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)
• David Buss’s Hypergamy Theory May Be a Misinterpretation Of Modern Cultural Narcissism (2025)
• The Human Reproductive Skew Is Not Evidence of Female Hypergamy (2025)
• Several human populations show no evidence of the classic ~2:1 reproductive skew (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.

What is Adaptive Hypergamy?

Hypergamy refers to the tendency—especially among women in evolutionary psychology literature—to seek mates of higher socioeconomic, educational, or social status. It’s adaptive in that it enhances the likelihood of long-term security or high-quality offspring.

It’s not inherently pathological, and many forms of hypergamy are based on mutual benefit, cultural norms, or rational life planning.

---

What is Narcissism?

Narcissism, as defined by the NPI, involves a personality style characterized by:

• Grandiosity

• Entitlement

• Exploitativeness

• Lack of empathy

• Need for admiration

• Superficial charm

These traits go beyond adaptive behavior and reflect deeper psychological dysfunction when pronounced.

---

Narcissistic Personality Inventory Subscales vs. Hypergamy:

---

Key Distinction: Motive & Pattern

• Hypergamy: Selective mating strategy—adaptive, often rational, and shaped by social conditions.

• Narcissism: Enduring personality pattern rooted in self-image regulation, often maladaptive.

---

Why Hypergamy Misses the Narcissism Mark:

1. Hypergamy is context-driven, not self-image driven.

2. It’s goal-directed behavior, not an enduring personality trait.

3. Not all hypergamous individuals score high on narcissistic traits—many may be high in agreeableness or conscientiousness.

4. NPI traits are egocentric and self-referential; hypergamy is other-referential (focused on the perceived value of the partner, not the self).

---

Conclusion:

Hypergamy does not qualify as narcissism under the NPI framework. While the two may superficially appear similar (e.g., seeking high-status partners might look like entitlement or superiority), hypergamy lacks the internal cognitive and emotional features of narcissism—such as chronic grandiosity, need for validation, or interpersonal exploitation.

To claim hypergamy is narcissism is a category error—confusing a social strategy with a clinical personality trait.

---

Vulnerable Narcissism Factors vs. Hypergamy

---

Summary:

• Vulnerable narcissism is an internalized, fragile self-construct that leads to social anxiety, hypersensitivity, and hidden entitlement.

• Hypergamy, in contrast, is an external social behavior that involves evaluating mates based on status, resources, or traits.

While some vulnerable narcissists may express hypergamy as a compensatory behavior (e.g., dating up to mask insecurity), the two are not equivalent and hypergamy does not meet the diagnostic profile of vulnerable narcissism.

---

DSM-5 Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) vs. Hypergamy

---

Summary:

To receive a DSM-5 diagnosis of NPD, an individual must meet at least 5 of the 9 criteria, and the traits must be pervasive, inflexible, and cause clinically significant impairment in social or occupational functioning.

Hypergamy:

• Is contextual, adaptive, and goal-directed, not pathological.

• Does not inherently involve distorted self-perception, interpersonal manipulation, or emotional dysfunction.

• May co-occur with narcissistic traits in some individuals, but is not itself a symptom or diagnosis.

---

Comment:

Most overlaps occur when hypergamy is expressed in its extreme or culturally distorted forms (e.g., social media-driven, materialistic dating norms). In its adaptive or traditional form, hypergamy does not require narcissistic traits.

When we focus on non-extreme, adaptive, or traditionally normative hypergamy—such as preferring partners with greater competence, stability, or upward potential—the overlap with narcissistic traits becomes minimal to nonexistent.

Below is a precise table showing only the very limited overlap (if any) between healthy, non-extreme hypergamy and narcissistic traits:

---

Limited Overlap: Normative Hypergamy vs. Narcissistic Traits

---

Key Conclusions:

• No overlap exists in core narcissistic traits such as grandiosity, lack of empathy, exploitative behavior, or entitlement.

• Normative hypergamy is goal-oriented, prosocial, and contextual, not a sign of disordered personality.

Many commentators blame the rising female selectiveness in relationships on “hypergamy”—the idea that women naturally seek partners of higher status. While this theory has evolutionary grounding, a more compelling explanation lies in cultural narcissism.

In affluent, individualistic societies, narcissistic traits have surged—particularly among women raised in a culture that glorifies self-worth, esteem, and chivalric deference. This acquired status leads to what psychologists call Acquired Situational Narcissism, a form of narcissism born not from personality disorder, but from social reinforcement of perceived importance. Much of what’s labeled “hypergamy” today may in fact be status-seeking motivated by this cultural narcissism, not a biologically adaptive mate strategy.

Research supports this view. Narcissists tend to choose romantic partners who boost their status—those who are attractive, wealthy, or high in social capital—not because of emotional closeness but to reflect glory and inflate self-esteem. They prefer “trophy partners,” idealized mates who mirror their inflated self-image. These patterns of self-enhancing relationship selection are well-documented and correlate strongly with narcissistic motivations rather than with functional reproductive strategy.

“Narcissists are more likely to choose relationships that elevate their status over relationships that cultivate affiliation… They often demonstrate an increased preference for high-status friends and trophy partners, perhaps because they can bask in the reflected glory of these people.”
— Grapsas et al., 2020

“Narcissists seek romantic partners who offer self-enhancement value either as sources of fawning admiration, or as human trophies (e.g., by possessing impressive wealth or exceptional physical beauty).”
— Wallace, 2011

“Narcissists’ preference for romantic partners reflects a strategy for interpersonal self-esteem regulation… These partners were more likely to be seen as a source of self-esteem to the extent that they provided the narcissist with a sense of popularity and importance.”
— Campbell, 1999

“Narcissists particularly look for in a partner… physical attractiveness and agentic traits (e.g., status and success)… Indeed, narcissists report that part of the reason they are drawn to attractive and successful partners is that these people are similar to them.”
— Campbell, Brunell & Finkel, 2006

True evolutionary hypergamy does not require an individual to overrate their own attractiveness. Narcissism does. Thus, a useful test: if a woman dramatically overestimates her own desirability while seeking high-status men, this signals narcissism—not evolution. Mistaking the two leads to the normalization and even glorification of maladaptive traits under the guise of “natural female behavior.”

Moreover, modern narcissistic self-enhancement is not adaptive—it undermines relationship quality, social cohesion, and even fertility rates. Unlike adaptive mate strategies, it serves the ego, not survival.

By distinguishing narcissistic self-enhancement from evolutionary hypergamy, we avoid excusing destructive behavior as biologically inevitable. What we see today is not always nature—it’s culture, and it’s increasingly narcissistic.

---

References:

1. Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. (2020). The “why” and “how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 150-172.

2. Wallace, H. M. (2011). Narcissistic self-enhancement. In: Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (Eds.) The Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Findings, and Treatments, 309-318.

3. Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1254–1270.

4. Campbell, W. K., Brunell, A. B., & Finkel, E. J. (2006). Narcissism, Interpersonal Self-Regulation, and Romantic Relationships: An Agency Model Approach. In: Vohs, K. D., & Finkel, E. J. (Eds.), Self and Relationships: Connecting Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes, 57–83.

Feature image detail: Left half shows a tribal or historical woman looking with admiration at a strong, competent man (symbolizing adaptive hypergamy). The right half shows a modern woman taking selfies next to a luxury car, barely noticing the man she’s with. Symbolism: Juxtaposes genuine evolutionary mate choice with modern narcissistic self-display.