Feed on

Responding to Triflewoman (infamous cross-platform, multiblog denier of sexual market realities), LOTB commenter “map” channels many CH themes and unloads one of the best short primers I’ve read that echoed my collected writings on the functioning of the modern sexual market.

There is no such thing as male hypergamy. Female hypergamy, though, is quite real. It was enabled by the sexual revolution, which divided the relationship market into the market for marriage and the market for sex. In the sexual market, women trade up…the result is that, at every level of attractiveness, there is a shortage of women. This shortage is generated by the belief that every woman who is a 5 can do better than a man who is a 5. And this is true…a woman who is a 5 can sleep with a man who is a 6,7, or 8. This happens due to the shortage of women in these categories as well, created by the female hypergamy of their corresponding women.

The problem with this is simple and dire: women confuse the market for sex with the market for marriage. The woman who is a 5 thinks that if she sleeps with a man who is a 6, 7 or 8, that she, too, is a 6, 7 or 8. The reality is she is not, so she will not be able to convert her easy sex life into a marriage with the men to which she is genuinely attracted. She, instead, will continually be pumped and dumped until she ages past her peak years of attractiveness and can no longer pull the attention of the men she genuinely loves, usually at around age 30. The vast majority of women have gambled away their 20’s on this very high risk strategy in hopes of finally getting a marriage with a high value man.

Traditional, monogamous marriage and morality short-circuited this problem. While biological hypergamy still existed, men did not date or marry beneath them and sex outside of wedlock was frowned upon, so there were few opportunities for women to carry on open affairs with lots of out-of-league men. Marrying young and having children young also sucked out their narcissism and they focused inward on their families instead of competing with other women. The system worked…which is why the Cultural Marxists did everything they could to attack it.

Unmarried women riding the carousel until they age past their peak years of attractiveness are some of the worst human beings you will ever meet. Their personalities harden because they need to filter out the men that they previously rejected, who are now the only men that will actually talk to them. To marry one of these shrews is a guaranteed divorce. These women should never be rewarded with marriage.

Why do we focus on television? Because television is how the people who run the country, the ruling class, communicate with the masses. It is nothing but propaganda, where what you watch is exactly the kind of world the elite want you to believe can be created. So, 50 Shades of Grey is about a billionaire who loves a woman who looks like a housekeeper. Sex and the City has 40 year old women sleeping with baseball players and marrying investment bankers. Big Little Lies has a woman marrying a beta-male provider while pining for her alpha male ex. See, woman? You, too, can have a life like this.

The reality is different. Billionaire alpha males marry models, like Donald Trump did. Most women will end up as crazy cat ladies after 13 years of riding the carousel. Look at Ashley Judd. Why is she so angry? Because her husband, a former race car driver, dumped her ass, married a far younger and hotter woman, and they just had their first kid. She knows there are no race car drivers or kids in her future, so we get to watch her act out that realization in public by demanding other women make the same mistakes she did. And she is a very successful and beautiful woman, who did not lock down her options when she had the chance. Imagine the results for the less gifted. It’s a society of Meg Griffins.

Cultural Marxism is about engineering this decline, by triggering female hypergamy and letting it run wild. Once that reproductive and youthful window closes, you will have this army of women permanently, because they have no choice but to be committed to this course of action, just to avoid the despair of their own circumstances. This even operates internationally, where NGO’s try to “educate” women in various third-world countries, like Nigeria. Boko Haram was created to fight this.

Whiskey and others [ed: that would be me, the original realtalker] make the claim that women are far more valuable than men and that is how all of this is enabled. They are partly correct. Women, in their prime youthful and child-bearing years, are more valuable than men, but that quickly inverts once women lose those years. The women who have missed those windows really have no idea the living hell that is coming for them in the decades to come. Childless, unattractive women, with bitter personalities, causing problems in a resource poor and declining civilization, will get burned at the stake, like the witches of Salem. Count on it.

The kinds of people that stubbornly deny these blatant truths about the sexes and the shared mating market which they inhabit, and worse invert the truth into a distorted funhouse mirror image lie that plays to their fantasy of how they wish the sexual market worked, typically fall into two camps:

  1. ugly women
  2. flawed women

Ugly women have every incentive to deny fundamental truths about SMV. They can’t fix their ugliness in the way men can improve their lots in life, so for them lying and wallowing in vapid platitudes is better than existential hopelessness. You can throw fat women and childless post-Wall women into this mix, too.

Flawed women — for example, the aging ex-stripper who’s still sexy enough for a night but would give men pause when she began demanding more commitment than that — aren’t at risk of existential hopelessness….yet….but they loathe any incursion of sexual market reality and any messengers bringing news of that baleful incursion because they prefer to maintain the illusion that their marital market worth is the equal of their sexual market worth.

So I deduce that Triflewoman is either an ugly woman or a skank approaching the Wall.

(A third category — envious, spiteful beta males bitterly hitched to fat sow wives — are also particularly prone to resentful denials of sexual market realities; the truth in their case is a depressing reminder of both their low romantic rank and their politely suppressed desire for something better. If Triflewoman is a Trifleman, he would fall in with this group of misfits. John Scalzi is a case study.)

As to map’s comment, there isn’t much with which I’d quibble. He (likely not a she) pretty much nailed the essential difference between the sexes (chicks dig power, men dig beauty, eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap, men are expendable, women are perishable) and the nature of the modern sexual market in relation to mating behavior and marriage. He makes a good point about postmodern society severing the ancient link between the sexual market and the marriage/monogamy/parenthood market, and an even better point about children focusing women’s attention and preventing female solipsism spirals (and leftist activism predicated on megadoses of feelz; one of the reasons why divorced and single Boomer hags with no or few kids are so obstreperously anti-Trump).

Consequently, we observe that an isolated and transactional sexual market — greased by urban anonymity and social media — prolongs the time and energy women spend on the cock carousel (or languishing in “I REFUSE TO SETTLE” insol hell). We similarly observe that prolonged childlessness is a female narcissism accelerant, and simultaneously jacks up women’s standards and carves away at their likeability and femininity (aka chasteness), resulting in a snatch-22 that reduces their chance of finding love at precisely the moment they think the most highly of themselves and place the greatest demands on potential mates.

It’s an open question whether our Masturbators of the Universe intentionally or accidentally unleashed forces (abortion, condoms, the Pill, penicillin, poz, female economic self-sufficiency aka the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse) that would sever at every level sex from marriage and children, and thus lead to the low fertility of the West and the poisoning of relationships that naturally percolates when women are surrounded by weak, deferential men and men are left with the prospect of marrying road-worn sluts who secretly still pine for the dazzling cads of their nightclub bathroom passion play memories, but it’s indisputable that the oligarchs and Bezosians and open border 1%ers prefer a deracinated, dehumanized world bazaar with women freed from the constraints of early marriage and motherhood to consume, capitulate, and clog the globohomo capitalist self-negate machine as happy little office cogs.

In my opinion, the current situation is unsustainable. Something’s gotta give. In a near-future post, I will explain how our postmodern sexual market dovetails with evidence that the West is careening toward idiocracy.


Comments are closed.