From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hypergamy is the natural inclination for women to date up. In the scientific literature, the term refers to economic status only, but in the manosphere, the term is used more broadly regarding dating up in all status dimensions relevant for mating (social status, educational status, looks etc.) and also refers to a primal instinct that women appear to have.

Women's hypergamous instinct consists in constantly evaluating whether the gains from a new relationship will offset the losses of leaving an old one, and constantly analyzing the value of their partners relative to the available pool of men and in context of social expectations. This instinct fundamentally appears to be an anxiety about resources and fear about being stuck with a man who isn't the best one available.[1] Hypergamy can be seen as a particular expression of female choosiness and a natural outcome of higher male sex drive. Men have fewer alternative mating options available to them, so they more readily make compromises and date down.[2] In terms of evolutionary biology, this can be explained by Bateman's principle which also explains greater sexual choosiness in non-human females.

Affirmative action and women's liberated sexuality created a situation in which women surpass men in many ways, rendering more men unattractive to women (due to their hypergamous preference to date up), and also liberating women from having to settle for a partner of equal SMV. Modern societies have ceased to ostracize promiscuity and divorce laws greatly benefit women, so women are more likely to jump ship when ready which can be seen in women initiating divorces more often than men. Sexually frustrated men aim down more, giving women even more mating choices together with online dating and social media, so they become more choosy and strengthened in their natural role as sexual selectors.[3] Growing economic inequality has the same effect as fewer men have reliable high status which is what women go for. The result is more inceldom and sexlessness overall, with women rather remaining sexless than dating down.[4][5][6][7] Marriage, monogamy, and other forms of arranged partnerships were possibly, in part, culturally evolved egalitarian adaptations for counteracting hypergamy. 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]

OkCupid deleting their internal dating studies shortly after the Alek Minassian attack
Women rate 80% of men as worse than average. Source: OkCupid

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 major imbalances in the dating market can be found in online dating: An internal OkCupid study revealed that, on average, women only consider about 20% of men to be average or better in looks, assuming 5 of 10 means "average".[8] 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 50:50. 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".[9] 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 likely also 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.[10] Even perceived wittiness and morality is to large parts determined by one's looks[11][12]. These results may explain why personality could never explain romantic success: 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 good looks and high 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, that making up for just one point in looks requires an increase in income of about $25,000 per year[13] and what can be accomplished by bodybuilding or plastic surgery is not only costly but also 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.

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”[14]. Famous sexologist Kristin Spitznogle says this is proof that Bateman's Principle now applies to humans.[15] 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).[16]

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.[17]

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.


Dual-mating strategy[edit | edit source]

One particular UCLA study states that, “a great deal of the evidence indicates two overlapping suites of psychological adaptations in women: those for securing long-term , cooperative social partnerships for rearing children and those for pursuing a dual-mating strategy in which women secure a social partner and engage in selective sexual affairs to gain access to good genes for offspring”[18]. The lack of loyalty with a dual-mating strategy begets the feminine imperative.

Translation: women (programmed to search for the best genes) have tendencies to fuck the Chads first, and once they become entirely used up and hit the wall, search for a betabux to attain financial security and raise children.

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.[19]

If you are over 25 and poor, women want you to die in a fire, source OkCupid.[20]


This preference is even manifested after mate selection[21][22]

Womens orgasms based on male wealth.PNG

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”[23].

Another study showed that women orgasm more frequently when having sex with attractive guys than with non-attractive guys[24]. 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]

Data was drawn from the 2002 and 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth, a US household survey focusing on sexual and reproductive health.[25][26] [27]

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.

Direct Quotes:

  • 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).

Woman Talking About Hypergamy Honestly[edit | edit source]

Universities teach our shit[edit | edit source]


References[edit | edit source]

  1. https://therationalmale.com/2019/03/11/womens-existential-fear/
  2. https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
  3. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601909/how-tinder-feedback-loop-forces-men-and-women-into-extreme-strategies/
  4. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26747
  5. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv001
  6. https://fee.org/articles/why-single-women-are-way-more-likely-to-own-a-home-than-single-men/
  7. https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/journal-marriage-and-family/do-unmarried-women-face-shortages-partners-us-marriage-mar
  8. http://archive.is/489UV
  9. https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
  10. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/92158/TheHaloEffect.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  11. https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/may/19/are-funny-people-sexy-or-are-sexy-people-funny
  12. https://splinternews.com/homely-men-judged-more-harshly-than-hot-men-instantly-1793848040
  13. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#A_man_having_the_.22correct.22_race.2C_height.2C_and_face_is_worth_millions_of_dollars_to_women
  14. https://contexts.org/blog/who-has-how-many-sexual-partners/
  15. https://resett.no/2018/06/29/menn-i-ufrivillig-solibati/
  16. https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
  17. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/?utm_term=.9b52429c7136
  18. http://pillse.bol.ucla.edu/Publications/Pillsworth&Haselton_ARSR.pdf
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381730315X
  20. http://archive.is/rBE2U
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513808001177
  22. https://cnnespanol2.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/polletandnettle-orgasms.pdf?attredirects=1
  23. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2013/02/The-Mate-Switching-Hypothesis-FINAL-PUBLISHED-2017.pdf
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915001002
  25. 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
  26. https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2017/02000/Changes_in_the_Distribution_of_Sex_Partners_in_the.5.aspx
  27. https://incels.co/threads/science-confirms-compared-to-last-decade-women-putting-out-only-for-chad.42066/

Hypergamy Gallery[edit | edit source]

See Also[edit | edit source]

External Links[edit | edit source]

Woman talking about hypergamy honestly

"Anon" fucks a landwhale