Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Female hypergamy and suffering
One of the themes of modern discourse on sexuality is that whereas men can easily become attracted to most women, women tend to be attracted only to a small subset of men - those having influence over other people, particularly over other men. Indeed, in an old topic I was recently reading, there appear to have been some women, and indeed even a few men, state the merits and disadvantages of polyamory between one man and several women (link). Surprisingly, this thread did not bring up one issue: that when two women take the same "dominant" man, one other man somewhere in the world is going to have a very lonely existence. It compelled me to write this post, because it's probably not obvious how, on a societal level, female hypergamy causes a lot of strife and inequality.
The nature of hypergamy can be seen from the following scenario: in the wild, does will be more attracted to a deer if there are other does around him, showing that he is dominant. Additionally, if another deer arrives and beats up the dominant deer, all the does will flock to him, leaving the once-dominant deer in the dirt. Female sexuality in humans, as it has been noted, follows the same trend: women tend to "marry up", prefer to marry men with high prestige, initiate the vast majority of break-ups and "no-fault" divorces, particularly amidst men of lower income, and tend to divorce once-working house-husbands for the reason of having "lost respect" for them, as the submissive position of doing housework makes these men sexually unattractive.
This poses some serious and very inconvenient questions about the nature of female sexuality. It implies that a man's attractiveness is subject to his relative influence compared to other men in the eyes of the woman. Female hypergamy is therefore a pyramid scheme: to gain a woman's attraction, you must become one of the most influential men in her dating pool. This is one of the things that leads men to seek influence, creating hierarchies and all the suffering that comes with them. Women are attracted to rich men, therefore many men jockey for leadership and the corporate culture thrives, widening the gap between rich and poor. As dominance is desirable among women, men have fewer qualms about putting themselves before other men, and thus the vast majority of homeless people are male. As relative prestige drives the female sex drive, women would not favour a world of perfect equality between men unless they were prepared to have bad sex.
As a secondary consequence, this makes most men suffer a great deal of rejection over their lives, as clearly, not all can be the most influential in a woman's dating pool. In the presence of polygamy or a libertarian society, it is inevitable that some men (often the poorest and most destitute) will be involuntarily celibate for the most part throughout their lives, causing much frustration in their youths, particularly if they attribute their difficulties to some personal failing rather than hypergamy. The sheer extent of this frustration is difficult for most people to comprehend. Having low income, high anger and no families to spend their time on, they may turn to crime, only to be imprisoned and face further suffering as a consequency. I would argue that one can partly explain the high number of monks relative to nuns in Buddhist countries by seeing monasteries an honorable, crime-free outlet for physically unattractive men of low status.
I will also note that a man's attractiveness (i.e. a woman's sexual attraction) will, as stated above, rise and fade based on the man's prestige. Thus, a woman's love, if based on sexuality, is not, by nature, durable, and tends to disappear when the man suffers a permanent fall or does not rise up to expected standards of prestige. This is one of the reasons why marriages fail so often: the woman leaves seeking another man with more prestige after her sexual attraction had faded. A divorced man is ten times as likely to commit suicide as a regular man (though this is arguably also because the divorce industry bleeds him dry).
These are some of the ways in which female hypergamy creates suffering. In our society, in which women's "sexual liberation" is praised, these concepts are often taboo. Indeed, I would argue that the high divorce rate as well as the growing dissatisfaction of young men with women in the western world is a consequence of the failure to properly address and correct hypergamy. I was therefore disappointed to see people regard polyamory and other forms of hypergamy as merely relationships within a small group of people, when they can in fact create widespread suffering outside this group when they become the norm in a society.
I am curious about how people here regard hypergamy, particularly those young enough (of 15-30 years) to have seen its more dramatic effects in western society. I think it's one of the issues that most people don't conceive of talking about - the elephant in the room, so to speak.
The nature of hypergamy can be seen from the following scenario: in the wild, does will be more attracted to a deer if there are other does around him, showing that he is dominant. Additionally, if another deer arrives and beats up the dominant deer, all the does will flock to him, leaving the once-dominant deer in the dirt. Female sexuality in humans, as it has been noted, follows the same trend: women tend to "marry up", prefer to marry men with high prestige, initiate the vast majority of break-ups and "no-fault" divorces, particularly amidst men of lower income, and tend to divorce once-working house-husbands for the reason of having "lost respect" for them, as the submissive position of doing housework makes these men sexually unattractive.
This poses some serious and very inconvenient questions about the nature of female sexuality. It implies that a man's attractiveness is subject to his relative influence compared to other men in the eyes of the woman. Female hypergamy is therefore a pyramid scheme: to gain a woman's attraction, you must become one of the most influential men in her dating pool. This is one of the things that leads men to seek influence, creating hierarchies and all the suffering that comes with them. Women are attracted to rich men, therefore many men jockey for leadership and the corporate culture thrives, widening the gap between rich and poor. As dominance is desirable among women, men have fewer qualms about putting themselves before other men, and thus the vast majority of homeless people are male. As relative prestige drives the female sex drive, women would not favour a world of perfect equality between men unless they were prepared to have bad sex.
As a secondary consequence, this makes most men suffer a great deal of rejection over their lives, as clearly, not all can be the most influential in a woman's dating pool. In the presence of polygamy or a libertarian society, it is inevitable that some men (often the poorest and most destitute) will be involuntarily celibate for the most part throughout their lives, causing much frustration in their youths, particularly if they attribute their difficulties to some personal failing rather than hypergamy. The sheer extent of this frustration is difficult for most people to comprehend. Having low income, high anger and no families to spend their time on, they may turn to crime, only to be imprisoned and face further suffering as a consequency. I would argue that one can partly explain the high number of monks relative to nuns in Buddhist countries by seeing monasteries an honorable, crime-free outlet for physically unattractive men of low status.
I will also note that a man's attractiveness (i.e. a woman's sexual attraction) will, as stated above, rise and fade based on the man's prestige. Thus, a woman's love, if based on sexuality, is not, by nature, durable, and tends to disappear when the man suffers a permanent fall or does not rise up to expected standards of prestige. This is one of the reasons why marriages fail so often: the woman leaves seeking another man with more prestige after her sexual attraction had faded. A divorced man is ten times as likely to commit suicide as a regular man (though this is arguably also because the divorce industry bleeds him dry).
These are some of the ways in which female hypergamy creates suffering. In our society, in which women's "sexual liberation" is praised, these concepts are often taboo. Indeed, I would argue that the high divorce rate as well as the growing dissatisfaction of young men with women in the western world is a consequence of the failure to properly address and correct hypergamy. I was therefore disappointed to see people regard polyamory and other forms of hypergamy as merely relationships within a small group of people, when they can in fact create widespread suffering outside this group when they become the norm in a society.
I am curious about how people here regard hypergamy, particularly those young enough (of 15-30 years) to have seen its more dramatic effects in western society. I think it's one of the issues that most people don't conceive of talking about - the elephant in the room, so to speak.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Anvil, I don't know how you arrived at these assumptions or why you choose to see the world in such an incredibly limited, simplistic, misogynistic, and skewed way but you're so way off base and out of touch with reality that it boggles the mind.
I'm not going to refute your arguments point by point because I've been there and done that too many times in the past and it leads nowhere. All I will say is that Buddhism teachers us that our suffering comes from within, as does our happiness.
But when you think about it logically, we as human beings cannot be expected on the base animalistic level to be any different to our fellow beings in the animal kingdom. What attracts a female deer to a male is what is likely to attract a female human to a male.
Can't ignore the scientific evidence unfortunately... I'm not only an engineer, but a virgo as well! Lol.
You're right, my girlfriend's just like a deer! Maybe I should tell her about all of this because she must not have gotten the memo from nature that she's supposed to be attracted to a much more successful guy than me. Not only am I not "dominant," but she makes twice as much as I do! ¡Ay, caramba!
It might be best if I just leave the worldly life behind now and go live in a monastery before I end up turning to a life of crime because of my relatively low income and social status.
Men fall in love with women they are attracted to ...
Woman are attracted to men they fall in love with.
Yes
Right, us women pick out our boyfriends by sniffing their butt glands and such, and are attracted to the man with the prettiest and brightest butt-feathers. And just like the wild animals, we seek out a man with lots of money in his bank account... just like wild animals do. On behalf of all women: thank you, we are just flattered. Every woman who just read yours and anvilsmith's posts have now, rest assured, checked you off their potential butt-sniffing lists.
And men, too, all totally follow the patterns of animals in the wild when choosing their mates. That's why anorexic, infertile women with fake boobs that can't produce milk anymore and look like blow-up plastic sex dolls are "what's hot" these days.
Attraction is greatly varied, for both men and women. Likewise, love is greatly varied, and love tends to affect attraction.
$100 bucks says the men posting such beliefs are the ones who never get laid. Now, instead of making such ridiculous posts to try to explain why it is you never get laid, consider that the very attitude towards women you present in your posts, in which you reduce them all to nothing more than animals rather than seeing them as unique individuals who are all driven by different things, might have something to do with it.
No. Wayz. :buck: (someone owes me $100)
Thank you, I cannot agree more.
To the OP: Looking at females through such a narrow view is doing us (and yourself) a great disservice. When it comes to partners, most of the women I know (myself included) are looking for, first and foremost, a great heart and mind.
And for the record, I do have a stable (17 years married) and happy relationship with a woman that has 2 university degrees and earns (slightly) more than me. So, whilst the research may show something to the contrary, I accept that not all relationships follow the majority pattern and I would be a hypocrite to claim otherwise since mine is clearly not.
With respectful metta,
Vangelis
The Buddha advised there are seven kinds of wives, namely, like a murderer, like a thief, like a tyrrant, like a mother, like a sister, like a friend and like a slave.
:smilec:
Why? Did this transaction involve sex?
Oh snap! Damn you.
Nah, is a virgo, not was. The $100 is for me calling it. Get yer mind outta the gutter. >:\
Seriously though, while we are animals when you get down to it, this is taking it a little far and completely reducing [only] women to animals. There's certainly no factual evidence to back up what the OP said, and in all honesty sounds like the conclusions only a person who's been unsuccesful in relationships would come to. It sounds like a bizarre way to blame women-deer for the entire mass of suffering.
Not much more I want to say really -other than these have never been my own criteria for a partner.
_/\_
That's great, Vangelis. I'm glad to hear it. Just make sure to keep an eye on her when she's ovulating.
Not really (for me, personally). I just think the discussion is hilariously extreme and absurd and I'm a rather blunt person. Obviously both men and women have basic animalistic/biological instincts, but if someone really thinks that all women are as described by the OP, then
Basically, the OP seems to be talking about his own suffering, and is trying to explain it and lay blame externally. You, though... you just happened to post a shorter (and less extreme) version and used the word "virgo," so I quoted you instead.
I hope my comment didn't offend you.
First of all, the authors of the paper did research on the reaction of females in stable relationships to the smell of socially dominant males, and discovered that women were most attracted to the smell when they were ovulating. From the brief summary available to the public, that's all we know.
Someone, either the authors or the editor at Nature, concluded that this meant that women were more likely to cheat with socially dominant males while they were ovulating. As near as we can tell, this is someone's personal assumption, not a result of the research. It may be a reasonable assumption, but it's an unproven assumption and it's not scientific. No evidence has been offered on the degree to which women cheat while ovulating, or who they cheat with.
The authors are claiming to have isolated a scent produced only by socially dominant males. This is an interesting claim. Given the different ways in which a male can become socially dominant, I'd like to see the evidence that shows that all the different ways of becoming socially dominant result in males producing the same "social dominance" scent. I suspect that they are using the scent of males who have a high level of one or more hormones that have a statistical correlation with social dominance, and therefore it is the scent of men who _may_ be socially dominant, but aren't necessarily socially dominant. But the summary doesn't tell us, so we don't know what the scent actually is.
But for the sake of argument, let's grant all the unproven assumptions. Let's assume that over the millions of years that mammals and primates were evolving, our ancestral mothers evolved an attraction to the scent of socially dominant males. In that case, it would be a simple matter for non-dominant males to evolve the ability to mimic the scent, thus spreading their DNA among ovulating, cheating females. And this reproductive advantage would result in all modern human males producing the "social dominance" scent. This would make all ovulating females attracted to all males. So it's a miracle that ovulating females don't just grab men off the streets and ravish them.
There's no question that women respond differently to the scent of different men. Exactly how that affects their behavior is not entirely clear. It's always possible to take a few studies, misinterpret them, ignore the vast number of studies that offer complicating evidence, and draw a simplistic conclusion that confirms one's own biases.
Edit: The previous sentence was intended to be a description of a universal tendency that we all should beware of. I'm not trying to point out the flaws of a specific person.
Just had to ask the obvious: Why are the psychological factors of attraction wholly missing from the OP?
I like the way Mundus put it:
I have no tolerance whatsoever for the type of misogyny that anvilsmith presents in his original post. None. I find it disgusting to blame women for the kind of widespread suffering he describes. His argument would be pathetic if we did not live under a white, male dominated, power structure.
Anvil,
You are the author of your own suffering. Take that truth like a man instead of heaping blame where it least belongs.
I hope you don't mind, I'm new here, I haven't even been to the introduction page yet but I found this topic so compelling I couldn't help myself. My long time online Sangha seems to have disappeared into some technological graveyard:(
Anyway.... I just got out of the relationship that Anvil is describing. I noticed specific attachments she had toward others' opinion of her, even people of little consequence. When she met me, she had a perception that I had a certain social standing, the leader of the pack, so to speak. After a few months of being together I decided it was time to make some changes, mostly professional that led to her no longer having that idea of me. Her treatment of me changed drastically. That said, I was already aware of this being a strong characteristic of hers and during the time we were together was able to pinpoint the exact opposite behavior in her female peers. Which is to say that not all of the girls her age and similar background acted the same way. Men also take part in this behavior, by wanting a female that is desirable to other men, we just have different delusions. For either sex it is simply a way the ego takes over and dramatizes what would otherwise be a very uncomplicated experience.
Additionally, pointing out how various delusions manifest themselves is only helpful to the point where we can gain perspective on our own behavior, not consider that of others.
Hs
People aren't ruthless enough when they date. As soon as you get a sense of some kind of narcissism, it's time for a careful talk about values, and if your partner's truly narcissistic, end the relationship. Life's too short for that kind of nonsense.
Welcome to the forum.
A look at the literature shows that the concept of hypergamy is hardly an extreme viewpoint - indeed, it is a proven reality. I can provide evidence to those with a genuine interest, f.ex. one study showed a number of undergraduate women strongly preferring to date and marry men who were wealthy and of high status (these were self-reports) while being indifferent to traits such as kindness and emotional stability.
I am grateful to Vangelis for his link, though I was already familiar with the article.
Some of the other replies do not account for the fact that psychology, and indeed rational thought, builds on top of "biology". For instance, tall babies experience fewer attacks from other babies. This can have implications later in life.
As a fledging MRA, I have seen many similar, very aggressive responses when discussing f.ex. fathers' rights and domestic violence. I can only say that those of you who wrote such responses should consider whether insults are truly preferable to honest discourse. Bringing up the role of male aggression in society (and there is evidence for that as well) would undoubtedly not have produced such a storm of criticism and accusations, perhaps because it is more socially acceptable to talk about.
RenGalskap, males can suppress their own shows of dominance because these attract agression on the part of other males (e.g. the dominant male). To constantly produce a scent that attracts females is therefore a great risk. Nonetheless, I don't think this particular article makes a difference, as humans as a species have poor olfaction.
Yes, everyone here was totally wielding pitchforks.
Your opinion IS extreme and irrational. For example:
How much thought was put into this statement? That one statement is filled with so many irrational assumptions, it's hard to know where to start. But let me try:
1. There are not an equal number of men and women in the world
2. Your statement assumes that all people are heterosexuals
3. Your statement assumes that all men feel they need a partner to be content
4. You are externalizing dukkha
That's not even mentioning the fact that I, and apparently the other women posting here, are examples that do not agree with your assertions. Even other men here have disagreed based on their experiences.
No doubt, some women are like this. Some men are, too (you forgot this part). In the end, the suffering is your own, as Buddhism teaches us.
What stifling? Your Thread is wide open for discussion still.
:eek2:
Who actually does this sort of research?
Cure for cancer? sea pollution report? NO.. aggressive baby study.
sorry friend, Wrong science.
We're censoring him by making him feel bad.
You make very good points on 1 and 3 (to my knowledge, 2 is not relevant as the number of male and female homosexuals are about even, but perhaps I'm wrong about this). However, I was talking about the potential for a cultural trend for polyamory here, rather than a few isolated cases.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the women on this forum (including Brigid, who, to my understanding, is celibate) have been using ad hominem attacks in their replies. I will post a discussion about this in another thread.
Personally, I doubt that any of these studies are able to address the full range of underlying causes, mainly because the people involved are often reluctant to talk about them or simply unable to prove them in court.
Start by citing sources for your claims. Firstly, show that low-income families have a higher divorce rate, but make sure your source takes into consideration that there are a hell of a lot more low-income families and most families are struggling right now, anyway.
Secondly, show that all or the majority of these no-fault divorce cases were instigated by the woman.
Third, show that all or the majority of these cases began with a woman marrying a man making lotsa moolah, and ended when he lost his job, got demoted, whatever.
Fourth, show evidence that the true reason for the divorce was a result of the woman not being attracted to her husband anymore because he wasn't swimming in money any longer, rather than mutual stress and conflict that manifests in many places and many ways as a result of having to struggle every day just to get by. Also, no-fault divorce doesn't mean that the true reason isn't one that is covered by fault-divorce, it just means that a party isn't able to prove it in court.....
Fifth: good luck.
The problem is not that anyone disagrees with the science, neccesarily, but that the conclusions drawn from the data are absurd and biased. So we cannot really argue the data, we can only point out that you should maybe reexamine the conclusions you drew from it.
See, we are interested in the science.
This would be another example. If you're interested in "science," start by doing actual research, instead of just assuming things.
The chances of it becoming the norm are next to zero. Even if you assertion about "female hypergamy" is true, you are making a huge, irrational jump to polyamory. Most people aren't very fond of it, as I'm sure you're aware. And even IF polyamory became the norm, so what? It's like saying that homosexuals are the cause of suffering, because it throws off the perfectly balanced male-to-female ratio you've imagined, and for every gay couple, there is a heterosexual of the opposite sex who will live a lonely existence. We're back to points 1, 2, and 3.
Oh please, is ad hominem something men are above, too? Seems they're not above building straw men. If you call all women animals and the cause of suffering, it's going to be pointed out to you that you're irrational and should maybe examine yourself rather than lay the blame externally. In fact, this is what the Buddha taught. Not so much ad hom as it is pointing out a fact.
perfect.
Girls a fakin' ... goodness sakin'
They want a man who brings home the bacon
Got no money and you got no car
Then you got no woman and there you are
Some girls are sophistic... materialistic
Looking for a man makes them opportunistic
They're lyin on the beach perpetratin a tan
So that a brother with money can be their man
So on the beach you're strollin'... real high-rollin'
Everything you have is your's and not stolen
A girl runs up with somethin to prove
So don't just stand there, bust a move
This is just a perception on a man's part. It has a grain of truth. Indeed when I was a sucessful graduate student I had more girls interested in me than when I was mentally ill with no income and living with my parents.
In other words a girls (or guys) affection ain't solely altruist. He or she wants something.
Cat Stevens also expressed this in his song Hard Headed Woman (on a different plane).
I will not argue that I know the nature of (all in general) women... But I am recognizing whether it is true or false a feeling that men often have. That women value status or money. A similar feeling among women is that men value them only for sex.
I think it is an exagerated reaction to slap someone with the label 'misogynist' because they feel left out by women. The OP is what he is. And I am what I am. That would be like if a women said "guys are jerks" and I said "you are a misandronist". What I disagree with is the scientific presentation. All the bits and pieces and the whole solidity and sweeping nature of the OPs theory. I suspect that many women value status and money. But I know it is not the only thing they value. Women just want to be happy.
There may be different anecdotes about what different women do. Also each women is different. There is no generalization that is true.
I would refute the OPs pseudoscience accuracy rather than refute him as a misogynist (which is ad hominem). In other words the root cause of the OPs post is not his hatred of women but it is his frustration with his own expectations that he receive more adoration from females.
In other words I am not sure if female hypergamy exists but I am sure that suffering exists
And some men value women only for money or status. And some women value men only for sex. And so on and so forth.
I don't know if the OP is a misogynist, but his post definitely was. Just as the woman who says "men are jerks" may not be misandrist, but her statement definitely is.
So whether or not the OP is misogynistic is irrelevant.
To make a simple case if a schizophrenic says "the sky is blue" and you say he is wrong because he is crazy. The reason that is a logical phallacy is not because it is hurtful to call them crazy. Although that is also true that it is indeed hurtful. The reason it is a logical phallacy is because indeed a crazy person could be correct about the color of the sky. Even a blind person could be correct about the color of the sky in a conventional sense.
Stating a series of facts does not make one a misogynist which is what the OP did. You merely inferred a hostile intent simply due to the subject matter that the poster brought up! Hypergamy is a source of suffering for men... and women who remain captivated by it. Hypergamy is simply an effect that is controlled by women and through this filtering process suffering begins. The more power women have to enter and exit sexual relationships consequence-free the more hypergamy will be expressed. Both men and women suffer from this clash of ego but for different reasons. This was the point the original poster was trying to make. Attacking the very idea that "females breed upwards" is an unsubstantiated platitude shows a fear behind your resistance to discuss. It also shows your narrow-mindedness, presumptuousness and contemptuousness. For instance one could accept that "females breed upwards" is a constant throughout mammalian evolution. But what exactly is "upwards?" Especially with humans, women are constantly changing what they consider qualities that signify attractiveness in a man. Also everyone assumes that when the OP says "women breed upwards" he's talking about the most attractive and desirable women on the planet. The statement applies to old unattractive women as well.
How can bringing this elemental facet of humanity up for discussion be a cause for provocation? It only is unless the detractor, such as in your case, infers what they want to believe about people who speak about the topic. This sort of irrationality makes topics "off-limits" due to the inherent backlash a debater might experience from emotionally driven respondents who harbor anger at certain truisms due to their own maligned interests.
Have you ever asked yourself why you feel the need to KEEP this concept from being discussed? Doing so just shows your insecurity in regards to the topic. It also makes me suspicious that you feel emotionally invested in disguising facts for your own end.
The posters "Brigid" and "Valtiel" are especially emotional and ridiculous in their denouncements of the OP. Going so far as to mock the OP's quaint theorizing as being the tirade of a bitter reject. Brigid and Valtiel are simply exposing themselves as being self-interested in hiding facts, ridiculing posters and shutting down opinion. These ad hominin attacks (a common female tactic by the way) undercut logic, reasoning and turn the post into the dire crises of respect that they so desperately desire.
Why? Probably out of fear that they have displayed the behavior that the hypergamous theory has put forward. But it is the fact that they are afraid to discuss it which shows how much of their ego is invested in protecting a fragile wall of respect. I personally feel no sympathy for their attempts to squash the discussion. Their baseless attacks are just a shield for their insecurities. (This is very, very common with females, but not absolute, where they remain unable to detach themselves from arguments that examine their own status seeking behaviors. Most often they will only accept analysis from fellow women... even if many men came to the same conclusion years prior.) Like a child not wanting to hear their parents tell them that they have seen them take from the cookie jar, these posters are walking around with fingers in their ears and shouting to the sky. (But I don't really blame them, most women were bred to be child-like in demeanor to suit men's preference for neophyte characteristics and hence some carry this ever-present "I'm the center of the universe and you have to love me as I am" narcissism well into adulthood, as displayed - on cue I might add - by the female posters!)
The respondents counterarguments lack logic and flow - like a spoiled child's - and those that defend them are just as guilty. You guys make for some real respectable Buddhists if you can't handle one controversial topic. In fact the idea that you are even clinging to womenhood as some sort of untouchable pearl should be evidence that you are immersed in your ego as much as any random person on the street. You are not enlightened at all. You defend your womanliness as being an essential element you cannot live without, when Buddhism is all about being able to let go of everything, to see everything as transitory, including the essentials.
This is something I can't respect. If the female posters were to use reasoned counterarguments instead of name calling then maybe I could listen to their responses. But for now hypergamy is as the OP stated.
The only problem with the original poster's argument that I see is that he doesn't separate women into attractive and unattractive categories as he does men. Most women are hideous! Even when considering young age ranges like 18-29 only about 33% of the females are worthwhile as girlfriends/mothers. It is this of femininity that is valuable to men for both their reproductive value and their ability to raise self-esteem. Only the attractive are good enough for men to show off to others, so you may say that only attractive women are valuable as a vessel for a man's pride. On dating sites they estimated that 2/3rds of men are pining for 1/3 of the women. That 33% of women are the only ones that can truly stimulate a male's pleasure centers. So this 33% gets to be extraordinarily picky in their choices. This is where we find girls wailing about not finding a guy with just the right personality or just the right looks to start a relationship with. The whole concept of a "relationship" too is just a self-professed lie to keep one sexual partner in her pocket as she scans the battlefield for a more glamorous replacement. Everyone cares about appeasing that 33%, and unfortunately the poor American diet and the influx of women from other cultures who are less attractive than the traditional American is chipping away at that figure. The fact of the matter is that very attractive girls will be fawned over and they are the ones who initiate the battles between men due to their scarcity. The likelihood of a male even acquiring a member of the 33% in his dating lifetime is actually much worse than it even seems on the surface since females naturally attempt to raise the price of sex and leverage their scarcity beyond what they already enjoy! However in the end this is only the luxury of the more attractive girls. Most girls live a crummy life full of half-realized paradoxes as explained below.
The other 66% are only good as cafeteria workers or toxic waste handlers. The odd thing is they often deceive themselves into thinking they are a part of the 33% because of the smattering of attention they get from embittered males looking for a casual hookup. And as we go up the female age range that percentage of attractive females drops precipitously! Now I know that there is some degree of churn, in that some members of the 66% can vault up to the 33% after losing weight, applying makeup etc. But for the most part this is very minute.The reason men tend to only focus on 33% is because they are the ones with features that display the ability to create a healthy baby, unlike overweight women whose high insulin levels can affect the baby's own weight regulation after birth.
The horrible thing about the Western world is that attractive women are able to sell themselves off like ridiculously priced shark fin soup. This is what is leading so many men into bitter lives of grinding celibacy - and this is much, much worse for society than if some dumb girl isn't married. This is simply because angry men revolt with violence if they don't get GOOD sex. Understand there are plenty of females out there who can technically become partners to these men but instinct tells men that if you are female and you do not arouse sexuality then you are either a grandma or invisible. That 33% of females are so valuable to men that they would possibly take down civilization to get at them. This is why it is so dangerous to Western, and soon Asian societies to allow attractive females to raise their price to the point where only a few men get to have them. This society has allowed attractive women to run amok and left unattractive women around that men won't even consider because they spend their lives trying to get the good stuff. It is analogous to food. You can eat cheap corn based food for days, it's sour, drab and watery like cabbage and keeps you going on a practical level but you sure wish you had something better (unattractive women) soon your body is going to crave something more fulfilling and enriching, with vibrant smells and wholesome textures, just knowing you're going to get it makes you feel alive! (attractive women). Men going for years on the dour food, like a human starved of essential vitamins will grow misshapen in their bitterness towards the men who are given the feast of the designer food. These imbalances are what cause men to become poor quality citizens, resentful of their country and unwilling to participate in a nation that gives nothing in return for the risks they take. If men got attractive women once in a while then they would have the emotional security in place to allow them to pluck from the crop of unattractive women without being worried that they couldn't do better.
This is why attractive women need to be rationed. Unlike now where women price themselves like shark fin soup attractive women should be available like Chinese food, where you can walk into any place, pick out the one you like, take it home and it doesn't cost too much to get a new one the next day! Barring this, expect a TNT explosion of pent up jealously from men and unattractive women as hypergamy freezes out larger and larger pools of men from the women they really crave.
...sniff my butt-glands?
You do understand though that the entire concept of 'no fault' divorce is a legal concept, not a "real" one? Lets just be real. Divorces do not happen for no reason, it is just that in some states the arbitrators got so sick of hearing whiny bitching they came up with a means of cutting off the entire procession.
Again, the concept of no fault divorce is due to divorce arbiters getting fed up with having to take the time to listenabout how she didn't iron clothes correctly and he didn't appreciate her originamy sufficiently.
Yeah, so now you know everything there is to know about the poster known here as Brigid. What you don't know is what I know. Brigid is a guy. She is also a ginger. She is also a self hating messianic Jew who killed Jesus. Sorry Brigid, I just couldn't keep this a secret any longer.
anvilsmith, your sir or maam or whatever you are just plain fucktarded.
Being as this is a Buddhist forum, I strongly suggest you read up about Buddhism and the Noble Eightfold Path, then come back when you can speak like an adult. But not until.
Sheesh...