendship I’d want to be in. Did he seriously care for this person? Why did he stay friends with her? Was it perhaps because he just wanted to have sex with her all along? What did they have in common? What did they talk about apart from her romantic problems? Why is he letting her colour his perception of all women? Or is she just a hypothetical case? (I think the latter…)

        “access to my assets and income” = women/single mothers are golddiggers (of course, all women just want a man to provide for them… don’t they?). It’s sad that this guy thinks that the only reason someone would want to get with him is because of his wallet.

        “I hope you didn’t catch anything from your seventeen boyfriends”. Slutshaming again, as well as an extremely negative attitude to sex. A virgin could have unprotected sex with ONE person and get an STD. The people that I know that have the most sexual partners (as in polyamorous/open relationship people) are the ones that are the most careful about using contraceptions, getting tested regularly, and asking their partners to get tested.

        There is a lot of nastiness in that post, and whilst I think the other commenters worded themselves a little bit too strongly, I can see why they reacted negatively.

        Re: Roissy, I just find him misanthropic. He has a very bleak, black and white view of the world. I think he needs to exapand his horizon.

        Sorry about the epic length of this post!

        Re also “crazy laws” — what laws are these, why do you find them crazy, and could you see why they might be useful?

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Well, I’m not gonna go into a lengthy discussion on the nice guy issue and what he must have meant with every single sentence (I don’t know him personally). It seemed to me the “nice guy” was explaining his point of view and how it hurts to be a backup plan. Maybe it wasn’t so innocent. I didn’t see his words as slut-shaming or single-mom shaming, just as unwillingness to support her and some man’s kid after she had her fun and isn’t attractive to those guys anymore. Not all single moms are just sluts who want to use a guy to support them, but it’s a trap men don’t want to fall into. Maybe the fear is exaggerated. Oh, and many women do want a man who’d more or less support them, and there is nothing wrong with it either.
        You’re right though. A “friendship” between a girl and a nice guy who likes her romantically is not a real friendship at all. He can’t talk to her about his problems, as one of his main problems is that she doesn’t like him as he likes her.
        As for laws… I don’t find it fair when looking at a female coworker for too long (or offering your seat to her in a bus, or showing interest) will put you in jail for sexual harassment. Or being put in jail for rape even if there is no evidence, just a claim and the accuser “looking truthful enough”; or because they were drinking before fucking you and regretted it. Or being put in jail for paying for sex to a consenting person. Or getting ripped off in divorce, including losing your kids…Crazy, crazy stuff. Not useful for anything, except hurting men.

      • S says:

        Hi again, Emma. Sorry about the late reply. I’ve been incredibly busy!

        Re the “nice guy” — sure, let’s leave that alone for now as you are clearly not interested in any of the issues raised by that discussion. The salient point, however, is that he entered a “feminist” (if you will) space on the web and asserted biased/ and unreflected opinions that did not add anything useful to the discussion and actually completely ignored what had already been discussed in the article. It’s just bad internet manners!

        As for laws… I don’t find it fair when looking at a female coworker for too long (or offering your seat to her in a bus, or showing interest) will put you in jail for sexual harassment.

        No, that does sound a little excessive, if that’s all there is to it. But is that an accurate description of most sexual harassment charges?

        Also, what is “showing interest”? That could mean anything from “friendly/collegiate interest” to sexual invitations, looking at someone and licking your lips, commenting on someone’s body in a sexual way, etc. etc. Should you be “showing interest” (sexual, that is) in your co-workers in a work space anyway?

        How do you define “sexual harassment”?

        Sexual harassment laws are there for are reason and that reason is the fact the people ARE sexually harassed in the workplace. It’s a real problem. Also, women can be sexually harassed by other women, and men can be sexually harassed by women and by other men. Those laws are there to protect people.

        This is an interesting article:

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/12/abuse-of-power.html

        “An increase in male-on-male sexual harassment shows larger truths about abuse in the workplace.”

        Okay, so you might argue that something should only count as sexual harassment if someone does something very extreme — like sodomizing someone with a bar of soap. But where do you draw the line? When do verbal sexual slurs become threatening and detrimental to someone’s working life?

        Consider this quote from the article, for instance:

        “When women are the victims, they may face assumptions that the abuse is the result of an affair gone wrong, hurt feelings, or mixed signals. In truth, sexual harassment of both genders has more to do with issues of control and abuses of power for the purpose of humiliation than with sexual attraction.

        By exposing the men to taunts about their genitalia, sexually suggestive simulations, and lewd comments, the men perpetrating the harassment are seeking to embarrass and target the male victims—not sexually stimulate or “flirt” with them.”

        This is an important point — these men were not gay men “flirting” with the victim — they were actively seeking to humiliate him.

        Or being put in jail for rape even if there is no evidence, just a claim and the accuser “looking truthful enough”; or because they were drinking before fucking you and regretted it.

        Men’s Rights Activists (I consider you to be one of them from what you are saying, but correct me if I’m wrong!) seem to be under the impression that this kind of thing happens all the time — in fact, that it happens far more often than real rape.

        Whilst I think false rape accusations are awful (and harmful both to the accused, their families and the real rape victims out there) they are by far outnumbered by real rapes and assaults, many of which are never reported.

        This might in part be due to the victim feeling ashamed or somehow feeling that the rape was their own fault. Even if the rape is reported, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will lead to a conviction. Rape is notoriously hard to prove unless there is genetic evidence, and even then a court can decide that the sex was in fact consensual and let the accused walk.

        If the alleged rape victim is a woman (rather than a man or a child), factors such as what clothes she was wearing on the night, how she behaved, whether she’d been drinking and whether she knew the accused come into play and may work to her disadvantage. (In short, “was the asking for it”?). Do you think this is fair, given that the majority of rapists are someone who already knew the victim? Do you think it’s fair that when men are raped no one asks them what they were wearing or whether they were acting provocatively? Rape trials are often word against word — and there is absolutely no guarantee that the court will side with the accuser rather than the accused.

        In short, a rape trial can be an incredibly harrowing experience for a rape victim, and even if the accused is convicted, they may not get very much time in prison. There was a gang rape case about five years ago where a group of three young men (late teens, I think) only got three weeks in prison for raping a woman in a park. They were indeed found guilty, they just weren’t put away for very long (maybe because of their young age).

        Or being put in jail for paying for sex to a consenting person.

        Okay, I’m sort of with you on this one. I am in favour of legalizing prostitution. However, the sex client would have to make absolutely sure that the transaction was indeed consensual and that the sex worker wasn’t underage — and how could he/she be sure of that? (Legalizing prostitution and allowing sex workers to form unions and to have police protection from being exploited by brothels might help in this regard!)

        Or getting ripped off in divorce, including losing your kids…

        Again, I’m half-way with you here. I’m very much in favour of fathers having access to their children (or getting custody, providing that they are a suitable parent). I actually think it’s extremely sexist that mothers automatically get custody, but I do think this is changing. I also think it’s fantastic that Norway have such a thing as paternity leave. Far from every country has that. And that is arguably the result of a more liberal/socialist government.

        Crazy, crazy stuff. Not useful for anything, except hurting men.

        If all of that it true, then it would hurt some men and also some women. But I just don’t buy the idea that “all men” always get the short end of the stick.

      • S says:

        Re: men beeing screwed over in divorces, the opposite can, of course, be true as well. One of my friends from college just got separated from her husband. He was the one who left and she was heart-broken. They have two children together, but he hardly ever sees them (his own choice). He’s quit his job and spends most of his time drinking and sleeping around. (Granted, he’s probably depressed, but still) He pays not child support whatsoever. Instead, my friend actually has to pay back his loans because now that he stopped working (he used to work freelance, but also stopped doing that) he can’t afford to do so himself and the payments are directed to her (they are still married on paper).

      • Emma the Emo says:

        S,
        I’m sorry I couldn’t discuss the nice guy with you anymore, I’m just not very informed about them. I just saw him get called names after he was honest and uninsulting. But whatever.
        I believe nothing below unwanted groping should ever be punished. Lewd words, licking their lips, making kissing sounds at them, showing interest or whistling – it’s ridiculous to arrest someone for that and fine them. But unwanted touching that is protested, is a lesser sexual attack, and should be treated as such. You mentioned that men who harassed men were not motivated by sex. Does it even matter? Whether it’s motivated by sex or power, unwanted groping is still unwanted groping. Actual threats of rape or beatings is something people are punished for, with restraining orders and such. We already have laws against all that, why do we need the sexual harassment laws?
        Also, you says most sexual harassment cases are not about looking at someone for too long. Maybe so. But we have this law (I think you’re Norwegian, but correct me if I’m wrong):

        § 201. Den som i ord eller handling utviser seksuelt krenkende eller annen uanstendig atferd
        a) på offentlig sted,
        b) i nærvær av eller overfor noen som ikke har samtykket til det, eller
        c) i nærvær av eller overfor barn under 16 år,

        straffes med bøter eller med fengsel inntil 1 år.

        Atferd som nevnt i første ledd bokstav b og c anses forøvet overfor noen også når den er forøvet gjennom bruk av telefon, Internett eller annen elektronisk kommunikasjon.

        Say something offensive and you can be jailed for a year… Why is this right?

        Another thing. There may indeed be unreported rapes, but there might also be false accusations, and cases where someone wakes up after drunk sex and feels raped. They are not mutually exclusive. You mention the cases where women are asked what they were wearing and how they behaved before a rape. Does anyone (judges, policemen, jury) really think that if she flirted and dressed sexy, she was asking for it and therefore deserved it? All this information is not a way to justify rape (even if she was dressed lightly and flirted, doesn’t mean she consented and wasn’t raped!), it is to determine if she was lying or not, and whether she was really raped or not. We can’t have trials without all possible evidence, and we can’t put anyone in jail just because judges chose to believe the accuser. A crime must be proven, that is the standard I go by. Even if someday, someone I love or myself gets raped and there is no evidence (and no conviction), I would still regard that standard as most fair, as the opposite is not in any way better (say, a good friend, father, granpa or brother of mine gets falsely accused and goes to jail for consensual sex). I don’t support moving the burden of proof (of innocence) onto the accused party. And even if these laws aren’t hurting that many innocent men yet, it is unfair.
        As for sex workers, I agree with you, they need protection, which is why I think legalizing it and controlling it is a better solution. I don’t think a client is responsible for a sex worker’s problems though, or making absolutely sure she/he isn’t forced into it. A client is responsible for payment and good treatment of the worker. However, if a client suspects something evil is behind it, he/she has a duty to report it to the police for further investigation (which is impossible to do when it’s not legal to buy…).
        The “getting ripped off in divorce” thing seems to be more American. I know someone who got rather ripped off (he doesn’t even want to talk about it anymore). At the same time, I don’t see it so much in Norway.
        And those laws, you say, hurt both sexes. True, but even though many of them are gender neutral, we all know whom they hit more. Prostitution law is gender-neutral too, but it doesn’t help the fact that it criminalizes men more.
        Does all this make me an MRA? I thought it was just common sense. I’m not some anti-feminist. I detest that women couldn’t even go to universities at some point in history of Norway. I’m all for giving all people equality of opportunity (that means making laws fair, and creating some welfare programs that aren’t excessive), but not equality of result.

  9. Firepower says:

    Emma the Emo says:

    I don’t have anything to worry about. As for “subconscious deep fantasies”, I’d rather not tone them down 😉

    defusing your sexual impuleses. revert to plain brown from ‘lookatme red’ – its courting danger – how saucy can a beta girls fantasies be?

  10. Firepower says:

    argh
    i now belive this place run by Georgian transvestitutki
    and, that i find that not so intrigue
    scare me much

    MOUT

  11. Lele says:

    Actually, men are hypergamous too, since they always try to land women hotter than themselves. And guess how many men would trade their girlfriend/wife for an hotter one?

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Sure, but men have a lower cutoff point when it comes to sex. Kinda like a man can have sex with women down to 2/10 level and women are only gonna go for men above 6/10, which is the main difference as I see it. Men would often sleep with barely attractive women instead of going completely sexless, women do the opposite. I think there was a study about it. For casual sex, women raise their standards for physical beauty, while men often lower theirs. Trading a partner for a hotter one is not really hypergamy to me (everyone wants the best they can get). Hypergamy is choosing someone better than you are (or at least as good as you think you are).

      • Kazan says:

        Defining hypergamy as sleeping with someone “better” is a bit vague. Many men are “hypergamous” in that they strive to hook up with women who are much better looking than themselves (hence “trophy wife”). That they also are willing to lower their standards when it comes to casual relationships, does not make them any less choosy when looking for a steady mate.
        Anyway. I think there is another interesting aspect here: what psychological need does catching a higher status mate have for women? It is a kind of reflection, the woman gains by association part of the status of the man, he reflects on her, as she orbits her shining golden star like a moon. The status and respect she does not have directly for herself, or dare not fight for – she gains by proxy. Think about it: for hundreds of years women were actually physically prevented from getting anything for themselves, it all had to be gained indirectly in this way. Among chimps and bonobos primatologists have no trouble finding alpha females, but among humans even the concept seems odd to some people because status is thought as residing in women’s status as sex-objects for men! (While the obvious parallel would be female social leaders or heads of state like Ellen Johnson Sirleaf for example).
        However, this desire for reflection can go in different directions as well: Some women desire men who are much worse than themselves, men who are dangerous and violent (just think of all the love-letters and marriage proposals sent to serial killers) or at least men who somehow project to the surrounding world the idea of danger and violence. I think desire for men who appears dangerous or aggressive has a similar psychological structure as what you call “hypergamy” – namely a desire to partake in something by proxy. Women who desire the “bad boy” or dangerous man are not themselves aggressive – on the contrary, they may appear to be the meekest of them all. She who has denied herself the right to be loud, angry and “bad”, circles her “black sun”
        in order to partake in his dangerousness and aggression which she then can possess symbolically while still remaining “good”.

      • S says:

        Kazan: That’s an interesting hypothesis — I think there might be some truth to that. Certainly the point that women were often prevented from gaining wealth and status for themselves and therefore had to gain it by proxy is true.

        How about short men being drawn to much taller women? You see that quite a lot too. Is that gaining height by proxy, or is it rather gaining “status” because height is associated with supermodel looks?

        Certainly, being a “sex object” does not give a woman the same power as, say, wealth, status and political influence. After all, humans age. I don’t necessarily think that everyone becomes less attractive as they age, but mainstream society tells us that they do. The “power” of youth and sexuality is not really power at all — if someone values you only for your sexuality, then you are easily intechangeable.

        She who has denied herself the right to be loud, angry and “bad”, circles her “black sun” in order to partake in his dangerousness and aggression which she then can possess symbolically while still remaining “good”.

        Perhaps, and if so, is that not precisely because women are constantly told that they should not be “loud, angry and “bad” or aggresive, or even assertive and ambitious. After all, what is considered ambitious and brave in a man (e.g. virtues) are often considered vices in a woman (selfishness, bitchiness). The reverse is also true; caring and compassion can be denigrated in a man, who is told he is a sissy.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Kazan,
        well, according to people like Roissy, it’s the power and status women like in men (although in casual sex looks start to matter as well a lot), which is why they seek men “better” than themselves – those with more power (killers). If they liked men genuinely better (morally) than themselves, they would go for poor, gentle, loving “betas”. Not saying they don’t, but I wanted to make a distinction of what “better” means. Not saying what Roissy says is true, but it makes sense.
        I suspect the standards are more stringent in casual sex for women, and much lower for men; while the marriage/LTR market is a little more equal. People tolerate each other’s flaws well when they are in love, and it’s not as if they can get the best mates anyway, so they settle as well.
        What you are saying about women going with dangerous men might have something to it. Roissy says chicks dig jerk because they find their jerkness hot, but I think it might have many more reasons behind it, and not every woman has the same ones.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        S,
        True, everyone ages, but even at 50, there will be some men willing to pay you for sex. As in, you can gain money. I’ve seen some horror pictures of old, drug-addicted women on Crime Library, and they were arrested for prostitution. They actually had takers, despite being so old and ugly. Who the hell would screw an old, ugly, drug-addicted man and pay him money at that? We have those walking around in the neighborhood, offering us money in exchange for sex. You also don’t have to be a prostitute to get something out of your beauty. In my younger days, I got a couple of free dinners and some other stuff… I know it was wrong, I wouldn’t do it now, but it works. Men are even ok with supporting you at least halfway when you marry. And think of this: women have this power right from the start, men don’t. Wealth and status is also something that both women and men lack from the start. They have to be gained. Women start with more. It fades, but men had nothing like that to even lose… I think the equivalent of female sexual power is male physical power, although it is today kinda irrelevant to reach high status.

  12. Lele says:

    In my opinion, the best way to tone down hypergamy is to spot a “talent” – a man who can grow – and to cultivate it. A classic tendency of women is – as we Italians say – wanting their soup to be done already. They want a man who is confident, but sometimes confidence comes with time and effort; they want a man who is good in bed, but nobody starts as a god of sex; they want a man who is not a doormat, but men have been raised to be doormats to women, and a little “education” is needed; etc.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Oh yeah, that is also a good idea, although it might fail if the man you choose refuses to change. But if he seems to have potential, it sounds like it could work… Do you think it should be done honestly, or is it best to “trick” him into it? Because I’ve heard men can get offended if you don’t like them as they are and want to improve them. I guess it’s best to find a man who is willing to improve and wants it himself.

      • Lele says:

        You won’t have to change him, you will have to make him discover himself. What I mean is: look at character, not behavior. You can’t change character, but behavior is learned, and can be changed.

        Do not forget that many men are raised by women both at home and at school, and thus what could seem weak behavior could just be that they behave the way they have been told is the best. When they pay you dinner, maybe they are trying to buy your attention, but maybe they are trying to show you they care about you. Among men, things work like that. Actually, in a group of men who respect each other there is often a race about who will pay the bill. Another possibility is that they are showing off their resources and status. Women misinterpret such behavior as men always trying to buy them.

        And don’t forget that men go to great length to please the women they love, if their women know how to ask. Yes, men get offended if you don’t like them the way they are and you try to change them, but not if you try to improve them, provided that you ask the right way. How does it work? Does that mean you have to trick him? I would not be able to explain it by using words, but I always tell when a woman is encouraging them to improve or when he is nagging me to change me. Every man can. There is a similar misunderstanding about women thinking men fear strong women. Bullshit! Weak men may fear strong women, whilst strong men actually dig strong women, but only women who they perceive to be strong in a feminine way. Do you really think a strong man would trust his children to a weak woman? No way! Many women, instead, who think they are strong, appear as nothing else that nagging bitches to strong men (this is the reason you often hear men bashing feminists). Thus, while you may think you are tricking a man, you are actually talking his language, which to you seems like tricking because it’s not your native language (a similar feeling is experienced by men who try to speak women’s language). For instance, a woman who says to her man: “Don’t do that again!” is perceived as a nagging bitch, whilst a woman who says “Please don’t do that because it hurts my feeling since [explain reasons]” is perceived as loving partner. Did you understand?

        And yes, you must look for men who want to improve, not because it’s better, but because it’s a requirement: every quality man wants to improve himself.

        And do not trust your female instinct when judging a man. Listen to a man you admire. Smart men are best judges of other men, because they know what happens behind the curtains when women aren’t watching.

        And watch his notch count.

        Good luck.

      • Lele says:

        Forgot to mention… There is a site about women who successfully turned their partners from “weak followers” to “strong leaders”. It may prove to be an interesting reading. Here we go: http://www.takeninhand.com

  13. S says:

    “I guess it’s best to find a man who is willing to improve and wants it himself.”

    This is true. However, if a woman has a check-list of things that she wants in someone, such as “confident”, “good in bed”, then perhaps she needs to think about why that is and be willing to revise it, rather than trying to change some random dude into what she wants.

    I’m not sure what you mean when you say that “men are raised to be doormats to women” though, Lele. What kind of behaviour constitutes “doormat” behaviour and how is this different to treating anyone (regadless of gender) that way?

    Surely it’s better to look for someone who is already compatible with you — e.g. have some of the same interests, something in life they are passionate about and good at (even if it’s not the same thing as you), have set of core values that match yours? All this talk about hypergamy ignores the fact that people are attracted to each other all the time for all kinds of reasons.

    As for being good in bed — everyone likes different things, so new partners primarly needs to learn what the other one likes. I’m more interested in someone who is adventurous in bed and is willing to try new things than someone who’s had tons of sexual encounters.

    • Eivind Berge says:

      @ Sorka

      “Also, don’t you think it’s unfair that in the cases where men are raped their clothes, underwear and behavior are not so much of an issue?”

      This is a stupid red herring. Those things wouldn’t be an issue because homosexual rape would be unambigous in every way, and if it isn’t — well, then the same standards should apply as for women. I don’t flirt with homosexuals or go home with them drunk and if I did, of course I should have no right to cry rape after they took advantage of me any more than women have to get regret getting into such situations and call it rape. And needless to say, women cannot rape men, so under no circumstances do men need the feminist concept of rape. We didn’t ask for it and don’t want it.

      “There was a gang rape case about five years ago where a group of three young men (late teens, I think) only got three weeks in prison for raping a woman in a park.”

      Either you are very ignorant or this is a flat-out lie. The minimum sentence for rape with intercouse in Norway is now 3 years. Five years ago it was 2 years, and most certainly no one got three weeks for rape. Even negligent rape was getting 8 months at the time. If this was a real case at all, the most these teens could have done was groping the woman. Actual sentencing in rape cases can easily be looked up at http://lovdata.no/ and it is most assuredly not three weeks. I have been paying close attention to the escalating sentencing for rape and certainly would have noticed if any man got three weeks for gang rape. Teenage boys don’t get that much lighter sentences either. So we need some references here if you want to make this claim.

    • Lele says:

      I said that men are raised to be doormats to women because they are taught that women are special beings, and they are discouraged to stand up to women (or better: they are discouraged to stand up to women the way they would stand up to men, and are told they should stand up to women in a women-approved way, which of course they can’t do). This, coupled with men instinctively compromising to avoid conflict with people they love, make men exploitable.

  14. Kazan says:

    @ S as to the “power” of young sexy women. I think some men consider the so-called “sexual capital” (a funny kind of capital that is unable to accumulate over time, by the way) to imply “power” because they confuse a psychological state with social and economical reality. They feel powerless when they desire a woman and is rejected, and hence conclude that the object of their desire (the woman) somehow possesses a power which equals their own sense of powerlessness.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      You can convert the sexual capital into actual money capital and accumulate it over time.
      It is true though. Women are only as powerful as men make them, but men are built in such a way that they can’t help but make women powerful. So in general, it tends to be a real power. Power is not something that exists on its own anyway. It’s relative. For it to exist, you have to have a more powerful and a less powerful persons. Even though male desire and need for sex creates the female power, it is real.

  15. Lele says:

    Another way to tone down hypergamy is realizing that we often desire things at face value without understanding what they really would bring us. In this case, many women may desire marrying powerful men without realizing what that often really means (him not going to change, her being treated like a commodity, maybe just as a tool to achieve something). Just like people who fancy a successful career without realizing how much sacrifice is involved. I remember being appalled after learning by a friend of mine, who’s a successful manager, how she can’t afford more than ten days of holidays a year, and how her company decides where she will be living and how long. I pitied her. Similarly, men may realize that getting and keeping the hottest women they can get may be more of an hassle than a pleasure (thus the recommendation of getting a 7 for an LTR instead of a 8 or more).

    • Emma the Emo says:

      “Another way to tone down hypergamy is realizing that we often desire things at face value without understanding what they really would bring us”
      Oh, that is so true. Women often date men they think are great, but get disappointed. Roissy might call it “aging out of jerk-dating age”, but I know women who went for popular jerks, got burned, and realized it was a bad idea. It’s all a part of the learning process. You just have to make sure you learn things fast, not after good opportunities already passed. And it applies to everything in life. Learning from other people’s mistakes might help.

  16. Jason says:

    Thanks Emma,
    You seem very sensible, I won’t qualify that by saying “for a woman.”
    I’ll probably pop by again.

  17. jack says:

    “6) Look at yourself in the mirror, think of how your male equal would be like, and think really hard if you deserve a high status man. If not, then realize that wanting someone better than you is arrogant and entitled, and at the same time selfish, as you think it’s ok that this high status person should be stuck with someone lowly like you.”

    Men can do this to (after replacing “man” by “woman”). I’ve put this into practise quite often to get over not getting that smashing girl.

    • Mark says:

      That’s because as a man, you are practical and know your limits. This is why male gas station clerks never try to date upper-middle-class women. It’s not because they are “intimidated” as some women would suggest; it’s because men know their market value, and act accordingly.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Ah, but this post is supposed to help women get over self-esteem, not men 🙂 This guy named Roissy says that being overconfident might work getting those smashing girls you guys are talking about. The opposite just won’t work for women, that’s all. It’s good to be realistic, but don’t look in the mirror and tell yourself that “she wouldn’t like a loser like me anyway”, at least.

  18. Lele says:

    Or you may well embrace your hypergamy and make the most of what you can get, as this woman did: http://www.doccool.com/cheated-on-husband-for-better-genes/

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Wow, amazing. Sounds like a sociopath, considering she doesn’t feel guilt about any of this. She knows it’s wrong, but does it anyway, saying it’s grounded in evolution?..

      • Lele says:

        While she’s not the nicest gal on the block, and sure she has other indicators of sociopathy, I’m not sure she’s a full-blown sociopath. She doesn’t feel guilty because she has deeply rationalized her conduct. A sociopath would just not care. Where did you feel that she knows it’s wrong?

        What’s your take on evolution? Yes, we better fight those instincts of ours which would wreck us – like a woman mitigating hypergamy to avoid the nefarious consequences of being pumped and dumped, or a man avoiding a one night stand to safeguard his relationship – but what if we can find a way around them? Yes, your conscience should kick in at that point, yet I think you can’t repress your instincts without repercussions. I’ve witnessed this in my last relationship: I loved her, but she let herself go, and sexual attraction plummeted. Attraction is not a choice. Love maybe is. I’ve been thinking about this lately. Being a monogamy-oriented guy, I wonder: what if it’s just social conditioning? What if after being with her for ten years or more, I start feeling helplessly drawn by young women? Should I repress those feelings, and mute my vital impulse as a result, or should I follow them and feel energized as a result?

      • Emma the Emo says:

        I thought she knew it was wrong because she was hiding it. Or, at least she knew being found out would have negative consequences and husband would be upset about it. It’s just that she is ok with using him, which is a sociopathic trait. But it doesn’t mean she is a real sociopath.
        As for your last love, the nicest thing would be to tell her she let herself go and you’re having thoughts about other women… I feel this is something to be honest about right from the start, so the girl knows what to expect if she lets herself go. I dunno if it would work (she might get angry and hurt), but people do it all the time and they aren’t immediately dumped 🙂

        As for evolution, I think if I got it correctly, it says neither of the sexes are monogamous. Yet I know people who stuck together for life. I know a couple in their 80s where the man still calls his lady a goddess. I totally think love/attraction for life can be done, but you have to remain as attractive as possible and don’t expect mindblowing passion after 10 years.

        The answer to the question of whether to trade women or not depends on the person. I care about principles and morality a lot, because it’s the last thing you can lose and it can’t be taken from you, like everything else. Life is much easier when you have a clear conscience, at least for some people. So I’d rather tell the person they let themselves go (as nicely as possible) and try to work things out first. If it’s more an issue og age alone, then perhaps you aren’t made for long-term monogamy (some people really are made for it, it seems, not sure why). Try quitting porn if you use it (that shit really does elevate standards and intolerance for same partner every day, i hear). Try karezza maybe (supposedly makes you stay together).

  19. Lele says:

    “I thought she knew it was wrong because she was hiding it. Or, at least she knew being found out would have negative consequences and husband would be upset about it.”

    The second, in my opinion. When you said “it’s wrong”, I thought you were meaning in a moral sense, that she felt her conscience was dirty.

    My last love story has ended already. Yes, I agree that talking issues is the best approach. I think that caring for each other also means not letting your partner let themselves go. At the time, I tried making her aware. I don’t know what she grasped. And I’ve always read that weight is a critical self-image issue for women. It was not just weight, though. After reading Heartiste, I realized I failed to lead our relationship in the correct direction; worse, I failed to lead at all. Life goes on.

    I didn’t know about Karezza. Nice discovery. Thanks.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Well, I think it’s possible to know something is wrong and still do it. But the definition of wrong in that case comes from society and not your inner conscience. Kinda like “people don’t like to be used, but what’s that to me?”

      Not sure what to do when she already got fat. You’re right, it’s best to try to keep her slim right from the start, even if just for her health and because you care. Next time you have a relationship, make sure your requirements are known 🙂 i guess that would be leading? You can lead by example btw. You might inspire her.

      • Lele says:

        You know what: you don’t always know beforehand what you will be able to put up with. For instance, she used to smoke, which I didn’t mind much at the beginning, until I realized I couldn’t put up with it anymore, and told her that was a deal-breaker. I guess I could have fixed her weight issue, too, but I realized it was just a character issue, and we were not compatible. Men complain about women being too selective, but the latter have a good reason, after all. That’s why in a previous comment of mine I’ve urged you to look for strong character in what may look like a weak man. Everything else but character can be changed. I managed to make a woman stop cold turkey after smoking for twenty years, yet I realized I couldn’t change her character.

        What do you think about takeninhand.com?

  20. Emma the Emo says:

    Hmm.. Yes, people change their minds too, during the relationship, which is annoying to the other person, because the deal suddenly changed and you can’t do a thing about it. But it’s not really anybody’s fault… But I guess you’re right about character. How would you personally see if a person (woman, in your case) has character? I guess I would look for signs of lack of morality and self-restraint. Like if he cheated before, without being married and sex-deprived by his wife. I think real weakness is when you too easily betray people who trust you, because something stressed you (like if you mess up a job and put the blame elsewhere). Being timid and non-confrontational is not a weakness, at least.
    How about self-esteem? Does low self-esteem mean no character? A woman who has low self-esteem might be very upset when you tell her she got fat, and might comfort eat, and not get anywhere.
    I also don’t think pure selectiveness is hypergamy. There is a difference between refusing to date a person who chronically smells bad, or has chronic mental problems, or who is violent (for example) and a person who is just too average, or short, or not as educated as you are.

    I read takeninhand.com. It was interesting. I never actually met anyone who had a relationship as described there. I also wonder how many women would want it. What do you think of it?

  21. Lele says:

    “How would you personally see if a person (woman, in your case) has character? I guess I would look for signs of lack of morality and self-restraint.”

    Me too. I also check whether she always blames others for everything (a little blaming is OK… everyone needs to vent their frustration once a while) and whether she is willing to go the extra mile to get something (lack-of-self-entitlement factor).

    Eleanor Roosevelt’s test is crucial: “A woman is like a tea bag- you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water.” It applies to men and relationships, too. So, I withhold my considerations about a woman’s behavior while everything is nice and fuzzy. For instance, I like the way you take the little heat on Chateau Heartiste 😉

    Also, I try to look at how people react when there are neither pressure nor consequences to their actions. For instance, I admire women who answer messages on online dating sites. It’s not that those who don’t reply are jerks, maybe they are just being effective with their time, but those who do reply when not interested show they care about other people (and go the extra mile).

    “Like if he cheated before, without being married and sex-deprived by his wife. I think real weakness is when you too easily betray people who trust you, because something stressed you (like if you mess up a job and put the blame elsewhere). ”

    Betraying people is the worst, but there is also betraying yourself (your ethics).

    “Being timid and non-confrontational is not a weakness, at least.”

    Agreed. I also don’t think that shyness is related to character: I was shy when I was young, I’m not anymore, because my perception of my surroundings has changed. Actually, this is what I call social conditioning: you may be non-confrontational because you were taught that’s the best way to deal with disagreements. Again: I used to be non-confrontational, now I am. Let’s say that shyness and being non-confrontational are in the realm of temper.

    “How about self-esteem? Does low self-esteem mean no character? ”

    I don’t think self-esteem is related to character. It’s related to how you perceive things and how you relate to them. But overcoming low self-esteem can be a long process, therefore engaging into a relationship with someone with low self-esteem may not be worth the effort.

    “I also don’t think pure selectiveness is hypergamy.”

    Neither I do, after you enlightened me in another comment 😉 I talked about selectiveness because men do not know about women’s hypergamy. Yes, they know women “marry up”, but they don’t realize that women are always looking for an upgrade. This is funny, because men are thought as afraid of commitment, whilst when they commit, they do commit for good. The only way I can relate to female hypergamy as a man is thinking about getting hotter and hotter women, but still I’d have an hard time over

    “I read takeninhand.com. It was interesting. I never actually met anyone who had a relationship as described there. I also wonder how many women would want it. What do you think of it?”

    I can think of only one relationship which comes close to what takeninhand.com advocates. I have mixed feelings: they seem to be onto something, but they can’t figure out how to get there. I’ve yet to find any guidelines about how things can be sorted out. Also, there is a fine line between a leader/follower relationship and a micromanaged father/daughter one. I can’t imagine what would/will happen as soon as the man falls seriously ill or dies and the woman is left without his guidance. I’d like to ask the site’s members for feedback, but my submissions always fail to show up and I can’t figure out why.

    A positive aspect of takeinhand.com is that shows that:
    – men can be taught to lead, thus proving my point that leaders are made, not born, and smart women can snatch a better man earlier on;
    – betaizing yourself, beyond restricting yourself to one woman, is not a requirement for a successful relationship.

    I laugh at the self-entitlement attitude which permeates some posts. “Men must be the pursuer”… Yes, ladies, but you fail to realize that smart men will pursue you only if they deem you worthy. A self-entitlement attitude which goes hand in hand with another laughable one, that is “magical thinking”, e.g. men have to prove themselves, women don’t.

    As a last note, I don’t know how much related: another way to face your hypergamy is raising your value. Better yourself and you’ll have a chance at better men. Only be careful to avoid projecting and improving those aspects which matters to women, not men. I’ve found a nice related article: http://knol.google.com/k/men-dating-much-younger-women-part-1-the-myths-and-the-reasons#THE_SELDOM_DISCUSSED_REASONS_WHY_MEN_CHOOSE_MUCH_YOUNGER_WOMEN
    It’s about some things which men appreciate and which are seldom mentioned. It serves also as a reminder to me about those things that keep yourself youthful.

    Wow! What a chatty comment. I should start my own blog, shouldn’t I?

    Cheers.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Hmm.. You offered many good ideas in this comment 🙂 I will use the hot water test to see if someone is a good friend/person. And where they put the blame. If they blame themselves too much, they might have low self-esteem and hard to deal with. If they blame things objectively, they are rational enough. If they blame everything around them, they are not good for dating.
      That brings me to low self-esteem. The reason why I wondered if it meant lack of character is because it can really weaken you. You might fall into self-pity and get stuck in a bad mood for a long time, and it might prevent you from changing yourself, because you’re demoralized and don’t think you can achieve anything.

      I haven’t tried commenting on TIH, but maybe you have to become a member to comment. Now that you mention all this, I also wonder how a TIH relationship can work. I know for sure that relying on someone’s judgement like that is not a good idea – they can get sick or die, like you say, or even do something wrong. Possibility of this puts responsibility on the woman, whether she likes it or not. But maybe the solution would be to teach a woman think for herself and be your “backup” – your soldier/vice-president in a way. You’d be in the front, but she will help you with everything, although leading is not her job. But she would be what you might fall back on if you ever get ill or make a bad decision. You’ll lead and she’ll nurture 🙂

      I know you can also avoid the negative effects of hypergamy by making yourself hotter, but I was under the impression that beauty is common, and the high alphas don’t have to commit to even a very hot woman. But good personality might make a difference, so it’s not bad advice.

      • Lele says:

        “That brings me to low self-esteem. The reason why I wondered if it meant lack of character is because it can really weaken you. You might fall into self-pity and get stuck in a bad mood for a long time, and it might prevent you from changing yourself, because you’re demoralized and don’t think you can achieve anything.”

        Here is my rule of thumb: how does a person with low self-esteem react to other people’s attempts to change her perspective? A weak person will continue looking for excuses and whining. People with character will always try to bounce and raise themselves. I’ve faced low self-esteem issues, but when I watched less advantaged people succeeding I always said “Fuck! If he/she can do it, my self-pitying is unwarranted.” Still, I didn’t manage to keep low self-esteem at bay until I developed a different view of things.

        A side note: having fought depression, I know what feeling stuck in a rut means. My recipe, which no doctor came up with is: good nutrition. I think I was following a decent diet with multivitamins supplements, but it wasn’t enough. Adding fish oil and extra doses of vitamin D fixed the issue. After adding a daily 1 gram of vitamin C, and CoQ10, now I feel unstoppable, and I can’t lower my self-esteem even when I try. We are meant to live, after all.

        “I haven’t tried commenting on TIH, but maybe you have to become a member to comment.”

        I *am* a member. Still, no luck.

        “But maybe the solution would be to teach a woman think for herself and be your “backup” – your soldier/vice-president in a way. You’d be in the front, but she will help you with everything, although leading is not her job. But she would be what you might fall back on if you ever get ill or make a bad decision. You’ll lead and she’ll nurture :)”

        Sound advice. Yet some users on TiH take things literally, and their men are expected to take care of everything.

        “I know you can also avoid the negative effects of hypergamy by making yourself hotter, but I was under the impression that beauty is common, and the high alphas don’t have to commit to even a very hot woman. But good personality might make a difference, so it’s not bad advice.”

        See my other comment regarding true alphas. Yes, alphas don’t have to commit, but they may do it if it works to their advantage. They’ll commit to their ways, so to speak, not to you. Yes, a true alpha may cheat, but he’s not going to pump and dump the mother of his children. And I think that by playing on his love for his children, a woman at least could manage to keep his cheating at a minimum. My understanding is that we are trying to avoid the “dump” bit. But this is male thinking. What do you think? Does cheating and emotional unavaibility make a man more attractive?

      • Emma the Emo says:

        I think there are some women out there who can’t get enough of cheaters, because they love the drama and the excitement of catching them at it and making a scene. My mother met many of these. As for emotionally unavailible, I dunno. I heard yes, but haven’t observed it.

      • Lele says:

        “What if it’s a self-reinforcing effect? The more alpha you are, the more women love you, the more alpha you become? Of course, you have to have some alpha in you at the beginning, or just luck (a famous emo singer might become very attractive to women even if he was an emo beta all his life before he turned famous).”

        You have just switched to hamster-spinning mode. Fine, you’re a woman after all. You lasted a long, though. Be proud.

        Now take a break and tomorrow or later come back and read again this comment of yours and maybe you’ll see the hamster running.

        Also, you may want to read again and carefully my previous comments, because I feel you have kept misunderstanding my stance on effective reproductive success in humans. I know, I write a lot, but concise writing is hard work, and this is your blog, and I’m not going to work for you.

        Sweet dreams about an Alpha sweeping you off your feet. Good night.

  22. Lele says:

    Another consideration: just like porn is poison to a healthy relationship, soap operas, chick flicks, etc. can be thought as “hypergamy porn”, which wreak havoc on a woman’s capability to settle for a reasonable prospect (working class single mother marrying that tall, dark and handsome CEO… really?) . Just like average women have an hard time competing against female porn stars when it comes to appearance and performances, average men have an hard time competing against characters with infallible wit, smooth moves, sharp and always proper clothes, etc.

    I do think that entertainment products can make us envision a more fulfilling way of living, which we may decide to pursue, as long as we don’t get carried away.

    I still think that an average man and an average woman can team up and work their way to the top, but I’ve start fearing this is just a male way of thinking.

  23. Lele says:

    After reading an article on the Holy Chateauh Heartiste, I’ve had an epiphany: do true Alphas seek only to spread their seed? Given the complexity of human society and the long development time of children, does not make more sense that a true Alpha would try to snatch the most genetically gifted woman and then look after his own offspring closely? Yes, maybe he’ll rinse and repeat as soon as his children are adults and his partner is not fertile anymore. If humans were independent as soon as they were born, then just spreading the seed would make sense. The former reasoning bring us to this conclusion: if a man is a compulsive cheater, he is not a true Alpha. Again, this goes along with my reasoning that you should go after character and ethics to spot a true winner. And I happen to think that once her children are grown, a woman is biologically less dedicated to her relationship. I’ve once read about the women’s “ram syndrome” (translation of “sindrome del montone”), that is, they seek to mate with a strong man, but as children grow up to about seven years of age, she tries to get herself impregnated by another strong man.

    P.S.: I’v realized this is a bit off-topic, because it’s not related to toning down one’s hypergamy, yet I’m interested in hearing what you think.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Well, I happen to agree with CH on the definition of alpha (being just a guy who’s attractive to a big number of women), so he doesn’t have to be ethical to be alpha. But he can be.
      Maybe the best thing for an alpha would be to monopolize the most giften womEn he can get, and take care of the kids he gets from them. Or if it’s too much work, monopolize one gifted woman and have lots of married mistresses on the side (whos kids from him will be taken care of by beta husbands). No need to rinse and repeat that way.
      As you know, I don’t like any of this, which is why I stay away from guys who’d pull it off. Alpha/beta is ethics-neutral to me.
      I heard about the syndrome. And about women’s loss of interest in sex after a few years (especially after having babies). Such is statistics, but I’m sure one could try different things and solve this problem if one tried. Would be hard though, if the woman wasn’t cooperating.

      • Lele says:

        “Well, I happen to agree with CH on the definition of alpha (being just a guy who’s attractive to a big number of women), so he doesn’t have to be ethical to be alpha.”

        I don’t agree with this definition because then all the guys who jump through all sorts of hoops to look cool and aloof would be considered alpha. I think Roissies (because there is more than one) like that definition because it applies to themselves.

        And no, an alpha doesn’t have to be ethical. Only ethics who matters to him are his own. I was arguing that in complex *social* animal species like humans, just dumping a fuck in as many women as you can doesn’t make you a winner. Yes, that beats failing to reproduce, but it makes sense that alphas would want it all. Think about lions: it’s not like a lion fecundates a pack of lionesses and then walks away. Why? Because he wants to make sure
        its offspring survives. This does not apply to asocial animal species.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        My guess is that some of the pump and dump alpha’s kids will survive and some won’t, because he left some without his protection. Some will be taken care of by the cuckolded guys and their cheating wives. Both the monogamy strategy and the pump and dump strategy could work pretty well, IMO. But what you’re suggesting doesn’t sound wrong either (that an alpha would monopolize lots of girls and take care of all his family, OR “rinse and repeat”). I was just saying there is more than one way to be alpha and achieve similar results. You could do it the honest way and the sociopathic way.

        What’s wrong with the definition of alpha Roissy is using? It’s just a man who is sexually attractive to a lot of women.

      • Lele says:

        “My guess is that some of the pump and dump alpha’s kids will survive and some won’t…”

        Survival does not always mean full reproductive success. It’s just the least reproductive success you can get.

        “What’s wrong with the definition of alpha Roissy is using? It’s just a man who is sexually attractive to a lot of women.”

        He confuses cause with effect.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        What if it’s a self-reinforcing effect? The more alpha you are, the more women love you, the more alpha you become? Of course, you have to have some alpha in you at the beginning, or just luck (a famous emo singer might become very attractive to women even if he was an emo beta all his life before he turned famous).

        “Survival does not always mean full reproductive success. It’s just the least reproductive success you can get.”
        True, if his kids are raised to be doormats, they might be too doormat to attract anyone.

  24. Lele says:

    “Well, I happen to agree with CH on the definition of alpha (being just a guy who’s attractive to a big number of women), so he doesn’t have to be ethical to be alpha. But he can be.”

    I always have to remind myself of this alternative definition, because I really can’t see how a loser in most areas would still be considered alpha. But I’m not a woman, so I’m taking your word for it.

    “Maybe the best thing for an alpha would be to monopolize the most giften womEn he can get, and take care of the kids he gets from them.”

    This is what I was saying.

    “Or if it’s too much work, monopolize one gifted woman and have lots of married mistresses on the side (whos kids from him will be taken care of by beta husbands). ”

    I don’t think so. A true alpha without sociopathic tendencies would cringe while watching his kids raised by losers. He wants his offspring to rule the world. Reasonable alternatives would be having bastard kids and looking after them in some way., like Arnold Schwarzenegger made with his son with that maid, or having kids with upper-class women.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      I think your view of what a true alpha is is a bit idealized…A guy can really fool many men into raising his kids and they would probably not grow up to be losers, if the have his genes. The beta who gets cuckolded is not necessarily a loser anyway, just a guy who trusted the wrong woman.
      He would still raise kids who are obviously his, he’d just have a few extra ones, in case the obvious ones die or something. But in that sense, your logic makes more sense, although I still don’t see how he can take care of all his kids from all the women, without any extra help (in case he lives in a society with lots of welfare, he won’t need cuckolding…).

      I’m kinda curious what your interest in this is. Just intellectual curiosity, or are you thinking of a way to be alpha and have lots of kids?

  25. Lele says:

    “A guy can really fool many men into raising his kids and they would probably not grow up to be losers, if the have his genes.”

    I’m contesting this. Genes are only half the equation in a social setting. Upbringing is the other half. Doormats discover Game and start getting laid like mad. Where are genes in this? Maybe guys had the right genes, but failed to deliver because of social programming. My point is proven.

    “But in that sense, your logic makes more sense, although I still don’t see how he can take care of all his kids from all the women, without any extra help (in case he lives in a society with lots of welfare, he won’t need cuckolding…).”

    If he can’t go after what he wants, then he’s not alpha enough. Sorry to be that blunt. An alpha who’s concerned about his offspring will manage to raise them well. He’ll work his ass off, turn the world upside-down, he’ll steal, cheat, kill, he’ll be a parasite, whatever his ethics allow him to do, yes, but he will do it. See, Emma, to me alphas are only the top of the crop and are on top of their game. Alpha is the first letter in the alphabet. Don’t confuse it with beta, gamma, delta, etc. because that makes you feel better about yourself.

    As I see it, the only constraint to an alpha are social rules imposing monogamy, which limit his offspring output, if we are talking about evolutionary instincts. But alphas have found their way around this by means of serial poligamy.

    Bastard kids may be a viable backup strategy, though. If you lose your legitimate ones, you can reach for the former.

    Again, I agree that not all alphas have nice ethics. But sleeping around does not make you alpha. It’s not that you are an alpha because women want you, it’s the other way around. Can you see the difference?

    “I’m kinda curious what your interest in this is. Just intellectual curiosity, or are you thinking of a way to be alpha and have lots of kids?”

    Intellectual curiosity. We are not a lower form of life, and we are not our DNA alone. DNA plus top-level upbringing: you win; anything else: you are taking chances. Alphas don’t take chances, they take control.

    Yes, I want lots of kids, and now I realize that my social conditioning may be limiting my choice of how many to shoot for. I remember reading about kings with hundreds of children. Now, they were after something , after all. Are you asking me if I want to be an alpha? Then no, I don’t. I’d like to, but that could be out of my league. Only time will tell. Yet I don’t care, I’ll do the best I can with what I’ve got. That means I need the best model to aim for.

  26. Emma the Emo says:

    “Doormats discover Game and start getting laid like mad. Where are genes in this? Maybe guys had the right genes, but failed to deliver because of social programming. My point is proven.”
    I’ll give you that. But I think it’s hard to make that many children without great luck and SOME good genes that women are attracted to, whatever they are. I think there is a limit to what game can do, but I could be wrong.

    “If he can’t go after what he wants, then he’s not alpha enough.”
    Right, and cuckolding other guys makes sure he gets what he wants 🙂 That was my point. That taking care of all his kids alone might be hard (unless there is the welfare system or he’s some kind of king), and he might resort to that type of dishonesty.

    “Don’t confuse it with beta, gamma, delta, etc. because that makes you feel better about yourself.”
    If you want to define alpha as only the top (them being famous and rich people, I assume?), it’s cool. But I’m not sure why anyone would pretend alpha is something it’s not to make themselves feel better about themselves. In Roissy’s definition, alpha is the one who can get laid the most with a lot of girls. If you are THAT, you don’t need to call yourself alpha to feel good about yourself, you already feel good about yourself. Especially if everyone else pay for your fun and you don’t have to.

    “It’s not that you are an alpha because women want you, it’s the other way around.”
    Yes. But many women are also attracted to those pump and dump guys. What are those, in your opinion?

  27. Pingback: How to Tone Down Your Hypergamy, part 2 | Emma the Emo's Emo Musings

  28. A Voice For Misogynists says:

    The reality is that women are not attracted to men. There is a vague idea of what a man is physically, but the purely physical appearance of a man is almost inconsequential unless he is horribly hideous or extremely handsome.
    Women are attracted to status, money, how many friends and resources a bloke has, how full a bloke’s life is, how many “cool”, “exciting” and prestigious things he is doing.
    A woman is basically a greedy materialist. At the moment I don´t enrich her life materially speaking, the clock has started ticking on my departure and I will be the last one to know it.

  29. bo jangles says:

    I’ve always noticed that women who do body modification are generally more open and adventurous (tattoos, piercings, extreme hair color). Just outward symbols of internal processes.

  30. Lottie says:

    Hurrah! Finally I got a blog from where I be able to in fact take useful data regarding my study and knowledge.

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