Categories
evil sex-having women men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny reddit slut shaming

New MGTOW theory: “Women can’t respect you for dating them because they know they don’t deserve respect themselves”

“He must be a cuck if he’s dating me”

By David Futrelle

Fellas, is it gay to date a woman?

Signs point to “yes,” at least if the person reading the signs is a MGTOW Redditor called DannyTTT55.

In a recent post on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, he suggests to his fellow men that unless you’re a true alpha male who doesn’t give a shit about the women he has sex with, dating a woman makes you a cuck in her eyes.

Why? Because you’re dating her, and she known she’s just a worthless slut who deserves nothing better than blatant disrespect.

“At least on a subconscious level, these women know they are a dumpster fire of a human being,” Danny writes,

that’s why if you try to date them normally and treat them with respect, they can’t have any respect for you

It’s like the old Groucho Marx thing of not wanting to be in any club that would accept the likes of him as a member. Except that this version of the old joke isn’t funny, and it involves the word “cuck.”

How can they possibly treat you any more than a cuck while you’re sitting across at dinner from them, waiting at least three dates to hold their hand, while in the back of their mind they’re remembering the gang bang they had a couple years back when they were still “having fun”

Like a lot of manospherians, Danny has a vivid imagination when it comes to the sex lives of other people he knows nothing about.

That’s why the only guys they respect are bad boys who treat them like crap, because deep down inside they know they are crap. They need to constantly boost their ego somehow so they aren’t ashamed to be treated like a regular human being, because they know all they deserve anymore is to be pumped and dumped

Huh. No wonder women want guys like this to make good on their promise to Go Their Own Way, far away.

Commenter Chadrith_Thundavisht agreed with Danny, writing that women are

so desensitised to compliments and all that happy horseshit that it probably engenders frustration to the point they actually WANT a piece of shit to treat them like a piece of shit. Look how many douchbags they go out with and you think to yourself “wtf is going on here!? That guy?!”.

I am shocked — shocked! — that straight and bi women are sometimes shallow when it comes to picking out men to date, because clearly no man would ever make that mistake.

The only other explanation for this is the negative animus complex but I bet my left nut most women are sick of the blue-pilled grovelling and seek out fuckwits to date just to break up the monotony and go ‘southy’ for a bit. They know there’ll be plenty of blue fishies in the ocean when they’re about to walk down washout lane.

Speaking of shocks, it’s also quite stunning (not) to see one of these guys citing some half-digested bit of Jungian theory to explain why women are bitches and hos.

A commenter called Evergreen35, meanwhile, reported that his

biggest Red-Pill was realizing how turned off my last girlfriend was when I told her that I loved her.

Ok, but maybe that was because you’re the kind of guy who reads the fucking MGTOW subreddit for advice on women?

When I ignored her and showed less interest, she always came back to me looking for attention. The less you care, the more she wants you, and vice-versa.

Maybe because she knew you were a shitty dude and was glad to have a less-then-fully-committed relationship with you?

Just spitballing here.

A commenter called breakingthebarriers said he thought that the OP was overanalyzing the whole thing.

From what I’ve seen I don’t think it’s even this deep though.

When I look at the behavior of women, I see a simple creature controlled by an ever-changing volatile melting pot of unchecked emotions. A simple creature unable to comprehend the chaos it creates.

Ok, but how exactly does a melting pot control a creature? Does it have little arms it uses to manipulate the creature like a puppeteer would? I don’t think this guy is able to comprehend his own metaphors, much less the inner life of women.

But it wasn’t just breakingthebarriers who thought the OP was overestimating the cerebral powers of women. According to Zevren_LT,

You are implying, that a woman has even on the basic level the ability of self-reflection.

Which is, in my opinion, far too generous.

Reading too much into them – elevates them needlessly. So we should stop sugarcoating something – which is in truth far simpler and sadly also crueler.

Our minds like to read something more into it as a cope mechanism, when we cant believe the simple truth.

I think these guys have it all backwards. I don’t doubt that a good number of the unfortunate women they go on dates with treat them with disrespect. Not so much because the women in question hate themselves but because they hate you guys for believing the shit you do about women, which I don’t doubt you share with your dates.

Dating while MGTOW must be an ordeal, but that ordeal is nothing compared to what dating one of you — even for the length of a dinner — must be like. And on some level these guys (or at least that portion of them capable of self-reflection) know that they’re the problem — that they themselves are the ones who deserve the disrespect.

Put that in your melting pot and smoke it, guys.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

207 replies on “New MGTOW theory: “Women can’t respect you for dating them because they know they don’t deserve respect themselves””

@Masse_Mysteria

Well, you know those of MansVoice’s persuasion prefer non-peer-reviewed popular press articles that confirm their biases. That’s why they work so hard to ignore actual evidence.

Yes. The study was about single people and hypergamy is marrying up in social status. Therefore the study has nothing to do with female hypergamy.

As we know, the Heartistean manosphere defines hypergamy more broadly and, I think, more usefully. It refers to the tendency of women to be attracted only to superior men (relatively speaking) in all contexts – not only romantic but also purely sexual.

So in that sense, the evidence does support female hypergamy.

Well, you know those of MansVoice’s persuasion prefer non-peer-reviewed popular press articles that confirm their biases. That’s why they work so hard to ignore actual evidence.

That “popular article” actually cites verified statistics and walks us through its ironclad reasoning. Are you saying it means nothing unless it’s “peer reviewed”?

Also, the Washington Post article draws its statistics (which is really what I’m referring to) from the General Social Survey, which is among the most reputable data aggregators in the world.

I begin to catch the scent of desperation in the air…..

@Victorious Parasol – what, you don’t consider “incipient bitch tits” to be the zenith of wit?

and a much better writer, than any of you

I know enough to know that a comma doesn’t go there.

Some more evidence for female hypergamy (this one is not paywalled):

This is not a peer-reviewed study. It’s an opinion article written by some random guy with a statistics class under his belt discovering that, wow, surprise surprise, fewer guys get likes on a hookup app that is 80% men and 20% women. And that – stop the presses! – attractive people get matches more often on a dating app that is photo-based.

In other news, water is wet. You still haven’t proven that female hypergamy is a thing. And we’re still waiting on your looksmatch pics.

The Medium post is about Tinder likes. Not marriage. So again, nothing to do with hypergamy.

It also doesn’t show that “average” men can’t and don’t partner with women. Just that they don’t get as many Tinder likes.

Plus, unless I missed it (admittedly, I skimmed), the data wasn’t sourced. Where are the author’s numbers from? I saw links to the definitions of statistical terms. I saw unrelated graphs. Didn’t see where he got his numbers.

fewer guys get likes on a hookup app that is 80% men and 20% women.

Evidence for this assertion?

And that – stop the presses! – attractive people get matches more often on a dating app that is photo-based.

This isn’t the point. The point is that women are so hypergamous on Tinder that even relatively attractive men get very few likes, while unattractive women get deluged with attention.

It’s an opinion article written by some random guy with a statistics class under his belt

So if it’s so low-quality – being “not peer-reviewed” and all – you’ll have an easy time explaining why his reasoning is faulty. Right?

Are you saying it means nothing unless it’s “peer reviewed”?

I’m saying your argument would be stronger (low bar right now!) if you could offer up some peer-reviewed studies on the topic. You can’t. At best, you’re offering secondhand sources, and not many of those. Not persuasive.

Regarding the scent of desperation, MansVoice, I think you’re smelling your own farts again.

@MansVoice

I begin to catch the scent of desperation in the air…..

I guess that means you’re slow to catch on. The rest of us have been smelling it from almost the moment you appeared. I gathered your desperation was the reason you insist on staying on this hypergamy topic (for the sweet validation of getting some replies or something?) instead of proving your point on the objectivity of attractiveness.

Because, you know, when you come in to make a lot of statements and then “prove” one (according to your own dubious standards) while ignoring replies to the others, you’re only showing that even you don’t think you can support your other arguments, such as they are.

Just saying.

@WWTH
He got his data by talking to 27 women on Tinder while pretending to be a Chad.

@Buttercup:

Call me a snob. 😉 Though more seriously, there’s a great Jane Austen line for MansVoice:

Selfishness must always be forgiven, you know, because there is no hope of a cure.

As we know, the Heartistean manosphere defines hypergamy more broadly

I don’t give a chicken fried fuck. Words mean things, and hypergamy already has an established definition. If Heartiste and you want to complain about women getting to choose their sexual partners, you should invent a new term to give that particular whine a sciency sounding veneer.

If you want to talk about hypergamy, talk about hypergamy. If you’re just mad that women get to decide who they date, have sex with and marry, just be honest and tell us that’s what you’re mad about and make your case that women shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice. I mean, you won’t succeed at that either, but at least we’ll be on the same page on what we’re talking about.

@MansVoice

Yes, I’m sure it rankles that Heartiste – a witty, intelligent, articulate, successful man who is certainly much smarter, and a much better writer, than any of you – is challenging your complacent liberal sensibilities.

Spoken like someone who doesn’t know what the word “liberal” means. Heartiste can get back to me when a peer-reviewed science journal publishes his crap.

As we know, the Heartistean manosphere defines hypergamy more broadly and, I think, more usefully. It refers to the tendency of women to be attracted only to superior men (relatively speaking) in all contexts – not only romantic but also purely sexual.

So in that sense, the evidence does support female hypergamy.

Ah, the old “change what I’m arguing when I’m losing” trick. If I change the definitions of words, I am now the richest person in the world if we define “richest person in the world” as meaning “uses a dog picture as an avatar.”

Are you saying it means nothing unless it’s “peer reviewed”?

In essence, yes, no scientific conclusions can be verified without peer review.

Evidence for this assertion

Here you go.

This isn’t the point. The point is that women are so hypergamous on Tinder that even relatively attractive men get very few likes, while unattractive women get deluged with attention.

https://img.ifunny.co/images/3653e556e39d9dfb7a5a3c2431bd191a86bc252840b8ab4327a5abcd0bd20b0f_1.jpg

So if it’s so low-quality – being “not peer-reviewed” and all – you’ll have an easy time explaining why his reasoning is faulty. Right?

We just did.

Why in the world would this be, in any way, “logically necessary”?

Assuming “more attractive” means “potential partners are more attracted to” and nothing else, since I’ve never seen any other definition.

The Medium blog post seems to dwell on how Tinder likes (presumed from opposite sex) distribute between users. Since Tinder likes are a relatively minor part of most people’s dating goals or dating outcomes, it’s not very helpful in the supposed framework of

Heartistean manosphere defines hypergamy more broadly and, I think, more usefully. It refers to the tendency of women to be attracted only to superior men (relatively speaking) in all contexts – not only romantic but also purely sexual.

Say we grant that women get more Tinder likes than men.

So what? Why is that bad?

If it is bad, why is it the fault of the women? Maybe the numbers are unequal because men are indiscriminately liking most female Tinder users they see without reading the profiles, or even looking that closely at the pictures. Pretty much every woman who’s ever used a dating app or site knows that men just tend to message everyone in sight in the hopes that someone will bite. That doesn’t mean these men have any real interest, it’s just a numbers game to them. So, women tend to ignore men who don’t show that they’ve read the profile and are actually interested. That doesn’t seem like evil behavior on the part of the women. It doesn’t even seem unreasonably picky. It seems like just common sense. Maybe men should be using dating apps more rationally and focus on a smaller number of women that they’re actually interested in?

Also, this is all terribly heteronormative. Are only straight women bad and straight men victims? How do the numbers compare with dating app users seeking same gender partners?

@Naglfar, some interesting stats in that article you linked to:

In the US, Tinder users skew heavily male. As of December 2019 it was estimated that 78.1% of Tinder users were male, compared to 21.9% female, according to stats published on Statista.

In the UK, it was estimated by Ogury that 85% of the online dating market was male, as of April 2019. This imbalance was even more pronounced among Tinder users, for which the ratio was 9:1 in favour of male users.

When the Ashley Madison hack happened, it emerged that a large number of the female profiles on that site were fake, created by the company to make the site seem more worthwhile for men. The real numbers skewed heavily male. If dating sites in general are dominated by straight men, supply and demand play an obvious role in who gets to be picky.

As we know, the Heartistean manosphere defines hypergamy more broadly and, I think, more usefully. It refers to the tendency of women to be attracted only to superior make their own decisions regarding men (relatively speaking) in all contexts – not only romantic but also purely sexual. — instead of letting me and my gross buddies decide for them.

I fixed it!

I don’t give a chicken fried fuck. Words mean things, and hypergamy already has an established definition. If Heartiste and you want to complain about women getting to choose their sexual partners, you should invent a new term to give that particular whine a sciency sounding veneer.

So… you concede that Heartiste is correct in substance, but you’d just like him to use a different term to refer to a phenomenon that he’s accurately describing?

And as we know, this

If Heartiste and you want to complain about women getting to choose their sexual partners

is not actually what Heartiste means by “female hypergamy.” The core contention is, once again, that as a rule women are only sexually attracted to men of much higher status than they are. That’s it. Since this clearly related to if not precisely the same as the sociological phenomenon of women “marrying up” Heartiste has borrowed the term. If you disagree, that’s ok, but you’re just playing semantics.

The core contention is, once again, that as a rule women are only sexually attracted to men of much higher status than they are.

Here’s what he said on page 2:

As we know, however – due to Hypergamy – women are never attracted to their looksmatch, but rather are only interested in – if not Chad – then only in men far more attractive than they are. Ergo, ugly women may be attracted to Brad or even Tanner. But though their standards may be relative, all women are governed by the Hypergamous impulse.

What do you think, folks? Is he hoping we won’t notice his goalpost-shifting, or has he forgotten his earlier “argument”?

@MansVoice
So, saying Heartiste wants to complain about women getting to choose their sexual partners is conceding that Heartiste is correct in substance, but “as we know”, that’s not what Heartiste means by “female hypergamy”? Such fun!

You know it’s okay to just come out and say that you don’t like it that women get to choose for themselves, right? Just like it’s okay to admit that you can’t offer any proof for attractiveness being objective.

But I guess you think you’re saving face by not addressing the points people have brought up regarding the “according to 27 women I lied to on Tinder” study and just sticking to your hypergamy guns.

@Victorious Parasol
What little I’m gleaning from this seems like it’s not fair to use words against him.

@Masse_Mysteria

Alas, I think you’re right. Since I’ve been quoting great writers today, here’s one from Parke Godwin:

The power of English lies in its ability to move and to persuade and to illumine the majesty of thought.

I’m sure MansVoice thinks his writing illumines the majesty of thought, but unfortunately what we’re seeing is writing that splutters verbal diarrhea.

@MansVoice

So… you concede that Heartiste is correct in substance, but you’d just like him to use a different term to refer to a phenomenon that he’s accurately describing?

No, he’s still wrong, see my aforementioned example about how if you change the meanings of words it doesn’t make you right.

women are only sexually attracted to men of much higher status than they are

And no average man has ever wanted to sleep with a famous and/or beautiful woman /s

@Masse_mysteria

What little I’m gleaning from this seems like it’s not fair to use words against him.

What about numbers? Random letters? Pictures?

If it is bad, why is it the fault of the women? Maybe the numbers are unequal because men are indiscriminately liking most female Tinder users they see without reading the profiles, or even looking that closely at the pictures. Pretty much every woman who’s ever used a dating app or site knows that men just tend to message everyone in sight in the hopes that someone will bite. That doesn’t mean these men have any real interest, it’s just a numbers game to them. So, women tend to ignore men who don’t show that they’ve read the profile and are actually interested.

Why do you think thirsty men play this numbers game? After all, if it were a losing strategy you’d think they’d catch on eventually.

The reason they don’t is because it isn’t – women don’t ignore men who “don’t show that they’re read their profile”; rather, they ignore them if they aren’t attractive enough – again, according to the rules of Hypergamy – which is to say much more attractive than they are. (It is true that real life, other factors may come into play, but Tinder is almost entirely visual, so women are more or less exclusively physiogamous.)

Wasn’t the WP article mentioned on this very site when it came out? It might have been an article or just a smattering of posts (I remember commenting on it). To be, for lack of a better word, “fair”, I saw a lot of liberals and progressives on social media also run with that article to come to slightly different but not *that* different conclusions (i.e. men in their 20s/30s today are somehow less able to match up to the standards of the non-male peers they want to date). It was a little weird.

@MansVoice

First off, I reiterate, LOL.

Second, re: “blah blah blah looksmatch blah blah” and the supposed objectivity of beauty

Do you have any understanding how much of “looks” is work and habit, not nature? For men as well as women? For every 10 ugly guys I’ve dismissed on dating sites, 9 of them would probably look pretty good if they started e.g. scrubbing their faces more, using lotion every day, trimming their beards in an actual style. You know, basic stuff. It’s not some invariant fact of nature that makes “most women” look better than “most men”, it’s that women are expected and required to put in hours per week if not per day to look good. I swing towards the low end of these expectations/requirements myself, and it would still probably blow your little mind how much time per week I spend on shaving and skin care.

And you have that easier. The bar is much lower. It’s okay for men to have hairy legs, let alone a hairy chest. It’s okay for men to have visibly receding hairlines, or even just shave yourselves bald all the time (which I can’t do if I want to be even be seen as “female”). You are not expected to wear makeup at all, you are not expected to have a dozen unique outfits and/or clothing combos on hand. You even get to be considered hot for being a bit scruffy and sleepy-eyed, or having a case of bedhead, or having a dad bod – whereas we have to look put together even when pretending to be tired, and don’t even get me started on on what the public and the mass media think of “mom bods”.

The only thing keeping you and most other dudes from looking good enough to “match” with someone is that you’re not willing to do the work of caring for your body and its appearance.

Not that I’d date you regardless, mind. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve rejected pretty men for being complete douchebags, and you matey are a douchebag par excellence.

Why do you think thirsty men play this numbers game? After all, if it were a losing strategy you’d think they’d catch on eventually.

Because they don’t see women as human beings and potential partners?

You’d think they’d catch on. But as you’re demonstrating here, men tend not to want to listen to women about what we want because a lot of you think you’re a better authority on the subject than we are.

You’re basing what you think women want on male behavior. Why don’t you look at surveys asking women what they look for a partner? Why don’t you look at interviews with couples about what attracted them to each other and why the relationship works?

Your assertion that all or most women only look for status is not backed up by my own preferences. It’s not backed up by the preferences of any women I’ve known.

It is funny though, how the things that men say about dating and sex and have shifted so dramatically in the past few years. I was always told that women want security and that men are visual and want only young, hot women. Did women change what we want and become visual too? How did that happen? Because I was told the above preferences were biologically hard wired and would never change.

It’s almost like that only thing that has remained true over time is that dominant groups (in this case, men) are always full of shit when they make declarations about how the world works!

@Cyborgette

The only thing keeping you and most other dudes from looking good enough to “match” with someone is that you’re not willing to do the work of caring for your body and its appearance.

Could also have to do with the fact that manospherians usually are pretty open about their misogyny in their profiles, then wonder why women don’t want to date them. So if he actually wants to date women he should not only clean up but also be less misogynistic.

@WWTH

Why don’t you look at surveys asking women what they look for a partner? Why don’t you look at interviews with couples about what attracted them to each other and why the relationship works?

Because he’d just assume the women were lying to seem better than they are, and because that would mean taking feeemoids at their words?

women don’t ignore men who “don’t show that they’re read their profile”; rather, they ignore them if they aren’t attractive enough

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Which one is more likely to stand out on a dating site and get a reply:

1. A thoughtful, witty, personalized message from an average-looking guy
2. A dick pic from Chad bragging about his endowment and his boat

If you picked door #2, you have absolutely no idea how women work.

So, if I understand correctly:
1) Attractiveness is an objective quality.
2) Attractiveness has nothing to do with whether people find you attractive.
3) Trying to hook up with people you find attractive is bad. You should only hook up with those who are objectively as attractive as you, regardless of how you actually feel about them.

@Victorious Parasol
But the songs might have words. I suggest we try interpretive dance.

@Buttercup

you have absolutely no idea how women work.

Well, that’s an established fact about this fellow.

@Lukas Xavier

You should only hook up with those who are objectively as attractive as you, regardless of how you actually feel about them.

You should also only have relationships with who the objectively objective manospherians think is your looksmatch, and you can’t complain.

So, does the fact that our latest dumbass linked to the same article twice mean he effectively concedes that he doesn’t have anything else?

Pretty sad, even for a kiddie-league troll…

Edited to add: Oo! Three links to one article! The fail is stong in this one!

@Victorious Parasol

Yes excellent. *rubs hands together* And now I have a new artist to support.

So, does the fact that our latest dumbass linked to the same article twice mean he effectively concedes that he doesn’t have anything else?

Yeah, they always think we’ll be intimidated by a link with some numbers in it. Then when it turns out that a lot of us have basic literacy in social science research and are able to pretty quickly point out why the link doesn’t prove what the troll thinks it proves, the troll just doesn’t know how to respond.

@Weirwoodtreehugger:

That paper in no way contradicts Hypergamy. I am utterly unsurprised that both men and women prioritize attractiveness in casual encounters. (In fact, this seems to vindicate Heartiste more than bluepilled normies like yourself – didn’t you just claim that Tinder women care more about the message than the messenger’s looks?)

Regardless, as we know, what men and women consider “attractive” is very different: men will find their looksmatch attractive; women will not. Hence, Hypergamy.

@WWTH
His triple link also appears to think dating sites are an economy, which doesn’t really make much sense as a model. The number of likes you give to other people doesn’t require you to receive likes, and there is no real world value to likes.

@MansVoice
I don’t recall anyone saying what you think we said. And I cannot tell you how many average looking men want to fuck supermodels.

Say, maybe you can post a picture of yourself and a woman you consider to be your looks match.

@ buttercup

A dick pic from Chad bragging about his endowment and his boat

If you picked door #2, you have absolutely no idea how women work.

Er, can I just have the goat please?

That paper in no way contradicts Hypergamy. I am utterly unsurprised that both men and women prioritize attractiveness in casual encounters.

Yes it does. Because people, of all genders only prioritize looks when it comes to casual relationship.

The manosphere claims that women only want to date “Chads” That’s not true. Women (straight women, anyway) want to date men who are loyal and kind. That is, not the kind of men who proposition every woman they see on Tinder.

@Alan

LMAO.

@MansVoice

Funny you should mention red and blue pills, The Matrix is pretty explicitly a queer feminist movie. It’s not just that the directors transitioned a while back (and are now both gorgeous thx), the whole thing is an incredibly blatant metaphor for casting off the fake, constructed reality of 90s cisheteropatriarchy – literally constructed, it’s a simulation! – in favor of a radical queer leftist worldview. One that sees living and loving freely in a post-apocalypse underground wasteland (aka the real world in all its ugliness) as superior to the lie of beige offices, female submissiveness, and Happily-Ever-After marriage that the Agents oversee.

Not only are you still in the Matrix, dude, you are making yourself a willing conduit for the Agent Smiths of the established social order.

One of the biggest flaws with that thrice-linked study is that it doesn’t control for desired outcomes. What constitutes a successful Tindr encounter? A like? A date? Sex? A long term relationship? Different people are looking for different things.

I don’t understand the manosphere’s obsession with reducing human relationships to formulas and numbers, or the gymnastics they go through trying to fudge the data to scientifically prove that women are bad. No wonder they’re so susceptible to grifters. You can dazzle them with important-sounding words like “quantitative” and a chart that tells them exactly what they want to hear.

@Alan – Would it help if I closed the door containing Chad?

Victorious Parasol
May 3, 2020 at 7:07 am
I can’t stop giggling over this:

beauty is largely an objective standard.

BWAH!

I don’t know if I’d go that far with that statement, since there have been a few attempts to make mathematical models of what constitutes beauty in both humans and nature.

These first two links are the homepages for sites that used mathematical models to analyze beautiful people via the Golden Ratio (aka Phi):

https://www.goldennumber.net/

https://www.beautyanalysis.com/

This next one shows how the GR can apply to a human face:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.goldennumber.net/face/amp/

This last link analyzes Elle magazine’s 2015 claim that model Joan Smalls has the world’s most perfect face, using software from the first two links above. The article goes into a discussion of what factors besides mathematics would make Smalls very beautiful to an observer, plus a small discussion of what factors would go into creating a so-called exotic beauty could be.

https://www.goldennumber.net/joan-smalls-most-perfect-face-and-golden-ratio-beauty/

I will admit up front that I didn’t do an in-depth dive into all sections of these sites or anything, so I don’t know if they have anything super-problematic in them. I will say that I didn’t see them consider things like young age, skin tone, hair style/color, ethnic origin, etc. as relevant to what makes someone beautiful in their mathematical formulas. Just how a face measures up when the GR is applied to it.

Regardless, as we know, what men and women consider “attractive” is very different: men will find their looksmatch attractive; women will not. Hence, Hypergamy.

Just recapping again here, attractiveness is objective, but nearly half of all people disagree with nearly the entire other half on what is attractive. The men are right; the women, of course, are wrong.

To add to my last comment, if female hypergamy is defined as women seeking status via their male partner, as Men’sWhine is claiming, then it can’t be about casual sex partners. Women do not gain status from having lots of sex partners, whether the sex partners are attractive or not. If women are being hypergamous by seeking out physically attractive men, the implication would be women are trying to increase their social status by having a hot boyfriend or husband.

Unless we’re just back to the manosphere are really just mad that women can choose their partner and are appropriating social science terminology to complain about it. Which obviously, that’s what the deal is.

@Cyborgette
I’ve read some analyses of the films that also suggest that the red pill represents estrogen, which makes it all the more hilarious when manospherians talk about how they have taken the red pill.

@Redsilkphoenix
Every mathematical model of beauty I’ve seen comes down to “conservative-looking white women are the most beautiful.” I haven’t read what you linked, but I admit I’m a tiny bit suspicious seeing how many different cultural standards of attractiveness there are.

Funny you should mention red and blue pills, The Matrix is pretty explicitly a queer feminist movie. It’s not just that the directors transitioned a while back (and are now both gorgeous thx), the whole thing is an incredibly blatant metaphor for casting off the fake, constructed reality of 90s cisheteropatriarchy – literally constructed, it’s a simulation! – in favor of a radical queer leftist worldview.

I bet you think you’re the first person to tell me this.

Anyway, no, not really – I mean, certainly you can read it that way, but red pill/blue pill would be a much poorer metaphor (and The Matrix a much less interesting movie) if that were only viable interpretation.

Personally, I would argue that the greatest metaphors are almost necessarily nonspecific, because they must articulate some universal aspect of the human condition. What red pill/blue pill actually refers to is simply the choice between comfortable self-delusion and hard truth. Now, what that means in concrete terms might be different for any given person depending on their circumstance, personality, politics, etc – but it’s a choice we all face in some form.

@ buttercup

Would it help if I closed the door containing Chad?

Apparently so; but I still can’t fathom why!!!

As per our previous discussion, I’m a bit of a lost cause when it comes to explaining the maths to me.

Although if you do close the door maybe stick a cask of Amontillado in there.

Re: the red pill

I thought it was meant to be Spironolactone?

Seen some discussion around that in film commentaries.

Man, I forgot how tiresome trolls could be. Does this guy have anything new to say? No?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.