Discussion HYPERGAMY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

[KaizenYagi]

Explain with clear reasoning why female hypergamy benefits species quality.

Animal studies blah, blah females select cause they gotta carry. Small women carry manlet genes. Women carry bald genes. Plenty of women have unattractive features.

So chad only does stacy. Then if he has open slots he does becky. Then if he is lying naked in bed in his own vomit, and diarreah, other women scurry in for their shot at chad. Pretending every sexual union results in pregnancy as female quality degrades, chad genetics get diluted, producing average, mediocre, and weak offspring. Explain how this is superior to looksmatching, and how this process played out over decades leads to overall higher genetics?

Since roasties are rarely pregnant as a percentage of their existence, the fact that chad can knock up hundreds of women is irrelevant. Replace this with normie men only selecting for the best looking women, and pregnancy rates in line with those in existence today.

Explain to me how female tindergamy is not a byproduct of degenerate social morality, welfare economics, and technology, when if the dynamics were changed normies, and incels could just select for the top % of stacies reversing the bias. How would the offspring be any worse or better in the aggregate either way?

What is the evolutionairy argument for hypergamy again?

 

[shadowsoulz125]

It would be much more balanced if we were in the wild free to fuck hoes

 

[RollD20]

Are you blackpilled? This sounds borderline bluepill tbh.

It would be much more balanced if we were in the wild free to fuck hoes

Unless you can ogrecel you would still lose.

 

[KaizenYagi]

Are you blackpilled? This sounds borderline bluepill tbh.

Borderline blue pill because it challenges the orthodox view here? I thought blue pill was looks don't matter, have a great personality, intelligence, and humor count, nice guys win, etc. Personally I'm black pilled, and incel. So it is not cope, but I do believe that many of us here could have found decent spouses in a different era.

Quantifiable evidence, and a hypothesis attatched to it is not necessarily science. Evidence of what? Females liking pretty faces? Because women happen to behave a certain way, and it is well documented this does not mean that hypergamy on their part is driven by some evolutionairy process. Evolution is the kitchen sink of theories, and what I'm saying here is changing the variables in the environment to reverse the bias does not strike me as producing decidely inferior quality of offspring in the aggregate. It would only make the whoring women of today displeased. I'm only making an argument that makes intuitive sense to me.

Stereotypes tend to be true, and while chad looks better in the face, and has a decent build, he tends to be unintelligent. Are there unicorns, yes, some chads are 150 IQ MD's that read philosophy when they aren't making physics discoveries in their home lab on weekends, but that is decidedly rare. You take Meiers Briggs, any number of personality schematyping systems, and you find a diversity of functional types. I believe firmly that it takes a well rounded body of humans to create functioning society, and different types of people exist for a reason. I believe that having the health necessary to harness testosterone's effects on your skin, and bones in an ideal manner, and having aesthtically pleasing facial features are not the singular set of characteristics necessary for optimizing human survival. Yes chad looks way better, and so does stacy, yes physically pretty people are better to look at, but I believe that the idea of overall genetic superiority as a hallmark of being pretty is halo effect turning half baked hypothesies by evolution proponents into socially endorsed dogma.

Chad, and stacy have superior genetics in terms of beauty, but I would like to see something other than assumptions being argued for as the cause behind the hypergamous behavior witnessed today. Basically reasonable argument for a mechanism that makes sense beyond pretty people being wanted, and whoring is driven by natural selection, (Which, and this is the questionable part, "is a biologically ingrained evolutionairy process that moves a species forward").

 

[78980n]

I agree with you, "It's just the way women are bro", that's true, but it's not good for humanity if we just let hypergamy go wild

 

[EyesAreSoCold]

So chad only does stacy. Then if he has open slots he does becky. Then if he is lying naked in bed in his own vomit, and diarreah, other women scurry in for their shot at chad. Pretending every sexual union results in pregnancy as female quality degrades, chad genetics get diluted, producing average, mediocre, and weak offspring. Explain how this is superior to looksmatching, and how this process played out over decades leads to overall higher genetics?

If there are as many stacies as there are chads you can assume that he impregnates a lot more women than just those top tier ones. So those genes responsible for what women finds attractive should slowly improve each generation if only the top man reproduces right?

I know that women who might have had a truecel brother and thus very bad genes would still reproduce but it's still "better" that she does it with the chad and not with a uglier man.

But I'd say it's a very based proposition that hypergamy is a social construct, it brings further discredit to feminism but I don't think it's completely true. I think there already exists a tendency of hypergamy in females and that feminism fuels that fire.

 

[Evildоer]

What is the evolutionairy argument for hypergamy again?

There's none if you won't use appeal to nature which is obviously wrong

 

[RollD20]

Quantifiable evidence, and a hypothesis attatched to it is not necessarily science. Evidence of what?

Fair enough in that case how do cement your own argument? You are saying evidence of something reoccurring doesn't matter, sure. But how will you debunk this? With anecdotal evidence? You cannot just claim something without some reasoning behind it.
Where is the evidence that females only choose the best looking males because society has constructed it this way?

On one side we can observe that females prefer better looking males compared to worse looking ones in our society and this is also representative in the animal kingdom. Why do male birds tend to be more colorful and have attributes in their appearance, in that case. Or are you arguing animals too are following a social construct?

Again I do not see how you can say hyper gamy is a just a social construct. When there is enough evidence to say we all base assumptions on physical attractiveness, especially when it comes to looking for a mate.

 

[KaizenYagi]

Fair enough in that case how do cement your own argument? You are saying evidence of something reoccurring doesn't matter, sure. But how will you debunk this? With anecdotal evidence? You cannot just claim something without some reasoning behind it.
Where is the evidence that females only choose the best looking males because society has constructed it this way?

On one side we can observe that females prefer better looking males compared to worse looking ones in our society and this is also representative in the animal kingdom. Why do male birds tend to be more colorful and have attributes in their appearance, in that case. Or are you arguing animals too are following a social construct?

Again I do not see how you can say hyper gamy is a just a social construct. When there is enough evidence to say we all base assumptions on physical attractiveness, especially when it comes to looking for a mate.

I love pretty women. All men do. I prefer pretty women independent of my ability to get them. There is little difference between men liking pretty women, and women liking pretty men. So why does women liking pretty men mean that there is an evolutionairy reason for it?

The animal studies you refer to cannot be the exclusive template for human behavior. Pro evolution scientists will take peacock behavior, and project it onto human behavior under the inference that it is driven by the same mechanism. It is like the Alpha male thing being put out by a scientist who studied wolves in a book that sold a lot, and then later saying, "I was totally wrong." That didn't stop people from taking incorrect theories of wolf behavior, and then doing the red pill pua thing to create the alpha male super dude. Chad is a better encapsulation of what is going on than "Alpha Male". Just ROFL at guys thinking they can say they are Alpha, and copy dominant or high value male behavior to trick women, and it just being so. Animal studies may fit the shape of how science is conducted, but they are animal studies not human studies, and they can be wrong, and they can be used with an agenda in mind. In this case pro evolution, and pro female hypergamy being driven by the unseen hand of species improvement.

Part of my saying hypergamy is a social construct is sarcasm in part due to the trannyfluid BQGTL movement's assertion that gender is a social construct, and homosexuality is biologically rooted. It is beyond farcical. However it fits in the context of what I'm saying. Promoting hedonism, sexual liberation, giving women preferential access to the job market, and positions of prominence in society through political pressure, supporting single mothers with welfare, destigmatizing wedlock, fornication, adultery, divorce, promoting divorce rape, feminism, body acceptance, and adding adultery hookup sites, tinder, social media to the mix when smart phones proliferate, this is a convergence of mostly social factors, and enabling technologies that allow women to get only pretty men, and come to expect it with profound entitlement, and zero shame for their valuation of looks over everything else, and the extensive whoring they engage in. That behavior is encouraged by a modern environment that is socially constructed 100%.

If there are as many stacies as there are chads you can assume that he impregnates a lot more women than just those top tier ones. So those genes responsible for what women finds attractive should slowly improve each generation if only the top man reproduces right?

I know that women who might have had a truecel brother and thus very bad genes would still reproduce but it's still "better" that she does it with the chad and not with a uglier man.

But I'd say it's a very based proposition that hypergamy is a social construct, it brings further discredit to feminism but I don't think it's completely true. I think there already exists a tendency of hypergamy in females and that feminism fuels that fire.

Lets say chad impregnates women who are less pretty than stacy. Lots of them. They are carriers for dysgenic, ugly traits. The quality of offspring is brought down by the inferior women. If chad is top 20% he can only spread his seed to so many women. Would the effect of an equivalent amount of lower tier men (To the lower tier women chad reproduces with in the current scenario) reproducing with the top 20% of women be any different on the population? I'm saying no. Because a person is a female who resides in the 60th percentile genetically does not mean that her genetics are qualitatively better than the genetics of a male residing in the 60th percentile. Today all it means is society has distorted SMV to favor women ridiculously, like tulip bulbs during the Dutch Mania. An 80th percentile man is the same as an 80th percentile woman genetically. Both can contribute good or bad in equal measure. Female hypergamy is society allowing women to get by with far too much, and "Evolutionairy arguments" that make sense thus far have not been presented at least to my satisfaction, beyond lame attempts by sociologists or evolutionairy biologists to cut, and paste the results of bonobo studies or whatever on humans.

There's none if you won't use appeal to nature which is obviously wrong

Right on!

 

[Dionysus]

It would be much more balanced if we were in the wild free to fuck hoes

yes man that would be nice

 

[Deleted member 20056]

You're thinking about "species quality" like it's a straightforward improvement, as though you're getting +5 STR in a videogame or something. It's not like that. Hypergamy developed because it was successful, but the reasons for its success can be completely counter the strength of the species. For example, maybe the Chad apes killed the offspring of the beta apes.

 

[RollD20]

So why does women liking pretty men mean that there is an evolutionairy reason for it?

Better looking mate usually means more "fertile" and healthy. Why do feminine features appeal to us so much? Most likely its because we attribute feminine with "fertile and healthy". You can observe this for yourself, we almost universally dislike fat unhealthy people and regardless of how much the media tries to portray these people as healthy, in our mind we still seem to dislike them based on appearance. This also stays true to people that look old, subconsciously we seem to attribute them as having reached the peak of "fertility" already and are on decline.

Why do we desire pretty females then? For no reason? There has to be a link to the driving force to why we want these attractive mates.

Its not much to assume there is a link between attractive looking people and desirability for a mate. Its not just a mere social construct, throughout most of history before monogamy was instilled, polygamy was pretty rampant with only few males getting to pass on their genes around 40%, compared to females who were always around 75% on passing their genes.

The animal studies you refer to cannot be the exclusive template for human behavior. Pro evolution scientists will take peacock behavior, and project it onto human behavior under the inference that it is driven by the same mechanism. It is like the Alpha male thing being put out by a scientist who studied wolves in a book that sold a lot, and then later saying, "I was totally wrong." That didn't stop people from taking incorrect theories of wolf behavior, and then doing the red pill pua thing to create the alpha male super dude. Chad is a better encapsulation of what is going on than "Alpha Male". Just ROFL at guys thinking they can say they are Alpha, and copy dominant or high value male behavior to trick women, and it just being so. Animal studies may fit the shape of how science is conducted, but they are animal studies not human studies, and they can be wrong, and they can be used with an agenda in mind. In this case pro evolution, and pro female hypergamy being driven by the unseen hand of species improvement.

Modern science hasn't proven every theory fully, but its the closest we got to a foundation. Again I don't see how it discredits evolutionary theory or hyper gamy itself. Humans still follow animal patterns, we still respond much like animals and our decisions reflect this. Every species works towards survival as its main function, trying to deny this is difficult. The stigma of pretty mates being more desirable could be due to those mates having traits that allowed them to survive longer than others thus reproduce more often thus they are more "fertile".

Part of my saying hypergamy is a social construct is sarcasm in part due to the trannyfluid BQGTL movement's assertion that gender is a social construct, and homosexuality is biologically rooted. It is beyond farcical. However it fits in the context of what I'm saying. Promoting hedonism, sexual liberation, giving women preferential access to the job market, and positions of prominence in society through political pressure, supporting single mothers with welfare, destigmatizing wedlock, fornication, adultery, divorce, promoting divorce rape, feminism, body acceptance, and adding adultery hookup sites, tinder, social media to the mix when smart phones proliferate, this is a convergence of mostly social factors, and enabling technologies that allow women to get only pretty men, and come to expect it with profound entitlement, and zero shame for their valuation of looks over everything else, and the extensive whoring they engage in. That behavior is encouraged by a modern environment that is socially constructed 100%.

I don't care about what gays do or trannies do cause, I am not gay and I am not interested in trannies. So to me they can do what they wan't it doesn't concern me.
On your other points yes this may have fast forwarded hyper gamy. But I believe cheaper access to travel and social media itself has attributed more to the cause of hyper gamy more so than any single social construct. Today we live in a society that is ironically more isolated locally and more open broadly in social aspects. Females are able to easily choose from a vast array of desirable mates without social or physical issues guarding or limiting their choice.

 

[KaizenYagi]

You're thinking about "species quality" like it's a straightforward improvement, as though you're getting +5 STR in a videogame or something. It's not like that. Hypergamy developed because it was successful, but the reasons for its success can be completely counter the strength of the species. For example, maybe the Chad apes killed the offspring of the beta apes.

Because it is successful as a strategy for females. Female preferences being given greater weight than those of men is technologically enabled, and socially sanctioned.

 

[Deleted member 20056]

Because it is successful as a strategy for females. Female preferences being given greater weight than those of men is technologically enabled, and socially sanctioned.

While you are correct in this, your initial claim was that there is no evolutionary accounting for hypergamy. This is false, because as I have outlined, even in a world run by Chad opposed to his harem he does not allow betas to reproduce as he does. When they do reproduce, he often murders the offspring.

 

[KaizenYagi]

RollD20

I Agree with the parts above...

"Its not much to assume there is a link between attractive looking people and desirability for a mate."

I agree, but it is not a question of attractive people being more desireable as mates, It is a question of this being lopsided in favor of females because there is no biological argument I am aware of saying male beauty is more valuable than female beauty genetically.

"Its not just a mere social construct, throughout most of history before monogamy was instilled, polygamy was pretty rampant with only few males getting to pass on their genes around 40%, compared to females who were always around 75% on passing their genes."

Isn't that itself proof that who gets to pass on their genetics is a social construct or product of what is acceptable or practical to maintain given any set of historical environmental circumstances? What if a modern hitler conquered the world, and could be the exclusive reproducing male, while sending others to gas chambers. Would that make an argument for him being genetically superior?

"Modern science hasn't proven every theory fully, but its the closest we got to a foundation. Again I don't see how it discredits evolutionary theory or hyper gamy itself. Humans still follow animal patterns, we still respond much like animals and our decisions reflect this."

Bonobos, sea horses, swans, giraffes, rats, don't have enough in common behaviorally to suggest that they have enough in commonn with us for random animal studies to be considered legitimate arbiters of human behavioral norms. This doesn't discredit evolution or hypergamy in, and of itself anymore than it supports it.

"Every species works towards survival as its main function, trying to deny this is difficult."

It is undeniable, but the question is how much of it conscious, and how much is autonomous. The component which is unseen doesn't by virtue of being opaque suggest an automatic link to some evolutionairy drive towards betterment.

"...pretty mates being more desirable could be due to those mates having traits that allowed them to survive longer than others thus reproduce more often thus they are more "fertile"."

That is a really interesting concept in the same vein that average or more common features are percieved as being more attractive than uncommon ones. It is like mere familiarity effect over a lifetime creating more mating opportunities, and the display of more commonality being a feedback loop to this. So in a way women are going to the big patriarch of their genetic tribe to get some more of the tribe. Of course this can also be said of men in what they seek from women.

"I don't care about what gays do or trannies do cause, I am not gay and I am not interested in trannies. So to me they can do what they wan't it doesn't concern me."

I don't care for the non viable arguments they put forth to justify their behavior. I feel like we live in an Orwell world, and reality is doublespeak to where these people advance the most obviously false arguments. So it just made me feel better to coopt their pet phrase.

"On your other points yes this may have fast forwarded hyper gamy. But I believe cheaper access to travel and social media itself has attributed more to the cause of hyper gamy more so than any single social construct. Today we live in a society that is ironically more isolated locally and more open broadly in social aspects. Females are able to easily choose from a vast array of desirable mates without social or physical issues guarding or limiting their choice."

I agree with this with the caveat that the moral climate is exceedingly permissive, and without this first existing the technology wouldn't enable whoring as much. Also you use the word mates. How about we replace this with sex partner, because the objective is not to mate, so much as get one's rocks off.

As a final response I would say nothing we discussed above points to a reason why female hypergamy is more valuable to the human species than male hypergamy.

While you are correct in this, your initial claim was that there is no evolutionary accounting for hypergamy. This is false, because as I have outlined, even in a world run by Chad opposed to his harem he does not allow betas to reproduce as he does. When they do reproduce, he often murders the offspring.

Then I need to clarify what the concept of evolution is in this context, as I percieve it. It is a natural, genetically ingrained drive (Man, I wanna hit dat, burning in the loins) which would operate without the need for conscious decision making (Like, I should marry an amazon so I don't produce manlets) which has a species improving or sustaining purpose to it. I wouldn't consider a beta or incel uprising to kill all chads a good thing for the species even if it evolves the characteristics of the species into something it currently is not.

 

[RollD20]

How about we replace this with sex partner, because the objective is not to mate, so much as get one's rocks off.

I prefer the word "mate" cause it makes me feel like I am talking about some inferior species.

As a final response I would say nothing we discussed above points to a reason why female hypergamy is more valuable to the human species than male hypergamy

I was never trying to argue about which version of hyper gamy is better, only that hyper gamy exists not just as a social construct but built in somewhere in the animal psyche of human brains. The only reason hyper gamy leans towards females most of the time is because they hold the "keys" to reproduction basically.

 

[KaizenYagi]

I prefer the word "mate" cause it makes me feel like I am talking about some inferior species.


I was never trying to argue about which version of hyper gamy is better, only that hyper gamy exists not just as a social construct but built in somewhere in the animal psyche of human brains. The only reason hyper gamy leans towards females most of the time is because they hold the "keys" to reproduction basically.

I agree with most of what you say, and enjoyed the convo. I love friendly, engaging arguments, and I appreciate your dialogue.

We need to take the keys back bros.

 

[littlemanhikicel]

High IQ. Society is guilty of how actual women are. Theres no limits and no punishment of foids behavior. If the patriarchy comes back , incels can impregnate foids. And the hypergamy would be more economical like in the past. So it seems that foids after all are not too much in the "supreme genes" to carry or spread. See the abortion rates, the majority of those fetus must been from chads and tyrones.

 

[Deleted member 20056]

High IQ. Society is guilty of how actual women are. Theres no limits and no punishment of foids behavior. If the patriarchy comes back , incels can impregnate foids. And the hypergamy would be more economical like in the past. So it seems that foids after all are not too much in the "supreme genes" to carry or spread. See the abortion rates, the majority of those fetus must been from chads and tyrones.

What is evolutionarily ingrained in us does not merely date back to medieval times when marriage was a formal contract. When you say "in the past" you mean "less than 1% of the past." Society is guilty for unleashing women's true nature to sicken we modern people with social and spiritual plague, but the aforementiuoned true nature of woman dates back to when man left the sea and began walking on two feet. It is not socially constructed, but socially enabled.

 

[littlemanhikicel]

What is evolutionarily ingrained in us does not merely date back to medieval times when marriage was a formal contract. When you say "in the past" you mean "less than 1% of the past." Society is guilty for unleashing women's true nature to sicken we modern people with social and spiritual plague, but the aforementiuoned true nature of woman dates back to when man left the sea and began walking on two feet. It is not socially constructed, but socially enabled.

Ok women are like that by nature , but actually they are like walking gods as we usually speak, that's for society and cucks specially, but women push that agenda and no man oppose that.
But OP was refering to the idea that the genetics are wasting between chads and shitty foids so theres no diference if the patriarcy comes back due the shitty future gen that the west is coming to get , even if chad impregnates all foids , theres more shitty foids material than good.