From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In scientific literature, hypergamy refers to marrying up in socioeconomic status. It can refer to either men or women, but it is more commonly observed in 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 also 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.[1] Women are thought 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.[2] Women's preference for high status men ties into the natural hierarchical social organization found in humans.

How hypergamy arises[edit | edit source]

The choosier sex (i.e. least interested) gets to date up

Women are choosy, especially about men's ability to provide[edit | edit source]

Historically, women had to invest more into their offspring than men because pregnancy used to be very physically risky, and by virtue of having a womb, women had more natural responsibility over children. As a result, women evolved to be choosy and coy and they specialized in childcare and extracting resources from men. The amount of resources men provide is quite extreme compared to most animals and unique among primates.[3]

The principle of least interest[edit | edit source]

In unregulated dating markets and even though physically weaker, women turn out to be the chief sexual selectors due to the principle of least interest: When an activity depends on mutual agreement, the person with the least interest decides the terms of that activity.[4] This is because the person with the most interest has fewer options, thus they more likely compromise than the other party to reach an arrangement. Women desire initiating sex with a random person of the opposite gender much less than men, except in case of a tiny minority of highly attractive men.[5][6] Thus, most men have few mating options and hence more likely make compromises in order to get any sex at all.[7] Making compromises means dating down, which in turn means women date up.

Women incite each other's hypergamy[edit | edit source]

In terms of sexual economics theory, women sexually commodify themselves with a certain exchange value whenever they sexually reject or accept men based on their resources. Sex then becomes a resource itself that men can purchase by amassing a broad array of valued goods, including non-monetary resources such as fame and competence.[8] Women compete in "selling high" by strategically withholding sex, thereby increasing men's sexual frustration, thus inflating the "price" of sex and baiting men into engaging in more committed resource provision. Women are also believed slut-shame one another to maintain the value of sex, as sex given away for free lowers the value of sex, which reduces women's leverage over men.[9] In this manner, women collude, forming pussy cartels, and inciting one another's hypergamy. By having men work for them, women become a leisure class.

Bodyguard hypothesis[edit | edit source]

Another explanation for hypergamy may be that women naturally choose the most powerful man available. Being physically weak and largely devoid of social power, in the past they needed protection from other contending males in order for their relationship to be stable (bodyguard hypothesis).[10] Provided that women have on average more suitors than men, this implies an overall tendency for women to date up, especially when the most powerful/dominant men engage in polygyny or de facto polygyny such as serial monogamy (remarrying often), thus effectively hoarding a substantial share of females.

Women marrying up also agrees with evidence that humans are naturally a moderately polygynous species,[11] which is believed to be associated with a number of social ills such as demotivated males and beta male aggression. It has been proposed that strict monogamy is common in modern societies because it serves as an egalitarian antidote to this natural gynocentric tendency and thus eliminates some of the social ills caused by polygamy.[12]

Women want poor men to die in a fire, painfully[edit | edit source]

Women are 1,000 times pickier about a potential partner's wealth than men according to an academic research study by Guanlin Wang.[13] Women also like online dating profiles with a higher education than their own twice as often, and men with lower status half as often as men with equal status.[14] Evidently, a potential partner's lower socioeconomic status than women's status is a huge red flag! In the wild, this would have meant he is a complete failure. But today, it can also mean that women have been artificially elevated into higher social status and/or that men have been left behind.


Women love men's resources. They rate men with cues of wealth (e.g. presentation of luxury goods) as more sexually attractive, while men don't care about this.[15] People pay more attention to photos of men with high status attire, but not to women with high status attire.[16][17] Men's social status also accounts for 62% of the variance of frequency of copulation opportunities.[18] Higher income of the man was found to be associated with female orgasm and lower income predicted sexlessness.[19][20] Women's promotion also increased the risk of divorce,[21][22] and aversion to having the wife earn more than the husband explains 29% of the decline in marriage rates over the last thirty years.[23] One study, however, did not find power differentials (in terms of income and education) to affect marriage satisfaction and likelihood of women's divorce initiation,[24] which may suggest that the fewer relationships that exist mostly fulfill women's hypergamous preferences and that additional power differential has diminishing returns, perhaps in part because power differentials are seen as unfavorable in today's society.

As a matter of fact, women pose a barrier for male engagement in low-consumption lifestyles and thus a barrier for solving ecological crises.

Hypergamy is getting worse[edit | edit source]

Rising male sexlessness[edit | edit source]

The rise of the sexless affects men more than women. See Demographics.

Substantial evidence of increased hypergamy is the raise of inceldom, which affects both sexes, but men more than women.[26] 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.[27]

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.[28][29][30][31] 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[edit | edit source]

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.[32][33][34][35][36][37]

This is not only bad for men, but also for women, as they too suffer from more loneliness and sexual deprivation when strong men who sexually satisfy them become rarer, since clearly not all women then can get a satisfying partner and more women rather stay single than date down.[38]

Online dating and social media make everything worse[edit | edit source]

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.[39] 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.[40][41][42]

Marriages are falling apart because women want alpha tingles[edit | edit source]

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[43], despite the fact that men oppose their partner's infidelity much more strongly.[44][45] Buss et al. summarized reasons for women to switch mates:

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.[46]

Cock Carousel[edit | edit source]

The increase in single motherhood, and a higher rate of childless men,[47] 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 carelessly, i.e. that their high SMV men lost interest due to their plentiful other options (backburners). Women are known to turn bitter towards other men once rejected by a high SMV man.[48]


Extent of sexual inequality[edit | edit source]

80/20 Rule[edit | edit source]

okcupid deleting their internal dating studies shortly after the Alek Minassian attack
Women rate 80% of men as below the average of all men, source: Okcupid

The 80/20 rule, or "Pareto Principle", comes from economics and refers to the observation that inequality often approaches a distribution where the 20% richest own 80% of the wealth. In case of the sexual market, wealth would be the number of sex partners.

It is important to remember that Pareto was a lunatic who genuinely believed that his laws proved that social darwinism[49] was necessary to "eliminate" undesirables ("toxins").[50] None of his laws have been proven as unchanging or inevitable. In other words, the "80/20" rule is a certain model of how inequality can manifest, but it does not prove that things will always be as severely unequal.

Many incels perceive their inceldom to be caused by the 20% most dominant men hoarding 80% of the females, which is a somewhat exaggerated view of the facts, except perhaps for a few subcultures and online dating platforms with very unequal sexual markets. For this reason, many incels rather use 80/20 as a meme to warn of the damaging effects of our current dating scene and increased competitiveness in online dating, knowing reality may not be as unequal (yet!).

An internal OkCupid study from 2009 revealed that women irrationally evaluate 80% of men, brave enough to show their mug on a public website, as below medium (below 5/10).[51] Many people mistook this as evidence of 80/20 in the sex market, but the 80 figure is just coincidental, and it really is only evidence of female choosiness without information how looks convert into sexual success. OkCupid deleted this study after the Alek Minassian attack, which some incels understood as attempt to hide or downplay substantial inequalities in the sexual market, and hence evidence of their existence.

GINI coefficients[edit | edit source]

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”[52]. This roughly corresponds to the top 20% men having 60% of the sex, so 60/20, and 56/20 for women (i.e. less extreme than 80/20, in the general population at least).[53] Famous sexologist Kristin Spitznogle regards this as evidence of Bateman's principle in modern western societies.[54] 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).[55]

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.[56]

George Orwell on hypergamy[edit | edit source]

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:

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[57]

Brutally honest women on hypergamy[edit | edit source]

Universities teaching blackpill[edit | edit source]


Hypergamy gallery[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. https://www.amazon.com/Rational-Male-Rollo-Tomassi/dp/1492777862
  2. https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X
  4. Waller & Hill, 1951
  5. https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gender-differences-in-receptivity-to-sexual-offers.pdf
  6. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men_like_61.9.25_of_female_profiles.2C_women_like_only_4.5.25_of_male_profiles
  7. https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X
  9. Baumeister & Twenge, 2002
  10. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-5985-6_21
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
  12. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Monogamy_may_have_been_selected_by_cultural_evolution_because_of_its_benefits_for_society
  13. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_are_1.2C000x_more_sensitive_than_men_to_economic_status_cues_when_rating_attractiveness
  14. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Men_like_61.9.25_of_female_profiles.2C_women_like_only_4.5.25_of_male_profiles
  15. http://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.12.2014.1.1
  16. https://incels.wiki/w/Dominance_hierarchy#Eye_contact
  17. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill_(Supplemental)#Women_.28and_men.29_pay_more_attention_to_high_status_men.2C_not_high_status_women
  18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029939
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513808001177
  20. https://cnnespanol2.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/polletandnettle-orgasms.pdf?attredirects=1
  21. http://www.ifn.se/wfiles/wp/wp1146.pdf
  22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0968-7
  23. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv001
  24. https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf
  25. http://archive.is/rBE2U
  26. https://incels.wiki/w/Demographics_of_inceldom#Growth_in_Numbers
  27. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/?utm_term=.9b52429c7136
  28. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#The_top_5-20.25_of_men_.28ie._.22Chads.22.29_are_now_having_more_sex_than_ever_before
  29. 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
  30. https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2017/02000/Changes_in_the_Distribution_of_Sex_Partners_in_the.5.aspx
  31. https://incels.co/threads/science-confirms-compared-to-last-decade-women-putting-out-only-for-chad.42066/
  32. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26747
  33. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill_(Supplemental)#Women_lose_mating_opportunities_with_higher_status.2C_men_gain_mating_opportunities
  34. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv001
  35. https://fee.org/articles/why-single-women-are-way-more-likely-to-own-a-home-than-single-men/
  36. https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/journal-marriage-and-family/do-unmarried-women-face-shortages-partners-us-marriage-mar
  37. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12603
  38. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Health
  39. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601909/how-tinder-feedback-loop-forces-men-and-women-into-extreme-strategies/
  40. https://journals.openedition.org/chs/737
  41. http://ftp.iza.org/dp4456.pdf
  42. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_sexualize_themselves_online_to_attract_high_status_mates
  43. https://incels.wiki/w/Blackpill#cite_note-46
  44. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196146/Why-affairs-unforgivable-Six-women-forgive-partner-strayed-twice.html
  45. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691617698225
  46. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2013/02/The-Mate-Switching-Hypothesis-FINAL-PUBLISHED-2017.pdf
  47. https://sciencenorway.no/childlessness-fathers-forskningno/a-quarter-of-norwegian-men-never-father-children/1401047
  48. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_bitterly_reject_unattractive_men_after_facing_rejection_themselves_by_an_attractive_man
  49. http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue80/Flomenhoft80.pdf
  50. https://books.google.com/books?id=zg91TAIs6bgC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=%22which+will+promptly+perish+if+prevented+from+eliminating+toxins%22&source=bl&ots=YmuWBObJGH&sig=ACfU3U2H_NqwX07WqcH7n-UTnQc74Pk_gw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiL0YLa2tHlAhVNmVkKHUjcBqYQ6AEwDnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22which%20will%20promptly%20perish%20if%20prevented%20from%20eliminating%20toxins%22&f=false
  51. http://archive.is/489UV
  52. https://contexts.org/blog/who-has-how-many-sexual-partners/
  53. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution#Lorenz_curve_and_Gini_coefficient
  54. https://resett.no/2018/06/29/menn-i-ufrivillig-solibati/
  55. https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
  56. https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/
  57. "Down and Out in Paris and London",1933, George Orwell, Chapter XXXVI.

See Also[edit | edit source]