Hypergamy is a bear market for the Elite.
Author’s Note: This post was coauthored by Lexet and Jack.
The Manosphere seldom covers any examination of relationships within the aristocratic class system, but we’re making up lost ground this week. NovaSeeker’s post, Sticking the landing is for the elite (2021 May 10), pointed out that only upper class (UC) women can make the Feminist Life Script work.
In this post, I want to describe an interesting phenomenon I see happening among professional, educated, upper class (UC) wimminz. Then I will explain that even among the upper class, selecting a mate is not so easy peasy for rosie hoesie.
First, a little Red Pill refresher.
This graph makes a few things clear to our understanding.
- Women naturally desire a man who is MORE successful than they are.
- VERY few of these men exist, and these men have MANY options.
- Men are NOT attracted to success and degrees, but to youth and femininity instead.
- A woman of high status is at somewhat of a disadvantage in the Socio-Sexual/Marriage Marketplace, maybe not in terms of the quality of man she can attract, but definitely in terms of competition.
- This same effect applies as a class!
The bottom line is that women desire to marry up, and not just up, but 1- higher than she is, and 2- as high as she can get. Men marry down, leaving wealthy and upper middle class women fewer options for a long term partnership or marriage.
The Elite Mating Market of the Past
The overlapping worlds of the wealthy and the political powermongers offer a sophisticated venue for sexual selection — it always has. But the market dynamics were drastically different in the past.
Many marriages were arranged within the noble class. This was done through the following measures, which presumably preserved the accumulation and transfer of wealth within families.
- The system ensured daughters of the elite would have husbands who had position, title, money, and/or land.
- It was almost guaranteed that daughters of wealthy families would have husbands, whether they were young, beautiful, and desirable — or not.
While historians typically say the marriage system worked to “create alliances and peace,” history has shown us otherwise — that political marriages were the center of numerous conflicts in the killing fields of Europe. For example, national leaders being genetically related to numerous other leaders certainly didn’t prevent the First or Second World Wars.
In addition, many aristocracies were covertly controlled by women, and served the interests of women. Dalrock focused on the subject of chivalry. More overt female rule can be seen with Isabella of Castile, Catherine of Aragon, Margaret of Austria, Anne of France, Elizabeth I, Jeanne d’Albret, Catherine de Medici, Christina of Sweden, Queen Mary, Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great.
Or you can just look at this incredibly long list of female hereditary rulers on wikipedia. But those are just facts, and the government told me that women were kept in cages until 1965, when they were allowed to have sex in public at rock concerts.
Had this system not been in place, men would have been free to marry whomever, and the daughters of the elite would have been forced to marry a husband of lesser stature, which would have been a humiliation to them.
The end result of this is that it effectively restricted males from marrying down (i.e., it prevented males from marrying either the wives they wanted, or wives who deeply respected them out of hypergamic instinct). Forcing men to marry women they didn’t love, and historically speaking, not allowing for divorce, encouraged adultery. A famous example would be Prince Charles and Princess Diana.
Other noteworthy people who fit this model include Bill Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, Kamala Harris, Ted Cruz, Amy Barrett. A notable exception to this phenomena would be someone like John Kerry.
Interestingly, arranged marriages within the UC promoted the same degeneracy (i.e. affairs) that was produced by the practice of chivalry within the lower classes — which was an ostentatious attempt to mimic the upper class. This goes to show how important it is for leaders to spearhead societal trends by promulgating an Archetype.
How has the Elite Mating Market Changed since the Sexual Revolution?
Politically arranged marriages don’t exist anymore, and with a deregulated sexual marketplace, the relationships formed in political circles and among the rich and famous seldom lead to marriage. Marriage between children of political figures definitely happens, but this has more to do with shared values and interlocutions within social circles than families making deals through marriage.
In The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market (2021 February 17), Novaseeker discussed how women have a strong upper hand in the Sexual Marketplace. This is no less true for upper class women. However, when it comes to marriage, elite chicks have a unique dilemma. Compared to women of other classes, it is much easier for them to get into marriage, even in spite of their poor attractiveness and past sexual conduct. But it is much tougher for them to attract a man who can Tingulate her deeply and elicit the respect that is vital to a blissful marriage — and win commitment from him.
In fact, there are two qualifications which have come to be the two most important factors that modern elite women take into account when considering a man for marriage.
- He must be able to exercise sexual authority over her (i.e. the Tingles).
- He must be able to match her expected socio-economic standard of living.
The first qualification is true for women of all SECs (AWALT), and this is difficult enough, mainly because there are so few men who are able to qualify (less than 10%, as described in NovaSeeker’s post). This is even more true for UC women, as shown in the infographic above. But in addition to this, there is much more pressure NOT to marry down, because not only would this fail to satisfy hypergamy, it would also cause an intolerable reduction in her living standards, and it would be a source of social shame as well.
Most elite chicks end up marrying a man who is more or less at their MMV level, taking into account socio-economic factors. This is one area in which market value parity still exists. But even this can be viewed (by her) as settling if he doesn’t possess both of the qualifications mentioned above.
The elite mating market is still controlled by women, as it was in the past. Yet, women (and marriages) continue to suffer from this arrangement.
Since UC women almost always marry upper tier men, it is ironic that they are frustrated in their attempts to achieve a Headship relational structure, for reasons discussed above.
UC women must frequently endure their husbands having affairs. Depending on their personality and the social risks involved, it was not uncommon for UC women to “look the other way” whenever this occurs, in order to make the marriage “work out”, which essentially means to preserve the wealth and status invested in the union. In the past, dignitaries accepted this situation with the attitude “that’s just how life is”, and did their best to contain the publicity. However, due to women’s liberation and divorce legislation that strongly favors women, this tactic has fallen by the wayside in popular practice.
Overall, the same degeneracy (i.e. affairs) that occurred in the past continues on, with gusto!