Twice, in the same night?
I’m not good with word games and other adolescent linguistic trickery, speak plainly or don’t speak at all. I could honestly care less. 
I couldn’t.
Too bad.
Well, with such a good research sample, no one can deny your proof.
You just hang on to that universal truth you got about women, Zero.
The underlying clench is fear.
It’s called humor for a little bit of levity, you should try it sometime.
The rest of your post is written out like a Chinese fortune cookie.
When western feminism collapses hard within western civilization catching up to brutal reality… 
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRr5EasAq84[/youtube]
cnbc.com/2019/10/25/america … ssion.html
miamiherald.com/news/nation … 08061.html
ccn.com/millennials-lacklus … s-economy/
dandc.eu/en/article/wake-ec … outh-sudan
When western nations economies collapse and a degree in feminist literature or social studies gets you a fulltime career in…
Well hypergamy does play a role in human sexuality. However so do a lot of things. Your thesis is reductionist, and therefor deserves no more attention than these few sentences. If you want to reformulate your ideas into a more serious, nuanced and adult theory, in which hypergamy is analyzed in its relationship to any of the other innumerable factors in the actually very complex and still not entirely understood phenomenon of human sexuality, then be my guest. Or keep shitposting, plenty of people will bite it looks like; quite a few pages in this thread.
The absence of a final absolute answer will be enough to discredit any opinion, methinks.
Alluding to ‘complexity’ implies insight that cannot deliver the goods.
Yet, the most complex begins with a simple observation…and metaphysics must be founded on physics - something even an animal can perceive.
In this context, my specialty, the complexity arises by a simple, obvious, fact.
There are no absolutes (no perfect, final, complete, whole, singularity)- but only degrees, fractions, levels, any moniker will do alluding to the same concept of fluidity.
Individuals are not entirely male or female…but a mixture of these two binary reproductive roles.
Fitness is measured in relation to the environment, where these two specialized types must function. the only measure of sexual types is reproduction, not pleasure.
Therefore, we can say that masculinity/femininity is a measure of the degree of male/female roles, as these interact within a specific environment.
So, we have gradations of masculine/feminine not absolute wholes.
homosexuality can be evaluated in this context as a genetic malfunction - brought about by hormonal imbalances and environmental conditions - promoting a feminine dominated psyche, producing a behaviour that inhibits reproduction, if it remains true to itself.
We can place paedophilia in this group of unfit mutations, without getting it the unsavoury topic of what constitutes an adult that can give consent - Ecmandu can explain.
Having said that, the evolution of this binary method is not accidental. We may say even consciousness is dominated by binary methods of 1/0, good/bad, etc.
The brain itself is physically divided in two parts. Binary thinking and dualism, is part of the human condition - part of the living condition.
It evolves first because it is the easiest, requiring minimal cognitive work.
Male/Female is a binary which evolves distinct mental and physical traits, facilitating specific outcomes.
These genetic roles are given a memetic foundation when placed within man-made environments.
Gender is not a social construct, but must be an extension of genetics, if it is not nihilistic.
Only nihilism attempts to contradict genetics - the physical world - with ideological constructs. Accusing others of socially engineering so as to conceal its own motives to do so.
To put it simply, it’s not that gender is a social construct, but that gender ought to be a social construct that contradicts genetic impulses, because the ideal world, for Nihilists - of the positive sort - is a world created exclusively by the mind.
Alluding to complexity implies insight.
Okay Aegean: you see, in medicine- or in any specialized field in fact, (literally every single one of them) a kind of internal language develops; a jargon that actually represents the very simplification you call for: the edifice of knowledge in these fields builds up over time until the only practical mode of communication is employing equally specialized words that are used to tag large amounts of information that it would be impossible to continually spell out and keep going through in real time. I wrote an entire essay on the concept of mimetic hyperinflation for example, going up from the concrete language of experience that everyone should be able to understand, all the way up to the highest level abstraction. This concept is important in my work, so it would be impossible to,- every time I want to bring up the material in that essay,- go through the entire 50 page tractate in the middle of a sentence. So I employ a “big word” that is simply meant to serve as a tag directing the reader to that material to further contextualize whatever I happen to be saying concerning such materials. Every field does this; I don’t understand your apparent conviction that it should be otherwise with philosophy. I get that you don’t want to partake in the riches of the Occident- in learning, and you have no desire to scale the edifice of knowledge, and just keep your armchair meditations on the ground level without every going anywhere with it: but I, and others- do.
And the philosopher does not start from the simple and work up to the complex- or start with the complex and work down to the simple. A philosopher possesses an instinct, an instinct to unconsciously and continuously extract from his environment, from what he reads or sees or hearts,- even from out of his own inner dialogue: patterns. And one day such a pattern dawns on him, as an accumulation of his entire life-process and experience; a symbolic reification of his total existence, which is actually capable of intuiting some datum about the structure of the universe and reality themselves,- a pattern which is capable of drawing other patterns into its orbit, and of transmuting them-- into itself. This arche-pattern is the LOGOS, and it follows a sequence of multiplicity emerging from unity, and unity redissolving into multiplicity, ad infinitum- in this way spontaneously generating new patterns, new perspectives which, however apparently disparate they may appear from the superficies, express a kind of “aesthetic unity of ideas” far superior to any merely logical conformation and unity.
Joker.
That’s my impression too. His frustration is skewing his perception of reality.
What about all the women who get rejected? Why is there not a single tear spilled on their account here? Wtf is that? You think it never happens to them? Ill tell you it does, and one woman getting rejected, especially a pretty one who is not supposed to get rejected, is worse than ten thousand incels being rejected. Because it just gnarls the stomach, even in the guy who rejected her. Its unnatural. But sometimes you have to reject a woman because of ethical considerations or because your god damned house is a mess. Fuck, theres all kinds of reasons, she might be half your age and you’re raised right. It still hurts. Okay? Think about that. Let it haunt you, and “buck up” and man up and don’t be a bitch and take the gut-punch and just do your part.
Well, yes. I find it odd when members of either sex are blissfully unaware that the other side also gets shit on with regularity. It’s nice to think the problem is entirely the opposite sex, but how could one not have noticed how people are getting shattered, hearts torn out, cheated on, cold shouldered into nothing, demeaned and so on, on both sides. It makes me wonder if someone has ever been close to someone on the other side if they think this is simple. Any woman I’ve ever been with or close to has gone through at least a couple of different categories of hellacious treatment. Likewise with male friends. Some attractive psychopaths on each side and some rich ones manage to do fine, but it’s rare, unless they meeet something like a soulmate early on and stick with that.
Damn, missed all the pornz.
Shit.
All these years I’ve been doing it wrong.
Responding to the OP
Rejection is as important as acceptance in growing up. People out there exist who have problems with both of those things actually, problems dealing with being accepted, when they secretly despise themselves, and with being rejected, when they are secretly in love with themselves and think they’re God: in fact, “narcissism” includes both of these kinds of people, both kinds of immaturity, (for the narcissist feeds on people loving and accepting a fake image of himself that he has created-- and he created that fake image of himself because he actually hates and rejects his own true self; every time someone accepts the fake image, it makes him reject his own true self even more, which forces him to dump more libidinal investment and energy into cultivating that fake self, and then as more people once again praise and accept that image, he finds himself rejecting all the more potently, his true self, and so on and so forth ad infinitum in this torturous feedback loop that can’t really be stopped once it has become truly psychopathological, that is, fully crystallized into an independent reactive mental complex) though rejection is more often associated with toxic reactions. Every male carries within himself, in the depth of his soul, an image of “woman”,- one partially generated by his actual genetics,- by the genomic imprint left behind in him by the 100,000 women haunting his ancestral soul, the ones paired to his father’s father’s father and so on, all the way back to the primordial Garden and mythical Eve, the All-Mother,- partially invested by his own mother in the process of raising him, as Freud discovered, partially collected from things he sees in movies and books and idealized romances and in music, etc. Point is, this image of what “woman” is, is unconscious. It is his anima, as Jung famously named it. He doesn’t know he’s carrying it around, and one day he sees a woman who just happens to echo this image, to embody it however perfectly or imperfectly. He falls in love with her. But eventually, this image he has projected on her unconsciously, pathologically, will be torn away from her- either by the deflation of his own fantasy, (when she fails to live up to the image) or her rejecting him, whatever. That is necessary. A healthy person will then be able to actually re-absorb this image, now torn away from the real woman, into his own psyche once again- making it conscious for the first time. This also leaves the real woman behind, seen without the film of his projections. Most of the time the two people part ways but sometimes the guy,- now conscious of this re-absorbed anima, this image of ‘woman’ thereby re-united to his own conscious masculinity,- is able to use his new-found consciousness as a guiding symbol in the ‘existential search for the self out of abandonment’, as Lacan called it, that is, as a beacon by whose light he might come to establish a new relationship to the real woman he has gained access to, and out of that light, “actual love” can be created. Love that isn’t just feeling, instinct, coincidence. Conscious love: a kind of victory of spirit over unthinking matter. A guy like Elliot (the supreme gentleman dingus that shot up a bunch of people) was so hopelessly blind, so pathetically unconscious with regard to whatever his own image of woman was, that his inability to endure the presence of real women,- women without the superficial gauze of his projective fantasy,- was so severe that it caused him to essentially, destroy the real women, kill them until only his image, still unconscious to himself, remained. And in that black, unconscious abyss, in a total lack of self-awareness, he was consumed and died. Usually males as unequipped to deal with things as he was just end up destroying themselves in this violent confrontation between the Image and the Real, but sometimes you get what you got with him, or the Minassian dude, (the autistic incel who killed a bunch of people to start, in his own words, a beta uprising) etc. and other people have to pay the price too. There is little that society can do to help this kind of male become more equipped to deal with necessary psychological patterns of individuation and development, like the re-absorption and ‘making conscious’ of the anima, which is a quite painful process for all of us, be it initiated by a woman’s rejection or by our own self-development and introspection. It’s just a permanent liability and will never go away: there will always be a small percentage of emotionally suboptimal males that can’t deal with it. If I or anyone else could have sat down and told Elliot this entire post, if I had the chance to explain to him everything I just explained here, guess what? It wouldn’t make any difference. Zero. What I am talking about are processes of individuation. You can explain it in words until the end of time but a person actually has to experience it himself, and that requires the very emotional paucity that led to Elliot’s total failure of psychological individuation and integration in the first place, which any speech like this would be intended to curb.
or u can scratch all that and just blame hypergamy if you want
I don’t know what’s so mysterious about that anyway: women tend to select partners a little farther up than they are on the social ladder, men tend to compromise and take partners slightly lower than themselves on the social ladder. So you see how it kind of naturally balances itself out, as most things do in Nature.
