The US Academic Mafia has churned out yet another bogus research study; of the typical sort designed to generate potentially lucrative publicity. One Dr. David Buss of the University of Texas, a self-purported expert on "the evolutionary psychology of human mating strategies" published a study that has the Manosphere Game Cult all abuzz with supposed proof that their doctrine of female hypergamy actually has some scientific basis in fact.
Female Hypergamy is the notion that women have an inherent biological tendency towards infidelity; and their natural tendency is to desert one male as soon as a more attractive option presents itself. The Game Cultists use this theory to justify their belief that females are expendable; that they are created to bear children, sexually satisfy the Alpha Males, but are incapable of deep emotional bonding. Of course, there's an ego component in it as well: obviously if females are hypergamous, the Alpha who's sexually successful must, by extension, be the most attractive option.
To begin with, the first flaw in Buss' theory is that Evolutionary Psychology is mostly a pseudoscience. It is based on extent knowledge of prehistoric man to the present---as if 60 or so millennia of civilization never changed anything. What we know of prehistoric man's daily life is so incredibly thin that it is nearly impossible to base any type of theory on it. We know now from DNA evidence that the first ancestor of modern humans lived about 65,000 years ago in what is now Uganda. What we know of the life or culture of these first humans is next to nothing; and outside of religious traditions, science knows nothing even of their origin.
Buss, with no evidence whatsoever, claims that "Lifelong monogamy does not characterize the primary mating patterns of humans. Breaking up with one partner and mating with another may more accurately characterize the common, if not the primary mating strategy of humans."
Buss does not even see the obvious contradiction here: that, in order to break up with one partner and mate with another, monogamy, or sexual exclusivity must already be premised. Nonetheless, he expounds the following:
"For our distant ancestors---when disease, poor diet, and lack of adequate healthcare meant that few people lived past 30---looking for a more suitable partner was necessary, researchers say."
If they actually had done their research, they would have learned that most of our distant ancestors actually did live far beyond 30. Up until the 19th Century, there was no immunization, for example, and there were high mortality rates among children and young adults. But by 30, most of them lived about as long as we do. It actually didn't make any sense to mate-switch---especially not for women, who then relied on a man for provision and protection moreso than today.
"Women are pre-disposed to have backup plans in case their relationship fails." the researchers assert.
Again, another contradiction: why would women need a backup plan if monogamy wasn't premised as the natural order of relationships? It's not complicated logic: if mate-switching is the cultural norm, there is no purpose in 'breaking up' or having 'back-up plans'. What Buss is clearly doing is taking the postmodern cultural norms and anachronistically projecting them back onto our ancestors---not an uncommon theme among what passes for academic research today.
Buss, a graduate of UC Berkeley, is also a supposed expert in gender conflicts, stalking, jealousy, status and reputation, and even homicide. Actually his expertise, like most of today's Academic Mafia, seems to be in inventing justifications for a high-salaried position at a taxpayer-funded institution.
The study has some Gamers asserting the study is proof of hypergamy; while others believe the study is simply an excuse for it; but the truth is simply that Female Hypergamy does not exist. While women may be drawn instinctually to males with whom they feel safe and secure, the notion that they seek social status in so doing is absurd. Again, this theory is another derivative of the Game Cult's dependence on the economic model of interpersonal relationships; as is Buss' theory which is evidently steeped in Marxism.
In all of recorded history, adultery and infidelity were considered moral or legal offenses, regardless of whether a given culture was monogamous or polygamous and fidelity was universally considered a moral virtue. We actually do not know of a historical period when marriage in some form did not exist. Even the most primitive peoples on earth today practice marriage. If hypergamy were a natural condition, we would have some historical or anthropological proof of it; but there is none---absolutely none. We have only the word of a few modern innovators against centuries of tradition, and tradition typically turns out to be the correct course.