In Defence Of Hypogamy

I am proudly hypogamous and here is why.

The Sexual Market Place

The sexual market place exists. People are in it to find partners either to marry, to bone, to cheat on, to cheat with, to smash, to straff, to fuck, romance, to lie to, to eat their buttholes and so on. Women and men enter this market place looking for different things, not only in anatomy, but in socio-economic standing as well.

Women generally want partners richer and with a better socio-economic standing than they have (even FEM lesbians want the same in the Masc Lesbians they partner up with). Men, on the other hand, want the opposite. They want women poorer and lower class than them. This is ordinarily true and anyone who tells you it is not is lying to you. If you arrived at the assumption that it is not true on your own, you are lying to yourself.

Like all market places, the sexual market place has goods in high demand. Young shapely women with loose morals are always high in demand. This means, as you were taught in Economics, they have a high price tag. This tag can either be satisfied by corresponding goods in high demand (that is, young successful men with a lot of dough to blow, impressive future prospects, and other things you, participant in that market, may know) or actual money if the good in question is interested in that. In any case, to he who wants more, more is expected. There are men and women who go around this and trick the market through any number of gimmicks; such as makeup, lies, surgery, designer dresses and even more lies. Good for them. The invisible hand is sometimes stupid.

Like all market places, the sexual market place has goods in low demand. No woman wants a poor man, for instance. Importantly, most women don’t want men poorer than they are or in a worse socio-economic station (an illiterate electronic parts dealer at Alaba may earn millions per month, but he remains in a lower socio-economic station than an investment banker at Stanbic who has an official car and earns a million naira and a few thousands per month).

Men with no money and no prospects are lower on the ladder and can only realistically pick from women below them on that ladder. But the lower on the ladder one is, the worse the pool they have to choose from. Therefore poor men end up picking even poorer women. Stupid men end up picking even stupider women. Short men end up picking even shorter women. Weirdos who obsessively lament about their many schizio thoughts on Substack end up picking even weirder weirdos.

This state of things is made worse for men because of the attractiveness of power differentials to women. A poor man may think he can only pick from a pool of women poorer than him, but poor women, given the right physical endowments (or indeed none at all, if certain fairytales are to be believed), have an even bigger field of potential mates who may pick them. Hence, the lower a man is on the totem pole, the smaller his pool of potential mates. The lower a woman is on the pole, the bigger her pool of mates — given that she has a natural preference for men with more money, more class, and more everything than her. It is nasty business, this sexual market. Yet, you — participants of this flesh trade — know that I am correct.

As you may expect, the dynamics of this markets leads to some really troubling outcomes as we will go on to discuss.

Why Are Men Hypogamous?

Despite the best efforts of many Twitter idiots and (we must admit) Phd holders, the sexual market still wants what the sexual market wants. There are many who try to cheat it, and on some days they are successful with ruining the life of some hapless young man or woman, but that does not happen often.

Even the staunchest believer in the gospel of gender equality would hesitate if asked to marry a woman several years his elder and with several times his net-worth locked in her super-fast, super-expensive, and super-unattainable-for-that-man Bugatti. Nine times out of ten he would rather drive his 2012 Lexus to Unilag and hang around till someone catches his fancy (given that he does not suffer from life threatening poverty). Women may disagree, of course. But self-delusion is the natural lot of women, and we must love them for that as Christ has mandated us to.

There are many who think, quite seriously, that men who refuse such offers are stupid, brain-dead and many such things. This is partly because they cannot imagine refusing it. There are many ways to describe this state of things, but envy does the job best. They want such an offer, often fail in getting it, and think the fellow who throws it away an ungrateful brat. But is this fellow really an ungrateful brat?

To answer this question, we ask one such fellow, a 25 year old boy who rejected a forty year old’s advances. In his own words, he says that he has had an awful time dating women richer and more powerful than him in the past, and he has always regretted it. They don’t respect you, he says. They speak to you anyhow, and you cannot do anything about it. You become the girlfriend and she becomes your boyfriend. He says that it is the unpsidedownment of the natural order. What a testimony! And it is all true!

Women, whether by nature or nurture, prefer to be led rather than lead. Do not take my word for it. Have you ever met a happy woman who leads her husband? Have you ever met a happy woman who solely provides for her family while her husband takes care of the “home front”. Would you as a woman be happy doing that? However, one has met or knows happy men who do the exact same and make no complaints of it.

It is fashionable today for women to declare that they would rather be a partner than a leader or a follower in their marriage. It is a partnership, they are likely to say, not a dictatorship. But is that true? Can any such partnership exist without going asunder? Two or more friends can be partners and one may not necessarily lead the other. But a friend group is not a family unit. A friend can easily opt out a gathering or a meeting if they do not feel like, and keep the friendship intact. Can a family unit do that? Can a ship have two captains? Can you serve God and Mammon?

The happiest marriage you are likely to see is one where the husband gives his wife the leeway to act as she wants, but sets hard boundaries for her behavior. Of course, the wife may have expectations of her husband too. Followers can demand certain standards of behavior from their leaders or refuse to be led. But does this mean the relationship is not between leader and follower? Of course not.

The husband is the head of the home, says the good book. The relationship between the husband and the wife is like the one between the Christ and the Church, and who can ever wonder what the basis of that relationship is. Would the church not resent Christ if it were to dictate doctrine to him, and would Christ not in turn resent the Church if they, sinful and haughty as they are, had to teach him how to be God? This is the natural order of things. So sayeth your Bible.

On the off chance that there is some atheist reading this (who is more likely to be male, giving the odd bend of such statistics) who argues that my justification is meaningless because they aren’t Christian, I ask them to consider this passage by C.S Lewis in Mere Christianity;

If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say “Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.

Why would this be so transparently true? Nature? Nuture? It matters not. It is true today. And those are the Konstants we shall be adding to our equation.

Women are hypergamous. This, more than anything, proves that they want to be led. Hypergamy is their revealed preference. Subservient is their revealed position. Why must we have to prove this obvious factoid over and over and over again? It serves no one — not even Twitters idiot (and we must add) PhD holders.

Anyway, it so happens that men have learnt difficult lessons about how miserable you are likely to make yourself and your wife if she is a station above you. First of all, she will resent you for thrusting the responsibility of leadership and provision upon her (it matters not if you are rich in your own way; a woman who can afford to live in Ikoyi will not live with you in Sangotedo because that is your measly budget — and if she does, more problem for you!), and secondly you will resent her and yourself for abandoning your role.

In truth, some men will be more angered by their wife’s superiority over them than by their lowly station in life. One can endure a hole in shoe all his days, but the day his lowers point the hole out to him he shrieks and cries and wails about his sorry lot in life. Men may abandon their family and abdicate their responsibilities, but the day another man or a woman steps up, they suddenly remember they were born with two balls. It is the way of the world.

Given such peculiar circumstances, why would men not be hypogamous? Why would they not put their own interests first? Why would they want to get into relationships where their wives would resent them, and they would resent their wives in turn? Why should they not want women below them on the totem pole? Why would they refuse to be honest and straightforward in the market place of the flesh?

Unhappy Outcomes

Some are slow and hard of understanding. Therefore, we have to make explicit the implicit outcomes of the dynamics we have so outlined. The revealed preferences of men and women mean that upper class men marry women lower than them in life. Even when Twitter idiots (and we must add) PhD holders argue that rich people marry other rich people, it is not quite so. A man may be in the same socio-economic class as a woman, but he personally will have something over her; be it age, personal achievement, personal wealth, or even pure intelligence. Even in days of arranged marriages, the bride’s family goes about looking for potential grooms that they know would make the submission of their daughter a forgone conclusion. This, in a way, makes the home happy. The woman gets a leader, and the man gets a follower. Everyone knows their place and acts according to it. It may scare you that I speak in such frank terms, but I am getting old and telling euphemistic lies to hide the truth of the matter is now getting boring.

In polite society the need — dare I say the obsessiveness — women use to pursue their naked self interests in the sexual market place is accepted as A-Okay! and natural. A woman who proclaims, oh I wish my husband were richer and smarter and more longsuffering and taller and better than I am is applauded and seen as a decent and normal woman. In normal circumstances should not such urges be seen as masochistic and cowardly? Why would you want to be married to someone richer, and smarter and taller and other such things than you? Do you want to be controlled by such a person, a smart fellow writing a substack may wonder. And the answer is obvious; of course! They want to be controlled. They want to be protected, and provided for, and babied (after all they say this themselves! Is there a single woman in this part of the world that has not proclaimed this to their significant other?). It is implicit and one does not need Odu Ifa to divinate the reason why certain women want those traits in a husband. The incredible thing is that this is seen as normal when it would be seen as sign of a maladjusted dependent personality in literally every other circumstance. Women can deeply admire such traits in a future partner and yet, in the same breath, moan moans of gender equality and partnership and other such things. One might wonder what sort of equal partnership Christ can have with the Church.

In polite society the need — dare I say the obsessiveness — men use to pursue their naked self interests in the sexual market place is regarded as perverted, dysfunctional and unnatural. A 45 year old (we must admit) happily divorced woman with (we must admit) a Phd may write that a Phd does not reduce your chances in the sexual market (and perhaps it does not), but the law of supply and demand remains true today as it was in Judea 2,000 years ago. The higher you go, the smaller the pool. Because the higher you go the fewer the men look down. Even if you do not like it, it is a simple matter of calculus. Such a woman, with dwindling sexual market fortunes, may then argue that men who obsessively pursue their naked self interests in the sexual market place are evil authoritarian figures who only want to manipulate people they have power over. Of course they are correct! It is not a manner of coincidence that men choose women lower in socio-economic value in relation to them. It is also probably true that these men do it so that they can have power over these women and manipulate them. But how is this any less virtuous than women who also want to be chosen by men who have power over them and can manipulate them. How is their existence less noble than the existence of women who want to be controlled and be manipulated? Is it not a matter of Cunning man die, Cunning man bury am. Or a matter of two won jor ge four? (their two divides their four appropriately). How is one impulse better or nobler than the other?

Of course both men and women, driven to stupidity by modern politics, tend to deny this. Men, who use their money and superior status in life to win over women, deny that they do this in order to have control over them and, by extension, their home. Women, who are won over by these men through these obvious strategies, deny that they know what they are getting into. Is it not a matter of cunning man die, cunning man bury am, honest man write substack article about the virtues of truth-telling?

The unhappy outcome of this state of things is that people change a lot. Even without actively being in the sexual market, people see their value in that market change. A man may get richer and then have access to picking even more women. A woman may advance faster in her career than her husband and then see him as unworthy of controlling her. The man may, in turn, resent this state of things and choose to abdicate his responsibilities in sulking anger. I do not have a good answer to how this can be avoided. Perhaps it is better if both parties ignore their naked self interests once they get married. But we must not build castles in the air; the Bible says the two shall become one — but is that even possible? Would any sane woman forgo her career aspirations in order to remain subservient to her no-good good-for-nothing idiot husband who remains a poor wage slave? Would she do it even when she knows that pursuing her goals would make her resent him and resent herself on all sides (for if she assumes his responsibilities, she will resent him, and if she allows him and his meager earnings lord himself over her, she will resent herself and him and as well)? And why not? Would any sane man allow this to happen, understanding what it may do to his family? Would any sane man allow this knowing that he would resent himself and his wife on all sides (for if she assumes his responsibilities, he will resent her for doing so, and if she allows him to lord himself over her while having more resources and a better standing, she will resent him?) if it were to happen?

Like I said, I have no easy answer to such questions. They are unhappy outcomes that one cannot theorize out of. One solution I have heard is for men to constantly ensure that they are ahead of their wives in such things in order to keep the home equlibrium the same.

Ye must be the head, and not the tail, sayeth the good book. Koni buuru fun Ori, ki'ade fila si'orikun ese, sayeth Haruna Ishola. But lower class men are lower class men for a reason, are they not?

In Defense of My Hypogamy

I recently discovered that despite my belief in gender equality (or equality of opportunity at any rate), I am still hypogamous. I had to wonder why that was.

If I ever get married, my goal will be two-fold. The first would be to raise a family, have a progeny, and generally become a family man. I would love, more than anything, to have my own children that I can raise to become smart and important citizens who add more to the state than take from it. I believe that is a noble cause. The second reason would be companionship. Life, as I know, is extremely difficult and I suppose it is easier to have a life partner to weather those storms. Given those needs, I have to enter the sexual market looking for a solution that will adequately satisfy them.

One my balk at the term sexual market, and wonder why I use such crude language. However, I believe the more important question is whether it's true or not. Do people not enter this market to find or attract people to have sex with? It is what it is. No apologies.

Given the needs and psychology of women, it's unlikely I find a partner who will deliver on both fronts if she doesn't see me as superior to her. It's impossible to deliver on any if one's partner sees one as inferior to them. Even — and this is important — female pedophiles who prey on teenage boys often see those boys as inherently superior to them. Of course women, again, may deny this. But as I said earlier, self-delusion is their lot and we must love them that way anyway.

Therefore, to achieve both of my goals in marriage, it's important to find a woman who is willing to follow my lead, and that implies understanding her position as subservient. There are many caveats that I could make regarding this position, but I believe I don't have to make them as long as one has two brain cells to rub together.

I would be a liar if I argued that suitability is the only reason I am hypogamous. While my hypogamy is important for the sort of marriage and life I would like to build, it isn't the only reason I am hypogamous.

Another reason is because of the responsibility that heterosexual marriage and relationship places on husbands. Disregard whatever new age drivel you read in stupid books written by post menopausal women with (and we must admit) PhDs. Men have to take care of and protect their families. You could marry the most egalitarian woman in the world, but if push comes to shove, she will snicker at you and ask; are you not the man? This is the burden all men must carry — it is the burden all men have carried for all of time, and will continue to carry as long as the laws of the universe remain the same. There may be female men and male women, but they are aberrations to the norms written in our very genes. Those norms exist, and will remain. It is stupid for me to fool myself about their existence. Therefore, getting into a marriage where one cannot instantly, and without much effort, command the total respect of one's wife is equal to dangling one's penis over the fire; perhaps it may not burn today, but someday the flames will lick your balls.

I would — and you would as well — take any injunction to always protect and provide for an equal as parody. Why would I have to do that? I would — and you would as well — take any injunction to always humour the idiosyncrasies and emotional instability of an equal as parody. Why would you have to do that?

If I had a female friend (one I saw as equal) fond of crying and neurotic in the extreme, I would immediately inform them that they are acting like a child and must grow up instantly. That is not an attitude one can seriously take with one's wife no matter how serious one is. Such an attitude is likely to make things worse, given the peculiar expectations ALL WOMEN have of their romantic partners. They must be babied, and loved, and cared for, and babied again. What is my incentive to behave like that towards an equal? None.

However, I could — and you would as well — behave in such a manner towards someone you viewed as inferior to you. Everyone does it with babies and toddlers and teenagers they believe are inferior to them. When a child says Santa Claus is real, you don't argue; you humor. When an equal says the same, you argue. But which approach is likely to make your home — and yourself — happy? Why wouldn't I take such a healthy perspective towards my wife when I consider the unavoidable emotional turmoils that partnering up with a woman will surely bring? Why wouldn't anyone?