Romantic love, which evolved from the ideals of medieval courtly love, gradually replaced traditional marriage customs in 19th-century England and America. From there it spread eventually to most of the world. The modern practice of ‘dating’ is a direct descendant of this tradition, as illustrated in the comparisons below.

Shared Practices and Beliefs in Courtly Love, Romantic Love, and Dating

• Idealization of the Beloved

  • Shared Practice: Lovers are encouraged to place the other on a pedestal—especially the woman, who was often idealized as perfect or uniquely special, embodying unreachable beauty or virtue.

  • Negative Outcome: Leads to unrealistic expectations, disappointment, and emotional dependence.

• Love as a Struggle or Trial

  • Shared Practice: Love is something to be won, often involving suffering, sacrifice, or elaborate performances.

  • Negative Outcome: Encourages self-destructive patterns, toxic persistence (e.g., chasing someone who’s not interested), or emotional games.

• Emphasis on Secrecy and Intrigue

  • Courtly Love: Often adulterous or secretive due to social constraints.

  • Dating: Modern equivalents include hiding relationships, playing “hard to get,” or managing multiple dating “options” covertly.

  • Negative Outcome: Encourages dishonesty, emotional instability, and distrust.

• Emotional Drama and Intensity as Proof of Authenticity

  • Shared Practice: Passion, jealousy, and even despair are treated as signs of true love.

  • Negative Outcome: Normalizes volatility and codependency; can foster manipulative or abusive dynamics.

• Romantic Love as a Life Goal or Personal Fulfillment

  • Shared Belief: Love is central to identity and fulfillment (then and now).

  • Negative Outcome: People may tie self-worth to romantic status; leads to despair if romance is absent or relationships fail.

• Reductive Gendered Roles and Ritualized Pursuit

  • Courtly Love: Men pursue; women are the gatekeepers.

  • Dating: This still persists—men often initiate, plan, pay, etc.

  • Negative Outcome: Reinforces outdated gender scripts, power imbalances, and societal pressure on both sexes to perform roles instead of relating authentically.

• Performative Acts to “Earn” Affection

  • Shared Practice: Gifts, poetry, displays of chivalry or wealth used to impress the beloved.

  • Modern Equivalent: Grand gestures, curated dating profiles, expensive outings.

  • Negative Outcome: Relationships become transactional or based on surface-level traits rather than emotional substance.

• Obsession with the “Chase”

  • Courtly Tradition: Desire thrives on distance and delay.

  • Dating: “The thrill of the chase” still dominates early-stage relationships.

  • Negative Outcome: People lose interest once commitment begins; breeds instability or ghosting.

• Unattainable or Idealized Love Object

  • Courtly Love: The lady is often married or socially inaccessible.

  • Dating: Desire may be directed toward emotionally unavailable or disinterested partners.

  • Negative Outcome: Patterns of chasing the unavailable can lead to repeated emotional harm.

• Suffering is Romanticized

  • Shared Idea: Emotional pain or longing heightens the beauty of love.

  • Negative Outcome: Can justify staying in unhealthy or one-sided relationships.

• Public Performance of Love

  • Courtly Love: Love was often expressed in public poetry or tournaments.

  • Dating: Love is broadcast via social media (Instagram relationships, #CoupleGoals).

  • Negative Outcome: Creates pressure to appear in love rather than actually be connected; leads to comparison, anxiety, or jealousy.

• Status-Seeking Through Romantic Conquest

  • Courtly Love: A knight’s value was partly judged by his lady and courtship prowess.

  • Dating: Social status may be enhanced by having an attractive or high-status partner.

  • Negative Outcome: Dehumanizes partners, fosters superficiality and insecurity.

• Love as a Moral or Spiritual Elevation

  • Courtly Love: Loving nobly was believed to refine the soul.

  • Dating/Romantic Love: The belief that “the right person will fix me or make me whole.”

  • Negative Outcome: Co-dependency, avoidance of self-responsibility, magical thinking.

• Temporary or Transitional Nature of Desire

  • Courtly Love: Often existed outside marriage and was not expected to last.

  • Dating: Many relationships are short-lived or “for the experience.”

  • Negative Outcome: Leads to emotional burnout, cynicism, and reduced capacity for trust or long-term commitment.

 

 

*Bullet points by Chat GPT.

The Trend Of The Sexes

by Rith

When we observe the relationship of the sexes in the past, we find woman solely of the ménage, a menial, subjective, subjected. The male holding the centre of the human drama. From this point to the next point -the present- can be traced the line  following an upward trend, economically, intellectually, and politically, which forecasts the eventual future point, where men and women will be equal and complimentary to each other — a real factual equality.

The conception of equality at the moment is false. The female has gained a large measure of economic freedom, and will obtain more and more. But as she advances, these advances imply just adjustments in her relationship with the male. To take new freedoms and selfishly retain the oppressions over the male, is not only to arouse male resentment, but it is an abomination indeed, which even males who have a desire to free women, must fight in self-preservation.

Those women who have progressed farther than their fellows, who are conscious of the responsibilities the new situation brings, as well as its rights, have a duty towards their opposite sex, who after all, and their brothers, fathers, and sons. To give freedom with the same zeal as they demand it for themselves, that along the road of human progress, we may work in harmony to make life a thing of happiness for both.

Chattels

by Avertir

In 1935 the Bishop of Salisbury was reported as saying 16,000 women obtain Separation Orders a year. In the same year, 50,000 Orders were in operation. In that same year 6,000 Committal Orders were made for non-payment in respect of wives and illegitimate children. In one year alone 4,000 husbands were imprisoned for disobedience of the Order of the Court.

With time and the war condition, the number of men ordered to make payments for the whole length of their lives to women (many able-bodied), has increased to the proportions of a large army. Particularly bad and unjust is the case where the man has children to rear, and is compelled to make payments for life to a stepmother who had not an elementary knowledge of hygiene.

The abolition of these life pensions is long overdue. It is both degrading to the woman and the man. It is an anti-incentive to work for the man, and an anti-incentive to work for the woman. It is gross immorality that a being should be subject to a weekly charge for the duration of life, and further it is immoral that a woman can make this demand upon a fellow creature for the absolute length of life, a condition of parasitism.

The matrimonial position to-day is that the man is now the chattel of the woman. Either he obeys her or she is able to bring ruin upon him. The wage economics of to-day are not founded on the keeping of two homes. Wage equality with men, plus a real or potential “maintenance” payment, is the equality of a perverse mind.

By what process of logic is it right for a widow to receive child allowance and not the widower (man)? Is not his need as great, or even greater than hers? Even a widower’s children need care. While the national Press has given much of its space over the last six years to the hard lot of the mothers who have to work, shop, and do housework, I have not yet read of men that have done all these duties, AND paid a Court Order.  That is one burden no woman has borne.

MAN’S SUBJECTION

It cannot be emphasised sufficiently that men have to awaken from their totally false notions of social strength, and realise that their liberties have gradually and surreptitiously leaked away, and that they stand to-day in an alarmingly handicapped and bonded position.

It is pointed out that their social and economic power has passed in a great measure to women; their voting and numerical strength is greater and could be decisive where interests are opposed. They are a force of cheap labour jeopardising the standards of the male. By sometimes virtue, sometimes by vice, private wealth is passing to their control by Wills. Their power ranges from the cradle to the shadow behind the personal decisions of public leaders, and last but not least women have captured practically intact the secretarial sphere — the communicating gateway through which all letters must pass to reach those that control, whose actions can make or mar their fellow creatures’ lives. The possibilities with which this situation is pregnant requires but little imagination.

Defining One’s Terms

by C. Lea

THERE is a type of propagandist who finds it convenient to avoid defining his terms. He can thus vary the sense when and how it best suits him. He is not tied down to any particular interpretation.

The phrase “sex equality” is often used in this convenient and undefined way. On the one hand they denounce sex discrimination and deny sex difference favourable to men as contrary to the doctrine of sex equality. On the other hand, they regard sex discrimination or sex difference favourable to women as perfectly consistent with that doctrine.

Special rights, privileges and exemptions in favour of women are taken as a matter of course by people who hotly resent the least sex discrimination in favour of men.

Feminine superiorities, real or imaginary, are pushed down our throats by those who would indignantly deny the possibility in favour of men. These partisans readily discover arguments or evidence in support of their claims advantageous to women. They may justify special rights for women on the score of their special functions AS women, however they would, on the other hand, refuse to accept special rights for men on the same grounds.

Logically it is obvious that a series of one-sided feminine advantages cannot possibly give sex equality. Only a balance of masculine and feminine advantages can give real equality. The upholders of the system of one-sided feminine advantage continue to label it “equality,” while stigmatising as “inequality” any compensatory masculine advantage.

The time is come for us to challenge the offenders of this intellectual dishonesty to give clear, logical definition of exactly what they mean by “sex equality.”

SEX EQUALITY IN MARRIAGE

It is believed by many that in some mysterious and unexplained way the law favours the husband in marriage.  It is difficult to fathom how anyone can have this view, since the man is under compulsion to perform most of his duties, while the woman can repudiate many of hers with impunity.

A husband must support his wife or be dealt with by a maintenance or separation order. A man cannot escape a distasteful marriage without heavy financial burdens. A woman who finds marriage distasteful can leave it, earn her own living and extract a maintenance from her husband.

It may be argued that while the husband of a bad wife has far less legal remedy than the wife of a bad husband, the wife who fulfils her side of the bargain has a harder position than her husband, but this does not mean that the law presses more hardy on the wife in such a case, it means that, to her credit, the wife concerned does her duty, and more than her duty without legal compulsion.

The following article appeared in the 1948 edition of the ‘Men’s Review’ – a pro men’s rights initiative that was active in Britain during the 1940s.   – PW

* * *

A Convention Condemned

by “Woman’s View”

MANY features of modern society have struck me as extremely odd. Among these, perhaps that which seems to me the oddest is the curious convention whereby a gentleman who goes to a place of entertainment, or to a place of refreshment, with a lady, is expected to pay the bill without any help from her.

After deep reflection I have decided that this convention (nine out of ten observed only when people of the opposite sex are together) annoys me intensely. I will try to summarise my main objections to this convention with utmost brevity.

First, I think the convention unfair. Unfair because it puts upon the shoulders of men the financial burden which, according to logic, should be shared by women. For generally speaking our participation in the benefits paid for is at least equal to the man’s. In modern times we women are, with a diminishing number of exceptions, as well off as our male counterparts.

Secondly, it leads to a greater extravagance than would exist under a “fifty-fifty” system, since the man is placed in the position in which he is not able to suggest economising on the expenses, while where he able to regard the woman as a share-and-share-alike partner, he could suggest economy without embarrassment at all.

Thirdly, the convention tends in many cases to put inter-sex relationships upon a commercial footing. The woman tends to prefer the man who takes her to the half-a-crown seats to the otherwise equally attractive man who takes her in the one-and-sixpenny seats. I happen to believe in equality of opportunity, and it is psychologically bad for women since it tends to make for an unnatural suppression of our real affections beneath the gold-digging smartness.

I AM REVOLTED

The man is tempted to wonder what return he is going to have for the money he has paid out and to arrive at what appears to be a reasonable explanation, mainly that his return will be in terms of kisses and caresses. Hereupon he, and for that matter the woman too, may begin to regard kisses and caresses as something for sale, and idea which, in my opinion, is revolting.

Much could be said in discussion of this convention, which, as I hope to have shown, links up with our modern social outlook in an enormous number of ways.

The success of such an attempt would mean that we have changed the course of social history, and changed it, I believe, for the better. I do not deny that the thrill of this thought is as much of an inspiration as a mere desire to profit ourselves from the more convenient and fair system which I have advocated.

To those scoffers who say “You can’t change human nature,” “Every woman has her price,” or whatever expression you may use, I have only to point out the vast changes in inter-sex relationships that have taken place in our lifetime and those changes for which the Society (for men’s rights) will most surely bring about.

The following article from Men’s Review (1948) discusses some of the unbalanced legal, financial and parental burdens placed on fathers. – PW

* * *

The Man Always Pays

About a hundred thousand men are sentenced for life to the bondage of maintenance orders. Try to imagine the welter of misery this factor means. Here in 1948, when there is a clamour for equality in every sphere, it is farcical that laws agreeable to the chattel era should still be enforced in a feminine-emancipated age.

Widowers (men) who marry again often find that stepmothers have not the consciousness of a decent woman’s duty toward the dead woman’s children. She spurns the children, and unlike the male, there is no legal compulsion to hold her to the care of them.

The only road that lays before the man is to stand aside and see his children treated shamefully or the woman can alarmingly easily go to court and say she left because of the man’s cruelty, and obtain a life pension. As soon as a woman obtains a court order the father is faced with the problem of being a father and “mother” too. The order seldom leaves enough to pay for the children’s care. He has the same strain of shopping, housekeeping, occasional sickness, etc., as a working woman with children, but, he doesn’t get the State allowances such as the woman is allowed. He gets the strong impression that he is ostracised completely and that he and his children have no rights. What he does manage to obtain is purely concessionary.

The marriage contract is the only contract that is entered into without the conditions being made out, and is signed by the man who places himself utterly and absolutely in the woman’s power. If the woman is of the twenty per cent that are decent he is more fortunate than he will ever know.

Does the community realise the festering sore caused by this large army of rotting men who are forced to pay maintenance while the woman pays nothing? This army of self-degraded parasitical women? Some men rot in silence. Others rot in prison rather than submit. Some spend years in hopeful writing to have their grievances righted, only to finish frustrated, and embittered, for there will be no echo in their vacuum. Can the nation afford this canker? This damnation of a fellow-creature?

Below are a few articles exploring the nature of hypergamy, and its common conflation with narcissism.

Articles on hypergamy:

• Is It Really Hypergamy—Or Just Narcissism in Disguise? (2025)
• Narcissism vs. Hypergamy: A Comparative Analysis (Chat GPT 2025)
• Evolutionary & Sociological Definitions of Hypergamy: A Synthesized Definition (Chat GPT 2025)
• David Buss’s Hypergamy Theory May Be a Misinterpretation Of Modern Cultural Narcissism (2025)

David M. Buss’s evolutionary theory about female hypergamy—the idea that women have evolved preferences for mates with higher status, resources, or genetic quality—is based on hypothesis and inferred ancestral behavior, not on unassailable scientific fact.

What it’s based on:

1. Evolutionary Psychology Framework:
   Buss’s work relies on the principle that current human mating preferences evolved to solve adaptive problems in ancestral environments.

2. Hypotheses from Evolutionary Theory:
   Buss hypothesizes that, because ancestral women bore higher reproductive costs (pregnancy, lactation), they evolved to prefer mates who could provide resources, protection, and good genes.

3. Cross-Cultural Survey Data:
   Buss cites cross-cultural surveys (e.g. his 1989 study across 37 cultures) showing women tend to place more importance than men on traits like status, ambition, and financial prospects.

4. Inferred Ancestral Pressures:
   The theory infers that these preferences were adaptive responses to historical conditions—not direct observations of evolution in action.

What it is not:

• It is not a proven law of biology.

• It does not rest on direct evidence from the ancestral past (e.g., no fossilized brains revealing sexual preferences).

• It is not immune to alternative explanations (e.g. cultural influences, individual variation, or reverse causality).

---

Scientific Status:

• Buss’s theory is plausible and widely cited, but:

  • It remains a theoretical interpretation.

  • It is subject to testing, falsification, and revision.

  • It faces criticism, especially from social constructionist scholars who argue that cultural and economic factors also shape mate preferences.

---

Summary:

Buss’s theory of female hypergamy is a scientifically grounded hypothesis supported by data, but it is not an unassailable fact. It rests on inference, comparative studies, and evolutionary logic, and it remains open to challenge and refinement like any scientific theory.

It is plausible to suggest that David M. Buss’s evolutionary theory of female hypergamy might be—at least in part—a misinterpretation of modern cultural phenomena, such as rising narcissism or changing gender norms, retrofitted into an evolutionary narrative.

---

Cultural Narcissism; A Better Hypothesis? 

Buss’s theory of female hypergamy may be a mistaken interpretation of modern cultural narcissism, a phenomenon displayed cross-culturally by women, which involves self-enhancement and status seeking behaviours.

Why It’s a Plausible Critique:

1. Evolutionary Psychology is Interpretive, Not Definitive

• Buss’s theory relies on hypotheses about ancestral environments, not direct evidence.

• It builds inferences from modern patterns (e.g., mate preferences, jealousy triggers) and assumes those behaviors evolved because they were adaptive in the past.

• This opens the door to cultural biases being projected backward.

2. Modern Narcissism Could Skew Observations

• Traits often associated with narcissism (e.g., entitlement, self-enhancement, inflated mate value) are arguably more pronounced in today’s Western, media-saturated societies.

• If women in multiple modern cultures exhibit similar behavior, Buss may assume a universal evolved basis, when the actual cause could be global cultural convergence (social media, individualism, feminism, economic freedom).

3. Reverse Causality Risk

• Instead of evolved hypergamy causing current behavior, it’s possible that modern environments (education, wealth, independence, online dating, cultural narcissism) are shaping behavior that mimics hypergamous strategies—but aren’t rooted in ancient adaptations.

• Buss may be mistaking consequence for cause.

4. Cross-Cultural Similarities Might Be Misleading

• Buss often cites cross-cultural data (e.g., women preferring higher-status partners) as evidence of biological evolution.

• But if modern globalization and media homogenize norms, then apparent universality may not mean ancestral origin.

Some social commentators and dating coaches cite Buss to explain the growing selectiveness of women in relationships, attributing it to hypergamy—the notion that women are naturally drawn to higher-status partners. Though this idea has roots in evolutionary theory, cultural narcissism may offer a more convincing explanation.

 

Analysis assisted by Chat GPT.

Storge love is a deep, enduring form of affection rooted in familiarity, companionship, and mutual care. Unlike romantic or courtly love—often dramatized by idealization, infatuation, or acts of chivalry—storge is quiet, stable, and built gradually through shared life experiences. It is typically marked by emotional warmth, trust, and a strong sense of loyalty, making it uniquely suited to the lasting commitments of marriage or long-term unions between a man and a woman.

This kind of love mirrors the biological and evolutionary function of pairbonding, which emphasizes secure attachment, cooperation, and the mutual raising of children. In contrast to romantic love—which can be impulsive, theatrical, and dependent on ritualized gender roles like male sacrifice and female idealization—storge love prioritizes the real, lived bond between two people. It supports emotional and practical interdependence rather than romantic pedestalization.

Storge is neither driven by fantasy nor by the compulsions of hypergamous courtship dynamics. It flourishes through familiarity, repeated kindness, and the rhythms of daily life. As such, it reflects a mature model of love—one that aligns with long-term monogamous partnership, shared purpose, and reciprocal investment. In this way, storge provides a grounded, healthy alternative to the often fleeting and hierarchical dynamics of romantic or chivalric love.

______________________

SOURCES:

1. Evolutionary Psychology (Biological/Evolutionary Model)

Defines hypergamy as a female mating preference for partners of higher status, resources, or genetic quality, shaped by evolutionary pressures.

Key Sources:

• David M. Buss (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.

  A landmark cross-cultural study showing women consistently prioritize status and resource acquisition in mates.

• Buss, D. M. (2015). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind.

  Comprehensive textbook with a section on hypergamous preferences as reproductive strategies.

• Geoffrey Miller (2000). The Mating Mind.

  Explores how mate choice—including hypergamy—shapes intelligence and creativity evolutionarily.

---

2. Anthropology & Sociology (Social Structural Model)

Explores hypergamy as a socially constructed pattern related to marriage systems, gender roles, and power dynamics—often reinforced by tradition or patriarchy.

Key Sources:

• Claude Lévi-Strauss (1949). The Elementary Structures of Kinship.

  Discusses bride exchange and status hierarchy in kinship systems; early use of hypergamy in marriage structures.

• Sylvia Yanagisako & Jane Collier (1987). Gender and Kinship: Essays Toward a Unified Analysis.

  Frames hypergamy as a tool of gendered social reproduction within patriarchal systems.

• Pierre Bourdieu (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action.

  Describes how cultural capital and marriage reproduce class inequality—relevant to hypergamy.

 

*Text version of the above synthetic definition:

Definition of Hypergamy (Evolutionary + Social Structural Synthesis):

Hypergamy is the tendency—especially among women—to seek romantic or marital partners of higher status, resources, or social rank, driven by a combination of evolved mate preferences and culturally reinforced social structures.

_______________________________________________

ADDENDUM by OPEN AI

Scientific & Logical Weaknesses of
“Evolved Female Hypergamy” Theory

---

1. Male and Female Mating Preferences Are Both Contextual

• Evolution favors flexible mating strategies in both sexes depending on environment, not fixed sex-specific instincts.

• Women and men both show strategic variety — seeking mates for status, companionship, sex, or care depending on life stage, local ecology, and cultural expectations.

---

2. Cross-Cultural Data Shows Wide Variation

• In many societies, hypergamy is weak or absent. Some women are economic providers, and status-matching or even hypogamy (marrying down) is common.

• Cross-cultural research by anthropologists (e.g., Marlowe, Hewlett, Hrdy) shows that social roles—not biology—can determine mate preferences.

---

3. Neuropsychological Claims Are Inconsistent

• Claims about women’s brains being “wired” for status-seeking are often based on unreplicated or low-validity studies.

• Human behavior is not hardwired; neural plasticity and social learning play a dominant role.

---

4. Misuse of Sexual Selection Theory

• Darwinian sexual selection does not require that females are choosy only for status or provisioning.

• In humans, pair bonding, cooperation, and shared parental investment are central to reproductive success — not just resource extraction.

---

5. Hypergamy Often Reflects Structural Inequality, Not Evolution

• For much of history, women lacked access to education, wealth, or autonomy. “Marrying up” can be explained as a survival strategy, not an evolved preference.

• Where legal and economic equality improves, female hypergamy declines — suggesting it is not biologically ingrained.

---

6. Men Also Exhibit Hypergamy, Just in Other Domains

• Men also often ‘marry up’—whether by pursuing partners with substantial dowries or by seeking youth, beauty, fertility, or social capital—forms of sexual hypergamy that reflect different but equally strategic mate preferences.

• Both sexes selectively value traits depending on goals — men are not uniquely “non-hypergamous.”

---

7. Research Bias and Ecological Invalidity

• Many hypergamy claims come from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) samples, especially using speed-dating or hypothetical surveys that don’t translate to real-world decisions.

• Lab-based designs often fail ecological validity — e.g., real mate choice differs drastically from survey answers.

---

8. Conflates Mate Preference With Actual Behavior

• Studies often overstate the importance of stated preferences — real-world behavior is constrained by opportunity, emotion, context, and mutual attraction.

• E.g., a woman may say she prefers high-earning men but choose a lower-earning partner for emotional compatibility, shared values, or long-term support.

---

9. Poor Fit With Evolutionary Models of Cooperative Breeding

• Human evolution involved cooperative childrearing, not just paternal provisioning.

• Mothers, kin, and group members played key roles, making exclusive dependence on high-status males evolutionarily inefficient.

---

10. Cultural Myths Reinforced as Biology

• “Hypergamy” often reflects modern gender ideologies — not evolutionary science.

• Using it as a “biological truth” fuels sexist narratives that justify inequality and oversimplify men’s and women’s behavior.

---

Conclusion

The idea that women evolved to be universally or innately hypergamous is:

• Empirically unsupported when examined across cultures and contexts.

• Conceptually flawed because it ignores the social, ecological, and cooperative nature of human evolution.

• Biased in application, reinforcing outdated gender stereotypes rather than advancing scientific understanding.