In the 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 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's tendency to date up is among other things a result of their higher choosiness 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.
See also the hypergamy section in the Scientific Blackpill.
- 1 Overview
- 2 80/20 rule
- 3 There is no simple solution
- 4 GINI coefficients
- 5 Increased male celibacy
- 6 The cock carousel
- 7 It's OVER if you're a male and not wealthy
- 8 It’s OVER if your female partner becomes more physically attractive
- 9 The top 5-20% of men are having more sex than ever before
- 10 Women Talking About Hypergamy Honestly
- 11 Universities teach our shit
- 12 References
- 13 Hypergamy Gallery
- 14 See Also
- 15 External Links
Overview[edit | edit source]
In the manosphere, women's hypergamous tendency is believed to be driven both by evolved instincts, but also cold and rational considerations. It is believed to consist of a restless instinctive evaluation whether the gains from a new relationship will offset the losses of leaving an old one, and constant evaluation of their current partners relative to the available pool of men, both in context of social expectations (e.g. the interest of the parents for their daughters to attract a valuable partner). This restlessness seems to be driven by an existential fear about access to resources and by an anxiety about being stuck with a man who isn't the best one available. In terms of evolutionary biology, such instinctive behavior can be explained by Bateman's principle which also explains greater sexual choosiness in non-human females. Women are also physically weaker and have less power over resources, so hypergamy is in theory the most stable mate choice for women, because choosing the best man among the ones that promise continued investment a woman can attract, ensures that her partner cannot be outcompeted and threatened by an even better one (bodyguard hypothesis). Researchers also suggested that hypergamy may arise from the premise that men naturally provide resources to women in return for exclusive access to sex which men desire as they want certainty that the offspring is theirs (a problem that women do not face).
There are mixed results about the importance of a power differential regarding income and education for women's marital satisfaction. 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. Also women's attractiveness ratings are 1,000 times more sensitive to men's income than vice-versa, and women also rate men with high status cues (e.g. presentation of luxury goods) as more sexually attractive, while men don't care about this. Men's social status also accounts for 62% of the variance of frequency of copulation opportunities. 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 unfavorable in Western culture which may negatively affect such marriages.
There are indications that hypergamy has intensified in recent time. Gynocentrism and affirmative action have allowed more women to 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. 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. 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. 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.
Marriage and monogamy were possibly, in part, culturally evolved egalitarian adaptations for counteracting hypergamy and gynocentrism (e.g. the women-are-wonderful bias). In fact, the best antidote to hypergamy is monogamy because it forces women to settle down with a partner of similar SMV.
80/20 rule[edit | edit source]
The 80/20 rule or Pareto principle refers to the observation that in systems in which limited resources are being distributed in a competitive manner, a small minority mostly ends up dominating a majority of the resources, in fact, about 20% end up owning 80% of the resources. An explanation is the "Matthew principle": Successful individuals get opportunities to improve even more due to higher motivation and reputation, whereas unsuccessful individuals get fewer opportunities to do so due to demotivation and worsened reputation. Similar tendencies can also be observed in the sexual market in which men and women of highest SMV have a disproportional number of sex partners. The current body of evidence favors the assumption that the inequality is greater among men, and roughly follows a 80/20 distribution (perhaps a bit less extreme).
Evidence of imbalances in the dating market can be found in online dating: An internal OkCupid study revealed that, on average, women consider about 80% of men to be less attractive than 'medium', i.e. 5 of 10. Further, women receive 8 times as much attention in terms of number of received messages. On average, the least attractive women receive as many messages as above average men. These crass differences exist even though the sex ratio on OkCupid is roughly even. Even harsher statistics can be found in online dating apps such as Tinder. E.g. one analysis of data from Tinder suggested 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". Some of these differences might be explained by an excess of males on Tinder with a sex ratio of 79:21, but there are many other results pointing to substantial imbalances in the dating market, as summarized in the Scientific Blackpill article. For example women have been found to rate men considerably worse also outside of online dating, to similar extent as on OkCupid. Studies also show that relationships tend to be less stable and sex lives suffer when the woman earns substantially more.
The available data is fairly consistent with a 80/20 distribution among men's number of sex partners and likely a bit less inequality among women, with growing sexlessness for both sexes, but more so for men. Overall, the data prove that women are sexual gatekeepers. They have substantial power over mating decisions because men are innately more drawn to women than vice-versa. Further, gynocentric welfare states have allowed women to be financially independent having their own incomes, often higher than men's, which likely renders more men sexually unattractive to women.
There is no simple solution[edit | edit source]
A common bluepilled objection to the importance of looks and income in online dating is that women wouldn't be as visual and shallow in real life and that one could make up for shortcomings with a good personality. Studies, however, consistently show men's looks matter just as much as women's, and that personality plays a small role at best, and plays no role during initial romantic contact. Having a very nice personality is outright harmful. The only beneficial personality dimensions seem to be dominance (psychopathy) and stoicism. What aggravates matters is that the perception of ones personality can hardly be changed as it is largely determined by ones looks. Even perceived sense of humor and morality are to large parts determined by one's looks. These results may explain why studies found that personality only weakly predicts romantic success or not at all: It is more about looks and status and even though women claim they care, it is only the good personalities they perceive as a halo effect of looks and status. Further, there is evidence that a man has to surpass a certain level of minimal looks for a woman even to consider traits beyond looks. There has to be a physical attraction at first for a relationship to be initiated. If a man is far below this threshold, it will be very difficult to make up for it provided that improving personality is futile, and that making up for just one point in looks requires an increase in income of about $25,000 per year, and what can be accomplished by bodybuilding or plastic surgery is not only costly but also ultimately limited. And even if one manages to ascend, love tends to be fleeting, for example, women lose interest in sex much sooner than men. It is conceivable that since women regard the vast majority of men to be physically unattractive, women's sexual freedom and financial independence, plus their seemingly innate tendency to prefer a man of higher socioeconomic status than their own, will increase sexual inequality because only a few men are desired by women, far beyond the small imbalances that already exist and that already render some men's lives not worth living.
GINI coefficients[edit | edit source]
A study which analyzed 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.
Increased male celibacy[edit | edit source]
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.
Since looks are the main factor in leading to sexual attraction, we could assume that females are not appreciating the facial appearances of most men and not giving their sexual favors to them frequently.
The cock carousel[edit | edit source]
The cock carousel is a phenomenon that is associated with hypergamy. In theory, women would chase as many Chads as possible, chasing the 666 rule, during their prime years before settling with a betabux.
It's OVER if you're a male and not wealthy[edit | edit source]
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.
If you are over 25 and poor, women want you to die in a fire, source OkCupid.
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
It’s OVER if your female partner becomes more physically attractive[edit | edit source]
Normalfaggots love to state that since ugly/average men can get women, the female species isn’t always displaying hypergamous behavior. This is so wrong on many levels since women at heart always want Chad and will leave anyone for him once they get the chance.
“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”.
Another study showed that women orgasm more frequently when having sex with attractive guys than with non-attractive guys. This shows that women are very likely to keep pursuing Chads for maximum sexual pleasure.
The top 5-20% of men are having more sex than ever before[edit | edit source]
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.
- 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 Talking About Hypergamy Honestly[edit | edit source]
Universities teach our shit[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- "Down and Out in Paris and London",1933, George Orwell, Chapter XXXVI.
- 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