Monday, August 22, 2016


     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.





  1. Thank you. It's nice to read something sensible.

  2. My only quibble with this is that a simple google search for, "I cheated on my husband," will yield tons of proof of Female Hypergamy. Story after story of women leaving otherwise good men and situations for some "better" option. The younger man, the richer man, the sexier man, ect, ect, ect. I mean, honestly, doing that google search and reading all the results screams proof to me.

    I should note that many in the MGTOW movement have been hurt by a woman and are failing to heal. They really need help

    1. I apologize for not replying right away. You do bring up some valid points, I'll write about this in a new post in some greater detail, since it's been awhile that we've last visited this topic.

    2. Hello Unknown. I must say, this is a really, really terrible point to make:

      '...a simple google search for, "I cheated on my husband," will yield tons of proof of Female Hypergamy. Story after story of women leaving otherwise good men and situations for some "better" option.'

      Have you tried googling "I cheated on my husband"? You might have a point within this massive disaster of a comment, but it's really getting lost if your data collection is based on googling "confessional" phrases.

      Honestly, are people these days just using google for stats? :(

      P.S: I am not sure where you draw this conclusive, yet statistically ambiguous statement that "many" in the MGTOW movement "have been hurt by a woman and are failing to heal". Most self-proclaimed MGTOW men (whether from personal experience or otherwise), don't claim to be in need of "healing"; they simply relegate women as being an inferior race of sorts, biologically incapable of sincerity, wired for deception etc. They literally (yes, literally) claim that all women are like that (I'm sure you're aware of the acronym AWALT). If you meant to say that all of this is just a defense mechanism in reaction to being hurt by a woman in their life at some point, then you're basically trashing all their ideologies. If anything, you are further validating the fact that evolutionary psychology (and all the gnarly stuff that comes with it) is nothing more than psycho-babble cooked up by hurting men to cope with their hurt.
      [I don't think, though, that any MGTOW man will appreciate this line of argument.]

      What exactly was your point, again?

    3. Just a correction: *Have you tried googling, "I cheated on my wife"?

  3. Hey. Just found your article after having come across the newfangled "field" called evolutionary psychology and some brain numbing trash-pile that goes on and on about alpha males and beta males and hypergamy. (Seriously, what has happened to academia? It used to be respectable. Now everyone is just Deepak Chopra-ing their way through all kinds of made up shit.)

    Just to add to your discussion, if at all "hypergamy" was a concept, it would be a social one (with no evidence for biological imperative) and would apply to all people in all contexts (and the movement towards a certain "better" version of a quality, whether riches or looks or status, would depend mostly on the individual's own position in life). Upward mobility, as they say. It's pretty much an universal desire. I digress. All this is social science at best, worth studying within a strictly anthropological and sociological framework. Not to mention, the concept of "alpha males", first expounded in the context of wolves, has since been debated and pretty much abandoned by the dude who (kinda) coined it in the first place.

    Apologies for the ramble. Basically just wanted to stop and wave a giant thumb of appreciation for holding up rationality and sanity in the crazy pool that is the internet. Good job!

    1. Thank you and those are all good points. The Red Pills tend to draw conclusions by anecdote, which is bound to fail. Part of their Alpha Ego-Identity, though, is that all think of themselves as great geniuses who've discovered 'truths' in every field from theology to biology that centuries of research and study have somehow overlooked!

    2. "the concept of "alpha males", first expounded in the context of wolves, has since been debated and pretty much abandoned by the dude who (kinda) coined it in the first place."

      But alpha males definitely appear in unrelated groups of wolves, this is interesting, because people have lived in tribal communities for most of their existence. In addition, some species of monkeys also have a strict hierarchy

  4. But we also know that only about 40% of men in prehistoric times left offspring. I also heard about the existence of people in China who do not practice marriage