Difference between revisions of "Hypergamy"
m (Removed protection from "Hypergamy")
Revision as of 00:21, 6 November 2019
In scientific literature, the term hypergamy mostly refers to marrying up in socioeconomic status. Hypergamy is more commonly observed in women, but it can refer to either men or women.
In the manosphere, the term hypergamy is used more broadly for marrying or dating up in any regard, for example in physical attractiveness, and it can refer to dating up relative to a woman's previous partner or relative to other males available, not just herself or the social standing of her family. Women appear to incite one another's hypergamy.
Women's hypergamy is mainly a result of their higher choosiness, higher uniformity of sexual desire, and men's higher sex drive and promiscuity. Men have fewer alternative mating options available to them, so they more readily make compromises and date down. Women's preference for high status men ties into the natural hierarchical social organization found in humans.
- 1 Women commodify sex
- 2 Women want all poor men to die in a fire, painfully
- 3 Rising male sexlessness
- 4 Marriages are falling apart because women want tingles from alphas
- 5 80/20 Rule
- 6 GINI coefficients
- 7 George Orwell on hypergamy
- 8 Woman on hypergamy
- 9 Universities teach our shit
- 10 Hypergamy gallery
- 11 References
- 12 See Also
Women commodify sex
Women desire initiating sex with a random person of the opposite gender much less than men. This gives women almost all the power in sexual matters, part of what is broadly referred to in sociology as the, "principle of least interest". All other things being equal, the person with the least interest in initiating something generally decides the terms of that activity. Women naturally want resource security in relationships much more than men. As women are the sexual selectors, when they sexually reject men based on "what men have to offer" they are sexually commodifying themselves with a certain exchange value. Sex, in the absence of Sexual Marxism/Fascism then becomes a, "female commodified resource for social exchange", in which a, "broad range of valued goods", are competed for by men in order to, purchase sex from women with this broad array of (often non-monetary) resources. Females compete with each other to, "sell high", in the form of strategically withholding sex they would otherwise like to have, slut-shaming, and gossip. Whereas male sexual competition takes the form of amassing the "broad range of valued goods": fame, wealth etc. When men compete in terms of resources and women raise the resource cost of sex, this creates a situation where the men with the most resources get the most sexual access. In other words, women pair, "up", in resource status among men. Women, being the sellers of the sexual access they collectively commodify as much as possible, can choose whenever they want to have sex by merely accepting a buyer or lowering their price. Whereas men must engage in the work necessary to amass the resources required to buy what women collectively commodify if women refuse to submit to Sexual Marxism or give sex away for free and without discrimination.
Women want all poor men to die in a fire, painfully
Women are 1000 times pickier on the issue of a potential partner's wealth than men according to an academic research study by Guanlin Wang.
Women rate men with high status cues (e.g. presentation of luxury goods) as much more sexually attractive, while men don't care about this. Women have a higher likelihood of experiencing orgasms during sex the wealthier the man. Men's social status also accounts for 62% of the variance of frequency of copulation opportunities. 
Higher income of the man was found to be associated with female orgasm and lower income predicted sexlessness. Women's promotion also increased the risk of divorce. However another study did not find effects for marriage satisfaction and likelihood of women's divorce initiation. Aversion to having the wife earn more than the husband did, however, explain 29% of the decline in marriage rates over the last thirty years.
Mixed results in existing relationships and marriages suggest that relationships have mostly already passed the hypergamous filter, i.e. already mostly fulfill the condition for the man being the most valuable man available which also may not only be decided by the measures of power differential used in the studies (income and education status), but rather by physical dominance, physical attractiveness, peer popularity and occupational prestige. Power differentials in marriages are seen as unfavorable in Western culture which may negatively affect such marriages.
Rising male sexlessness
More evidence of increased hypergamy is the raise of inceldom, which affects both sexes, but men more than women. The share of men under 30 who aren't having sex has possibly tripled in the past decade according to the Washington Post using data from the General Social Survey.
More evidence is that the top 5-20% of men are having more sex than ever before. The data from the 2002 and 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth, a US household survey focusing on sexual and reproductive health can demonstrate this. The researchers found that compared to 2002, men overall had the same number of partners in 2013. However, the top 20% of men had a 25% increase in sexual partners. The top 5% of men had an outstanding 38% increase in the number of sexual partners. Thus while the amount of male sex that was had was unchanged, more of the sex was consolidated into extra sex for the top 5-20% of men (i.e., "Chads"). Thus Chads are truly having more sex than ever before. Below are direct quotes from the study:
- Although we found no change in median numbers of sex partners [for men], we found significant increases in the numbers of sex partners reported by the top 5% and 20%.
- We found an overall statistically significant increase in reported lifetime opposite-sex sex partners overall for men in the top 20% from 12 in 2002 to 15 in 2011–2013 (95% CIs, 11–14 and 15–15, respectively).
- Similarly, there was a statistically significant overall increase in reported lifetime partners for men in the top 5% from 38 in 2002 to 50 in 2011–2013 (95% CIs, 30–40 and 50–50, respectively).
Women outeducating men is creating inceldom
There are indications that hypergamy and inceldom is partially born from college educated women and the like. Technology and liberalism have allowed more women to enter the workforce and surpass men in educational and socioeconomic status, hence rendering more men unattractive to women due to women's hypergamous preference to date up. This has possibly resulted in an increase in male inceldom, but also female singlehood, in fact high status women are often observed to prefer singlehood over dating down.
Women whose mate value increases substantially will become (1) more emotionally dissatisfied with their current partner, (2) more likely to evade a partner's mate guarding efforts, (3) more likely to cultivate backup mates, (4) more likely to initiate new relationships with higher mate value men, and (5) less inclined to stay with their current partners.
Marriages are falling apart because women want tingles from alphas
However, intensified hypergamy likely cannot only be seen in rise of singlehood, but also in less stable relationships: With a decline of marriage norms, greater acceptance of polygamy and divorce laws greatly benefit women, women more readily jump ship when a better man is available, which can be seen in women initiating divorces more often than men and a closing gender gap in infidelity, despite the fact that men oppose their partner's infidelity much more strongly.
The increase in single motherhood, and a higher rate of childless men, likely also points to hypergamy as a minority of men engages in serial monogamy (i.e. remarries often) which is de facto polygamy. Single motherhood may also come from riding the "cock carousel" too much. Young women chase the 666 rule and then turn bitter when they have to settle with an ugly betabux, and so end up lonely with their kids. The fact that they've been "pumped and dumped" is evidence that these women have aimed excessively high and carelessness, i.e. high SMV men would have lost interest due to their plentiful other options. Women are known to turn bitter towards other men once rejected.
An internal OkCupid study revealed that the vast majority of women only consider about 20% of men to be average in looks, and irrationally evaluate 80% of men brave enough to show their mug on a public website as below the average of all men. In the most popular dating app Tinder, a mating analyst found out that “the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men". Because women are sexual gatekeepers their preferences decide the dating scene.
OkCupid deleted its internal studies showing how women view 80% of men as below average after the Alek Minassian attack, but many archives exist including the ones cited above.
The 80/20 phenomenon is observable in other phenomena, otherwise known as the "Pareto Principle", however this "principle" is commonly taken way too literally. As the only meaningful insight of it is that extreme end points (eg best looking meen) account for most of the impact in that particular world (sexual market) in already unequally distributed patterns. It is important to remember that Pareto was a lunatic who genuinely believed that his "laws" proved that social darwinism was necessary to "eliminate" undesirables ("toxins"). None of his "laws" have been proven as unchanging or necessary, but rather correlated with a large number already unequally distributed patterns. In other words, the "80/20" rule describes inequality (in this case the distribution of affection in online dating), but it does not "prove" that things will always be severely unequally distributed.
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 56 percent of women and 59 percent of men have had sex by the time they finish high school. If access to sexual intercourse in real life followed an "80/20 rule", then we would expect less people having sex by the time they left high school. At the same time, more people are online dating, and the real-life dating sphere will become more unequal over time as online dating becomes even more popular. So the "80/20" rule is simply a warning of the damaging effects of our current dating scene, which is increasingly dominated by online dating.
Sexually frustrated men and the abundance of them in online dating and social media, likely also intensify hypergamy: Frustrated men aim down more, which inflates women's self-esteem and gives them hope of securing a mate with exceptional high mate value, so they become even more choosy and date up more or show decision fatigue which creates even more sexually starved men, forming a feedback loop. Growing economic inequality and decreasing economic growth likely have the same effect as fewer men can attain reliable high status, which is what women go for.
A study analyzing GINI coefficients in human relationships found that “single men have a higher Gini coefficient (.536) than single women (.470). Thus, female sexual partners are more unequally distributed among single men than male sexual partners are among single women”. Famous sexologist Kristin Spitznogle says this is proof that Bateman's Principle now applies to humans. A separate study of Tinder found that Tinder's GINI coefficient between the genders was on scale with the income inequality of third-world countries (see chart below).
A data scientist for Hinge reported on the Gini coefficients he had found in his company’s abundant data, treating “likes” as the equivalent of income. He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542. While the situation for women is something like an economy with some poor, some middle class, and some millionaires, the situation for men is closer to a world with a small number of super-billionaires surrounded by huge masses who possess almost nothing. According to the Hinge analyst:
On a list of 149 countries’ Gini indices provided by the CIA World Factbook, this would place the female dating economy as 75th most unequal (average—think Western Europe) and the male dating economy as the 8th most unequal (kleptocracy, apartheid, perpetual civil war—think South Africa.
George Orwell on hypergamy
The famous English writer and socialist, George Orwell, poignantly wrote about male poverty and homelessness frequently being concomitant with inceldom, due to female hypergamy, in his famous novel about the underclass, Down and Out in Paris and London, in 1933:
It will be seen from these figures that at the charity level men outnumber women by something like ten to one. The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man. The result, for a tramp, is that he is condemned to perpetual celibacy. For of course it goes without saying that if a tramp finds no women at his own level, those above - even a very little above - are as far out of reach as the moon. The reasons are not worth discussing, but there is little doubt that women never, or hardly ever, condescend to men who are much poorer than themselves.
A tramp, therefore, is a celibate from the moment when he takes to the road. He is absolutely without hope of getting a wife, a mistress, or any kind of woman except — very rarely, when he can raise a few shillings — a prostitute.
It is obvious what the results of this must be: homosexuality, for instance, and occasional rape cases. But deeper than these there is the degradation worked in a man who knows that he is not even considered fit for marriage. The sexual impulse, not to put it any higher, is a fundamental impulse, and starvation of it can be almost as demoralizing as physical hunger. The evil of poverty is not so much that it makes a man suffer as that it rots him physically and spiritually. And there can be no doubt that sexual starvation contributes to this rotting process. Cut off from the whole race of women, a tramp feels himself degraded to the rank of a cripple or a lunatic. No humiliation could do more damage to a man’s self-respect.
—George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London, 1933
Woman on hypergamy
Universities teach our shit
- Waller & Hill, 1951
- Baumeister & Twenge, 2002
- Harper CR, Dittus PJ, Leichliter JS, Aral, SO. Changes in the Distribution of Sex Partners in the United States: 2002 to 2011–2013 Sexually Transmitted Diseases: February 2017 - Volume 44 - Issue 2 - p 96–100. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000554
- "Down and Out in Paris and London",1933, George Orwell, Chapter XXXVI.