Stefan Molyneux Advises a Woman to Be Hypergamous

An Honest Conversation About Hypergamy


www.youtube.com...

Stefan Molyneux interviews a woman in the video above who I would say is in a relationship for the right reasons. She is happy, content, and satisfied. She seems ready to marry the love of her life. She doesn't seem to be in the relationship for hypergamous reasons at all.

Stefan Molyneux advises her to be hypergamous. He tells her she could find a much better guy. He tells her that she should find someone better for the sake of her future children.

Thanks to Stefan Molyneux I understand what a lot of women must be thinking when they leave men that they're happy with...they're thinking of their future children. That makes hypergamy almost seem like it's not prostitution to me. It makes hypergamy seem almost like a sacrifice. Sometimes you're sacrificing your own happiness for the sake of your future children. That almost seems acceptable to me. However...

I can't agree with that way of looking at life. I believe that we're here to take care of ourselves first. If we don't do the best job we can of taking care of ourselves, we won't be much good in terms of helping others. Sometimes you're not going to be the best parent you can be if you leave the love of your life for the sake of hypergamy. A brokenhearted person who is always wondering might have been may never be able to have healthy and robust relationships with anyone again. That's not a good foundation for being an excellent parent.

Self-sacrifice for family is important in my view, but there's a point when self-sacrifice becomes unreasonable. I believe that point comes when you're giving up too much of your own life to help others.

a reply to: Profusion

It's really early here, I'm sorry if it's rude
not to rewatch it but I have seen that one before
and remember thinking that Molyneux was...
I don't think there's a problem with frankness and calling a spade
a spade, but there does come a point you are pushing hypergamy
in an unhealthy way and bringing out a lot of things toxic with unbridled
feminity.

I really don't think it's a good idea to be taking advice on the internet
from someone with so many mother issues, I still go back to the clip
to make myself laugh now and then, when he's in a frenzy
screaming "And someone said Steven, that's you're mother" 'and I screamed,
YES, THAT'S WHY SHE'S STILL ALIVE *laughs like a psycho'

I wish I had that in a .gif It makes me giggle.

a reply to: DelegateZero88

This thread isn't supposed to be about Stefan Molyneux. It's supposed to be about his theoretical construct for why hypergamy is the right choice for every woman in every case. It seems to be the way women often look at the world in my experience. Having the theory explained so succinctly and directly is what matters to me. I don't care who said it.

I think you'll like the following videos.


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...

It doesn't really seem possible to separate Stefan from the conversation.

I like Stefen. I haven't listened to the above call, but I would assume that when addressing this lady and her concerns he may have simply pressed play on a sample of his overall position. His stance that hypergamy is the end of the line for breeding philosophy is probably (IMO) his hard counter to the way that our government has subsidized poor selection of fathers/mates.

In other words, I could see Stefen just saying, "Ah, yes he's a decent guy, but can't keep a roof over your head. Okay no big deal because the government will be there to bail you out if he turns out to be a lousy father and cant keep food on the table. Ditch him, get a real man.... Save the world."
Oh yeah also insert Stefen, "So he's got abs like rolling hills of wheat, but can't figure out how to use an alarm clock, eh?" And other much more masterful analogies... lol

I think the biggest factor in Stephan drawing to his conclusion and advise, is that the guy has already been divorced and has 5 children from that previous relationship. I believe an argument can be made that there's romantic love, then there's foolishly delusional romantic love and that maybe she's throwing a little too much caution to the wind in already sacrificing some pretty profound situational prerequisites that most if not all value in describing their ideal romance. Ideals that are subconsciously and instinctively founded on the premise of the future well being of your offspring. The fact that she even called into his show, is an admission to doubt in response to that situational sacrifice. She's simply just unaware of this herself... lost in, and trying to rationalize to herself the stronger aspects of the romance, while ignoring the weaker, which may detrimental to her future offspring.

That being said, I think a case for hypergamy be made in this situation simply because this poor girl is foolishly innocent, has a huge heart and don't seem to have a manipulative bone in her body. So, encouraging her to find a more suitable mate is in no way an avocation for the more off putting and heartless intentional perspectives usually associated with hypergamy.

That's pretty much the whole point of the broadcast.

originally posted by: rexsblues
I think the biggest factor in Stephan drawing to his conclusion and advise, is that the guy has already been divorced and has 5 children from that previous relationship.

Stefan Molyneux didn't know about the five children until about 27 minutes into the video. He had given the woman a recommendation to be hypergamous well be before that. He said the following at about 23 minute mark:

Question: Why can't I just still have that attraction and desire regardless of the financial situation?

Stefan Molyneux: Because you're growing up.

Molyneux had given the advice to be hypergamous for the benefit of the woman's unborn children before the 27 minute mark when he found out about the woman's boyfriend's five children.

originally posted by: JRedBeard
It doesn't really seem possible to separate Stefan from the conversation.

I don't agree with that at all. He is discussing things from a woman's point of view. It's great to get it put so clearly. The source is irrelevant in this case.

Advising a woman to be hypergamous is like advising water to be wet. Male and female mating prerogatives are at loggerheads by definition. Men are fertile for their entire adult lifespan, where as women have a limited window of fertility making them the more valuable sex reproductively. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap which is why women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of relationships if they are not female pedestalisers.

Saying hypergamy is women looking out for the best interests of any future children is a "hamster" style rationalisation. Male status is a powerful aphrodisiac and money is just one way in which men can achieve that status. Melania being married to Donald is just one of many examples of men that would never have a trophy wife if they did not have the status that comes from being wealthy. Female attractiveness for men is rooted in the aesthetic appeal and no high status man with the option would choose an elderly/ugly/overweight/"unattractive" woman over a young slender beauty, and no woman with options would choose a low status loser of a man over high status attractive one.

Men can obtain high status from more diverse ways than a woman can because female assessment of mate attractiveness is much more holistic than the male assessment. An example of this would be the many male mass murderers and serial killers on death row that have female groupies and regularly receive marriage proposals through the mail, or the fairly common instances of the female prison guards that sleep with, and get pregnant by the men they are guarding. Nearly all of the most successfully ruthless criminals in the world have, and have had a string of beautiful, younger female lovers. There are a very few anomalous instances of the reversal of this male/female dynamic but they can only be taken as the exception that proves the rule.

Young and beautiful women are attracted to high status, be it through wealth, leadership, the sexy bad boy, or fame and renown. If you want to understand what men and women truly find what is attractive disregard what they say, and pay close attention to what they do. It is biologically hardwired into our respective mating analogues.

a reply to: Profusion

Whenever I hear something like this, the first thing that happens is that I have an urge to give up. To put down the tools of my trade, to walk out on my life and never return to the smallest part of it. And then, I become determined instead, determined that I will not allow the fact that passion, honour, dignity and virtuous conduct have become utterly meaningless to the modern heart, to stop me believing that I will, someday find myself in some other position than absolute desolation.

But Stefan there...Stefan is everything that is wrong with the modern world. No soul, no heart, advocating for positions which are anti-love, pro-sublimation of self...this man is toxic as can be. The human race does not need the help of the likes of him, in becoming an ever darker, less soulful and passionate thing than it was yesterday.

Both middle fingers raised high for this pontificating advocate of the collapse of the human heart.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Advising a women to be hypergamous is like advising water to be wet.

In the case of the video in the original post, Molyneux was talking to one woman who was refusing to be hypergamous.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Saying hypergamy is women looking out for the best interests of any future children is a "hamster" style rationalisation.

Since I've never been a woman I have no idea. It's interesting that apparently no women have posted in this thread. They're the only experts. There are obviously no rules and there are exceptions all over the place.

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Advising a women to be hypergamous is like advising water to be wet.

In the case of the video in the original post, Molyneux was talking to one woman who was refusing to be hypergamous.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Saying hypergamy is women looking out for the best interests of any future children is a "hamster" style rationalisation.

Since I've never been a woman I have no idea. It's interesting that apparently no women have posted in this thread. They're the only experts. There are obviously no rules and there are exceptions all over the place.

I never said there were not exceptions, but I did say the relatively few can be put down to a lack, or perceived lack of reproductive options. You will have noticed that I ended my post by pointing out how it is more important to pay more attention to what is done within the male/female mating dynamic than to what is verbally expressed. Like you I think female contributions would add colour to this thread.

Kind Regards

a reply to: Profusion

How can he discuss anything from a woman's point of view if he is not a woman? And btw discussing things from a woman's point of view is equivalent to bunching all woman up in to one, overall point of view.

a reply to: Profusion

Lots of whining in this thread, but personally I don't see the problem.
If I was a woman I'd be chasing the most successful/powerful man I could connect with to be father of my children.

Obviously I'd want kindness love and passion etc, but any scrubs need not apply, that would be for sure.

a reply to: Profusion

Your children will thank you when your husband is never home and they grow up with an absent father whom the mother eventually divorces.

Sounds way better than a happy average middle class life with 2 loving parents being good role models.

Hypergamy was/is common in cultures where marriage and the creation of a family is almost like a business partnership. You find the partner that will guarantee the most successful merger, usually financially, and usually pre-arranged by your parents. You often are not attracted sexually to this person. Romantic love isn't even in the equation.

In Western culture, we're mostly in it for romantic love and companionship. We consider compatibility - sexual, personality, and parental alike, so that if you are spending your whole life with this person, you will still want to be with them when the lust phase peters out, and you are both in your old age. We want a partner who has the same values as we do, and maybe the same goals too. (children, house with white picket fence, etc.)

Maybe that's why the divorce rate is so high - we are now following Stephan's lead and trading who we would best be suited to as a life-long companion, for the status and riches of a hypergamous marriage. Young women are now choosing the guy with the best status, instead of who she would be happy with for life. Is this part of subliminal programming by society? TV? Parents? I don't know...

On the flip side, if you honestly can't see yourself growing old with someone, with all the grey hair, love handles, wrinkles, financial/parenting challenges, etc. Please do yourself (and him) a favour and find another mate. A rich one if that's your goal. Just be aware that if you marry strictly for money, that is usually ALL you will get. You will have to look outside your marriage for the things you don't get, and that is NOT an ideal marriage, in my opinion.

PS. I'm a woman, and have been married to my husband for 18 years. No, we are not wealthy, but we are happy, and have 2 (mostly) wonderful teenaged sons. We are of the same middle-class upbringing.

a reply to: Profusion

I'm 37 years old. In my life I've seen many happy couples who are poor, struggle with money, but they're happy. They may not be able to give their children everything, but they're happy.

I've also seen married couples with money who look miserable being with each other. Sure, they have material possessions, but there's no love. Their children are angry, ill-mannered and have no connection with their parents.

Now I've also seen poor families without love where everyone seems unhappy, and families with money who seem very genuinely happy.

The point of mentioning my observations is easy: The families who seem the happiest are that way because they love each other, whether or not they have money. If you love someone greatly, but drop them because you prefer money over love, then you deserve any unhappiness that may come from it. If you feel that's a "sacrifice" for the "future of your children", I feel bad for you and for your children. A child is better raised in a loving family, than a hollow husk of one that's financially secure. Now if you actually love the one with the money, then I wish you the best.

my first wife to whom I was greatly in love with, left me for a man with lots of money because her mother told her she shold have never married for love but money. She l=says you will learn to love him later.

The man who she left me for diseased her within the first week after she left. And it left her a lifetime of mistrust in men. Since then she has been married three times and divorced of them as well, having a child from each marriage except ours.

I remarried some 12 years later to a godly women I met on a missions trip. We have been married 19 years have three wonderful kids. We don't have enough money but we bought a house by faith, and have never gone hungry a day. And all our bills are paid each month, to which we give Jesus Christ the Glory for.

Ladies, Marry for love it is always the best and then stay married.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Profusion

Whenever I hear something like this, the first thing that happens is that I have an urge to give up. To put down the tools of my trade, to walk out on my life and never return to the smallest part of it. And then, I become determined instead, determined that I will not allow the fact that passion, honour, dignity and virtuous conduct have become utterly meaningless to the modern heart, to stop me believing that I will, someday find myself in some other position than absolute desolation.

But Stefan there...Stefan is everything that is wrong with the modern world. No soul, no heart, advocating for positions which are anti-love, pro-sublimation of self...this man is toxic as can be. The human race does not need the help of the likes of him, in becoming an ever darker, less soulful and passionate thing than it was yesterday.

Both middle fingers raised high for this pontificating advocate of the collapse of the human heart.

I think I agree 100% here. Molyneux's advice is super gross.

Instinctually, everybody gravitates towards successful people. If this weren't the case, we would see homeless people hosting street parties with all their fans. But you don't because most people avoid being friends with them. In contrast, you rarely see rich people have issues finding people who want to be their friends. So on that level, I get why "hypergamy" is a thing so many people (not just women) fall into.

But those people are stupid. To not see that you are partnering up with somebody because of their material worth and then also not realizing why that is wrong... that's just a very low-quality human being to me. Wealth, poverty... I've dated people from both extremes and it never even once swayed my romantic attraction towards them.

There are many more important factors to consider when choosing a partner to co-parent with. But parenthood shouldn't be the #1 drive to partner up with somebody these days, anyway. It's the 21st century, people. Our survival doesn't depend on hooking up with the jerk with the most animal pelts. So silly.

Crap... double posting.

a reply to: misnomer68

On the flip side, if you honestly can't see yourself growing old with someone, with all the grey hair, love handles, wrinkles, financial/parenting challenges, etc. Please do yourself (and him) a favour and find another mate. A rich one if that's your goal. Just be aware that if you marry strictly for money, that is usually ALL you will get. You will have to look outside your marriage for the things you don't get, and that is NOT an ideal marriage, in my opinion.

a reply to: Abysha

But those people are stupid. To not see that you are partnering up with somebody because of their material worth and then also not realizing why that is wrong... that's just a very low-quality human being to me. Wealth, poverty... I've dated people from both extremes and it never even once swayed my romantic attraction towards them.

Exactly.

I've been in and out of this thread since it was posted last night, trying to find a way to gather my thoughts without sounding too condescending. But you've said it perfectly.

Honestly, I was unaware that hypergamy was much of a "thing" in Western society, and I find it despicable that it's being advocated.

I have personally been in relationships with people both wealthy and poor. And I left one who was wealthy because I did not love them, I did not see a future with them, I was NOT happy with them. We would have been together, with no financial difficulties, leading our own separate sad little depressed existences, unhappy for the remainder of this life. Which would have been a very little remainder because I was so disheartened and depressed in his presence and in that situation that I spent much of my days staring at various household chemicals considering suicide.

Happiness is what matters. Not money. And I say that as a parent. I would rather bring my son up in a loving and happy environment than in a financially secure angry depressed strained stressed unhappy GRRRR environment.

Hypergamy may work for some people, for some cultures. But I like to imagine that for many people, love and happiness is forefront.

a reply to: kaelci

It's less about taking a rich guy you don't like, and more about hanging around places where rich people congregate to find one you like.
It's exactly what I'd be doing if I was a woman, you wouldn't see me hanging around rough bars or the welfare benefits office to find a mate.

Lol at the outrage in this thread.