[Note: This ended up being a weird, but perhaps important, post where I started with one question and ended up going down a rabbit hole. Read at your own risk.]
If you’ve been reading red pill philosophy for a while, you’ve probably come across the term “open hypergamy.”
“Hypergamy” refers to a woman’s nature to secure the best man she can get. In a society that values marriage and shames having children out of wedlock, hypergamy means “marrying up.”
But in our “sexually liberated” culture, hypergamy simply means securing the best genes from a man and then finding an alternative source of provision (e.g. welfare or a beta male.) This strategy can accurately be termed as “fucking up.”
This second scenario is commonly called “open hypergamy.” It’s a woman’s hypergamous nature without restraint. And it’s not good for society.
It’s not good for women, who end up leading miserable lives as single mothers or get “stuck” in a sexually unfulfilling marriage with a beta male.
It’s not good for the majority of men, who become involuntary celibates (“incels”).
It’s not even good for the alpha males, as successful pick up artists soon find that an abundance of sex without meaningful context only creates disillusionment and ruins their ability to find satisfaction in a long-term relationship.
In short, it seems that God’s design is best: sex is for marriage.
There’s no doubt that “open hypergamy” is bad. But there is some controversy over whether hypergamy itself is bad.
After all hypergamy is what drives women to commit adultery. And adultery is clearly a sin.
Unraveling the Nature of Women
So is hypergamy part of a woman’s “sin nature”?
To answer this question we have to look at what the Scriptures say about the nature of women. There are two fundamental passages on this topic [emphasis mine]:
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18)
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Gen 3:16)
When it comes to interpreting Scripture, I follow the Occam’s razor principle: the explanation with the fewest assumptions should be tested first. Theological theories are usually unnecessary when a plain explanation suffices.
Case in point:
“Help meet” (ezer) can be translated as “succor” which means giving assistance in a time of hardship and distress.
So what was Adam’s distress?
Was he having a hard time classifying the animals?
No. His mind was well-suited to that task. Adam’s distress is found in verse 20:
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Now, not to get too crude here, but it’s important to note that it was studying animals that caused Adam to recognize his distress.
Last I checked, animals are not particularly romantic creatures. They are primal and driven to mate.
No doubt, Adam thought something like, “I need to do that to. But the parts don’t align. What do I do with this urge?”
It was only after God made Adam aware of the need, that he introduced the woman. Hence the significance of Adam’s expression “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
At last! Adam had found his sexual counterpart.
So the first fundamental aspect of woman’s nature is this:
A woman was designed to fulfill a man’s primal urges. And, as a corollary, a woman feels most fulfilled when she is relieving a man of his primal “distress”. She is the “help meet”… the succor.
But then something happened that changed the sexual dynamic:
Sin entered the world.
As a consequence, God made some adjustments to female nature.
The first thing God did was adjust the woman’s anatomy. It would now be painful to give birth to children. Presumably this would also mean it would be painful to have sex with a man. She is too “tight” to be penetrated with ease.
Now, if God had stopped there, sex would be ruined. No woman would ever want to have sex or get pregnant. It’s all pain, and no pleasure.
So how did God resolve this problem? With a change in the woman’s psychology:
“thy desire shall be to thy husband”
Note that “husband” is ish which simply means “man.” There was only one man on the marketplace at the time. And, unlike our “soy boy” culture of today, being a man back then had a connotation of strength… a masculine man.
So with these clarifications in mind, the meaning of “desire” becomes apparent:
A woman yearns for a strong man.
This is in contrast to the pain involved in having children. If it’s a masculine man, the desire for that man’s seed overrides the future pain of childbirth and even the pain of intercourse.
In other words, in the presence of a strong man, a woman becomes (to a certain extent) masochistic. She derives pleasure from pain.
This also explains humanity’s timeless obsession with the tightness and size of certain sexual parts. The scripture itself illustrates in vivid terms what happens when female sexuality runs out of control:
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. (Ezek 23:20)
This is “open hypergamy” at it’s most extreme. All pretenses of restraint are thrown out the window and men are judged simply on the size of their members.
This potential degradation of female sexuality necessitates the final point of God’s decree to the woman:
“and he will rule over you.”
A woman’s sexuality requires domination from the man. If she is not dominated by a man (or if she rebels against the “patriarchy”) she will seek lewd avenues of expression to her sexuality.
So in sum, the fundamental nature of woman is:
- Finding fulfillment in relieving a man’s primal urges (the succor role)
- Yearning for the strongest man she can get (hypergamy)
- Deriving pleasure from pain and subjugation to a strong man (masochism)
Female Nature: Sin or Design?
Now, to bring this full circle back to the original question: “is hypergamy sinful?” There’s something worth noting in the Genesis 3 account:
When God made his decrees, both the serpent and the man were given a “because you did this… therefore this” type of judgment. But the woman was not.
The woman was simply told, “this is what is going to happen.”
The responsibility fell on Adam. “Because you listened to the voice of your wife.”
In other words, it seems that the nature of woman was changed because of the man not because of the woman.
What you believe about the nature of women will determine your attitude toward them.
One worldview says, women are the way they are because of sin. The female nature must be suppressed because it is evil.
The other worldview says, women are the way they are because it makes better men. Feral women is a consequence of weak men. The proper solution is to build stronger men.
It’s easy to call hypergamy a sin. When unrestrained, it can wreak a lot of havoc.
But what if hypergamy is simply the challenge designed by God to make stronger men?
I’m hesitant to call “sin” what was apparently designed by God.