Research Pro-life people partly motivated to prevent casual sex (data study)

[Syne]

No one said there was any evolutionary drive to marry, bad boy or otherwise. You seem to be so ignorant of even a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology. Here's a quick primer. Evolutionary psychology developed in the bulk of early human history consisting of tribal societies (about 2/3 of all human history). In that ~200,000 years, there was no such thing as money or "having a steady job." This means that our evolutionary psychology operates below our awareness of such modern contrivances. In tribal society, men have status because they command the respect of others, through their strength and prowess as a hunter, warrior, etc.. So a woman's evolutionary psychology only sees status as these kinds of traits. So a "bad boy" who is strong, doesn't shy away from violence, and acts as a leader (especially among other men) with access to many women (doesn't supplicate to women) will trigger the status-seeking evolutionary psychology in women. On an evolutionary level, hypergamy only exists in these terms.
After tribal society, wealth was often strongly correlated with these traits, but that was long after our basic drives evolved. Nowadays, you can be a wealthy guy without any of the traits recognized as status by our evolutionary psychology. This is why so many women opportunistically use men for money but are otherwise not attracted to them. Attraction being a factor in mating, that literally means that wealth is not part of our evolutionary drives.
You also seem to be conflating "status" with "higher class." While "hypergamy" can be used to describe both, evolutionary psychology did not develop in a class system. If you've failed to notice me talking strictly in terms of evolutionary psychology, when I say "status," that is all I'm talking about. I'm talking about the subconscious, instinctual drives, not modern conscious considerations. Because the former is prior to the latter in pair-bonding/mating motivations. Hence an "evolutionary drive."
Women are attracted to (and men admire) rebels because they display the evolutionary traits of status and leadership. In tribal societies, these traits were not self-destructive nor tragic. It is only in modern society that many of our evolutionary instincts are no longer acceptable.
I've had my share of experience with abusers, so I'm speaking from experience. Abusers lash out due to their own insecurities. "Bad boys," by definition, are self-confident.

Men marry because that's how they secure access to sex.

Not necessarily. At least not since the invention of internet porn and paper towels. Most men probably marry because they fall in love and seek to spend the rest of their lives with their chosen soulmate, as well as have kids. It is a far more rewarding and lasting experience than just sex.

LOL! You think masturbation is equivalent to sex?! WOW! Way to tell on yourself. You've obviously been a hermit for far too long.

Again, I'm talking about evolutionary drives, not modern pretenses, like "soulmates." In our evolutionary history, men and women pair-bonded out of necessity and then grew to love each other, or not. Necessity at least seemed to keep them together longer than marrying for love with the availability of no-fault divorce.
Bad boys have other men for companions and can father children without marriage.
Again, you continue to prove that all of your understanding of pair-bonding is derived strictly from "romantic films and TV comedies and dimestore trash novels." 9_9
Archetypes exist because they predate modern media. Considering archetypes derive from evolutionary psychology, I'm not surprised you're completely ignorant of their origin as well.

Jung first coined the term "archetypes" in his 1919 essay "Instinct and the Unconscious". The word is derived from Greek, with the first element, "arche," meaning "beginning, origin, cause, primal source principle," as well as "position of a leader, supreme rule, and government." The second element, "type," means "blow and what is produced by a blow, the imprint of a coin, form, image, prototype, model, order, and norm." In modern usage, the term signifies "pattern underlying form, primordial form." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_ar...evelopment

Notice the relation between archetypes and "Instinct and the Unconscious." You know, the instincts and unconscious developed during our early evolution. Hence "bad boy" is a evolutionary archetype linked to our instinctual drives. See how that works?
Having instinctual drives doesn't magically imbue you with an intellectual understanding of them. Hence studying things like evolutionary psychology.
LOL! So now Ben Shapiro is an incel?! What a joke. Just a sad gay guy lashing out at heterosexuals and the facts of evolutionary psychology. If I thought there was even a remote chance you could be in a relationship, I'd suspect you of abuse. You certainly display the necessary insecurities... but probably lack the required aggression.

But please, keep entertaining us with the proclamations of a gay guy on heterosexual pair-bonding. 9_9

Also, thank you for continuing to prove my point about misgendering. You keep trying and I've yet to freak out like all the videos of transgenders.

[Magical Realist]

"Incels, MRAs and Red Pillers believe in a concept called Hypergamy - the idea that women are "biologically" or "naturally" inclined to pursue men of higher status than themselves. However, statistics show that almost 40% of women earn more than their partners, proving Hypergamy to be a total sham.

SOURCE on these statistics (and note, this is looking at heterosexual couples in particular):

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/38-...-husbands/

What's even more telling, if you click on the link inside the article, is that a lot of these relationships see women being the SOLE breadwinner, where the husbands aren't working or providing any income at all let alone just making less! And the more financially successful women have become, the more likely they are to be the one earning more in a relationship, with the 38% figure in modern times up from less than 25% in 1987.

Talk about a complete repudiation of the concept. According to Hypergamy believers, such situations shouldn't even be possible! Women would be looking to jump ship immediately and into the arms of a wealthier man the second a dynamic where they are the majority earner, let alone SOLE earner, looked to be rearing its head. Yet the statistics show that when a woman makes more than her male partner, the men become FIVE TIMES more likely to cheat!

It's all complete bullshit."

https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes...a_concept/

You also seem to be conflating "status" with "higher class." While "hypergamy" can be used to describe both, evolutionary psychology did not develop in a class system. If you've failed to notice me talking strictly in terms of evolutionary psychology, when I say "status," that is all I'm talking about. I'm talking about the subconscious, instinctual drives, not modern conscious considerations. Because the former is prior to the latter in pair-bonding/mating motivations. Hence an "evolutionary drive.

Yes..that is all the concept of hypergamy means, marrying into a higher class or social status. It originated in countries like India where there is a rigid caste system keeping the classes separate. It has nothing to do with the mating habits of our primate ancestors or any "evolutionary drive" for the obvious reason that that was long before there were social classes and things like wealth and status. That all came along much later. And all evidence points to it being no longer true of women at all. Again, the very fact that women are attracted to bad boys, basically defiers of society and the class system, totally proves it. Quit reciting Jordan Peterson's teachings and think for yourself.

"The history and prevalence of hypergamy has been explained by the position of women in traditional society. Lack of legal access, inadequate provision of education and significantly less means of financial welfare contributed to women growing dependent on a ‘male agency’, so to speak, to mobilise in the social ladder of livelihood. T. Mohanadoss has famously described anuloma in India as emerging from the assumption that men are superior to women.[1] Though the origin of the practice is unclear, scholars have proposed various perspectives. These vary from ‘invading Aryans looking to marry indigenous tribal women’ to the conception of the kanyadan (gifting of virgin) system in ancient India.[2] Fundamentally, the practice is an act of exchange where economic resources (stridhan) of the low status bride-giver family could be given in return for status mobility."--- https://anthroholic.com/hypergamy?srslti...Wf15wAAXzF

[Syne]

Too bad MR refuses to (or can't) read. He's still going on about things I just corrected him on. So this is all a straw man at this point. Just an excuse for MR to repeat his ad homs of "incel," etc.. LOL! And you have to resort to citing Reddit.

"A study done by the University of Minnesota in 2017 found that females generally prefer dominant males as mates. Research conducted throughout the world strongly supports the position that women prefer marriage with partners who are culturally successful or have high potential to become culturally successful. The most extensive of these studies included 10,000 people in 37 cultures across six continents and five islands. Women rated "good financial prospect" higher than men did in all cultures. In 29 samples, the "ambition and industriousness" of a prospective mate were more important for women than for men." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy#...ces_by_sex

As already explained, "higher social status" means different things in evolutionary and modern contexts. Too bad you don't seem capable of understanding that simple distinction. These cited studies include more than earnings, because we didn't evolve in money societies.

Again, you're only proving that a gay guy has no clue about heterosexual pair-bonding.

[Magical Realist]

"The incel worldview hinges on a few key beliefs, which include a number of cryptic terms:

Women will always revert to hypergamy – using sexual or romantic partnerships to elevate one’s own status. In the incel calculus, this means 80 percent of women want to date only the “top” 20 percent of available men, lavishing their attentions on only the best-looking and richest men, and leaving the remaining 80 percent of men (including incels) without a potential partner.

In incel-speak, Chads benefit from Hypergamy. Incels, on the other hand, suffer. ​

“Chads” are the men most women want to date. They are confident, brash and blessed with a very specific, apparently enviable bone structure – a point of obsessive discussions on incel forums, where members post longingly about undergoing extreme plastic surgery to achieve “Chad” status.

“Stacys,” meanwhile, are the women incels want to date, but who only want to date Chads.​ Incels seem to hate Chads and Stacys equally, but while they want to be Chads, they want to both date and kill Stacys. ​

Beneath incels’ coded language is a seething anger towards women and a deep well of self-loathing. This is immediately evident on incel chat rooms and other online forums, which are inundated by suicidal and homicidal rhetoric and threats."

https://www.adl.org/resources/background...-celibates

[Syne]

So everyone who ever used the term "hypergamy" is an incel? Are you sure about that?
Your own cited article says hypergamy is "a term based on the biological principle that women are sexually selective for self-preservation."

Please show me the women who desire men shorter or weaker than themselves. Plenty of "short kings" out there would probably like to know.

[Magical Realist]

I just thought it interesting that hypergamy is a little-known concept typically used by incels to argue for the inferiority of women. I mean, I had already inferred your incel-like mindset long ago. And then here we have a direct confirmation of it! What are the odds that is just a coincidence? "If it walks like a duck..."

[Syne]

What about hypergamy suggests "inferiority in women?" Nowhere has anyone even implied that.... except you.
Since hypergamy exists, it follows that men are hypogamous (dating/marrying people of lower status or socioeconomic class).

Many, usually feminists, would argue that implies some weakness, insecurity, or usury in men. See, people can make it an insult either way.

The gay guy who thinks masturbation is equivalent to sex really shouldn't be throwing "incel" rocks. It's sounding more and more like projection.

[Magical Realist]

What about hypergamy suggests "inferiority in women?" Nowhere has anyone even implied that.... except you.

Saying most all women are golddiggers and only selfishly concerned with wealth and status in their choice of a mate is to reduce them to manipulative and materialistic cold-hearted opportunists. As if they are incapable of appreciating a man for who is as a person or falling in love with him. It dehumanizes women with a misogynistic and contemptible stereotype, conveniently excusing you from ever even attempting to date one.

[Syne]

No one said that, moron... except maybe the voices in your own head.

You are the one who has kept making it about money, while I have repeatedly tried to correct you that status is not all/only about money. That's on you, and your poor reading/comprehensions skills.

Women have every right and logical necessity to seek out stronger, taller, more capable mates. Even aside from the fact that pregnancy puts them at a much more severe disadvantage in self-sufficiency and self-defense, I've yet to see a single example of a woman genuinely attracted to a shorter, weaker, dumber, or less capable man than themselves.

You can whine about that fact, like the incels you project, but it is a fact.

Women who seek out men for money alone are opportunistic if they are not genuinely attracted to the man. But that is not, in and of itself, hypergamy. Just as paying a prostitute isn't hypogamy.

[Magical Realist]

You are the one who has kept making it about money, while I have repeatedly tried to correct you that status is not all/only about money.

That's the definition I have repeatedly quoted. It completely has to do with money as well as social status. Money and career are perhaps the two main indicators of one's social status.

"Hypergamy, in a social context, refers to the practice of marrying or dating someone of a higher social status or perceived "worth" than oneself, often associated with women "marrying up" for economic or social advancement."

Women have every right and logical necessity to seek out stronger, taller, more capable mates.

LOL It has nothing to do with how tall or physically strong a man is. But thanks for confirming that's your particular hang-up---that you are a short man. Finally we see why you are so obsessed with this belief. But there is hope for you yet. Some women have no problem with shorter men. Just look at Sonny and Cher.
And here's 15 more celebrity couples where the man is shorter:

https://brightside.me/articles/15-celebr...ys-796518/