Okay, hypergamy is a real behvioral trait. Just so that you know I don’t think you’re crazy.
It manifests in both men and women, based on their sexual selection criteria. With men, it will usually be based on a woman’s looks/youth. With women, it’s more often based on a man’s attitude of social dominance (or simply dominance within their relationship) and ability to generate resources.
The behavior also plays out differently in men and women as far as relationship “unhaaaaappiness” (as you put it in a comment) goes. For a man to act on his impulse to “trade up”, he has to acquire more wealth/social status, which is often hard to do once in a relationship simply because a girlfriend/wife will consume some of those resources, keeping things balanced, and because in our modern legal framework, he will usually be heavily financially penalized for dissolving the marriage and this will negatively impact his ability to attract a “better” woman.
Someone who is very rich can do this, for sure, or someone who becomes financially successful very suddenly. The average guy? Not so much. So he’s likely to remain “haaaaappy” in his relationship, because his alternatives are limited. If he dissolves the relationship, he will often end up “trading down” (at least in regard to the standard criteria of what makes a woman attractive to men).
For women, it’s different. Up until about age 30 or 35. For a woman, when she enters a marriage or serious relationship, she acquires a portion of her partner’s wealth (in that he’s usually paying some—or all—of her expenses, or in that she knows she will be awarded a share of them on dissolution), and her social status equalizes with his. The moment that happens—that they become equal in social and financial status, not only does she become less “haaaappy” with what she has, because he is not longer “above” her, but the fact that she’s climbed the social ladder means she’s fairly capable of “trading up”. She will also not likely face the emotional costs of losing custody of, or access to, her children.
A fairly well-known experiment with paintings determined that people who were given a painting and were told they were stuck with it were happier with their painting than those who were told they could trade it in for something better. This is simply a natural phenomenon, to become less satisfied with what you have if you think you can have something better.
She need not come out of the broken relationship with any of his assets in order to benefit in the hypergamy sense, since money is not a primary sexual criterion wrt men’s attraction to women. Her increased social status (connections she made through him, perhaps) is enough to make her a “better catch” than she was prior. As long as her looks and youth are intact.
Women who are hypergamous often follow a pattern of “trading up” through their twenties, until sometime around 35 they realize the men available to them are not as good as the ones they dumped when they were 26. Then they end up feeling like they “settled” and can become unhaaaaaappy enough just from that conclusion to “trade down” a few times before they figure out their sexual market value is nil.
One culture that has successfully discouraged hypergamy in both sexes? Patriarchy. Both parties are penalized heavily (financially, legally or socially) for acting on those impulses, so their options are fewer. When they have few options, all of which will cost dearly, it usually takes something serious to make them “unhaaaapppy”.
I’ve felt ugly and unfeminine for my entire living life, have wasted my life on those emotions, and am now a dead empty thing with no sexual future; I am committed to tearing down all other women that choose to live unlike me (i.e. NOT as a dead caretaker-like fleshmound desperately trying to escape its own gender identity).
This post also gives off a strong scent of her past marital failings. It sounds like she stuck it out through a bad marriage on behalf of her children and is trying to justify that choice to herself through her war against women. You can clearly see that she didn’t give up on her failed marriage easily and is shitslurpingly proud of that “accomplishment.”
Other accomplishments: being a single mother (but not like all of those other single mothers who WEAKLY GAVE UP on their marriages like the women they are), and working for tips without using her sexual wiles to earn them.
I’m not really interested in addressing the fact that she generalizes experimental art findings to relationship patterns in humans - all of that is humdrum shitslurping girlwriteswhat. What really interests me is the nuclear shitpowerplant that powers this so-called “girl,” and what sort of devastating life experiences led to its creation. I’m betting it has a lot to do with being let down by men in her life and also a little more to do with her issues with her fugly face.
Anonymous
