Hypergamy is the inclination for women (and sometimes men) to “trade up” their partners in terms of looks, money, and/or status. Women have likely always been hypergamous by virtue of the, "principle of least influence", and female hypergamy was likely not substantially worsened by the sexual revolution. Female hypergamy is a contributor to male inceldom, but not the single contributor.
Women are always calculating whether the gains from a new relationship will off-set the losses of leaving an old one. Femoids are consistent in analyzing the value of their partners relative to the available pool of men. Women judge social expectations as a cost when leaving a partner. Modern society makes divorce from monogamous marriage less of a negative, so women are more likely to jump ship when ready.
An internal okcupid study revealed that the vast majority of women only consider about 20% of men to be actually attractive 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 it’s internal studies showing how women view 80% of men as below average etc... after the Alek Minassian attack but many archives exist including the ones cited above.
Some people who read this page to write in an academic journal about the incel attitude towards hypergamy (like Rebecca Karlén) think incorrectly that incels mean that 20% of the men get 80% of the women. Firstly, with the 80/20 rule we are talking about trends in access and attention in mating instead of trying to describe 100 percent of the end results of mating. Although, we think the trends in access and attention in mating have a downstream effect on the results of mating. Obviously, many women and men don’t end up partnering despite their dating pool. Secondly, we mean that the 80/20 rule is only strictly applicable to *online dating* apps given the evidence cited above. And the fact that all dating is moving online means that this is becoming more true IRL as well.
Personality Doesn’t Override Hypergamy
A common normie counterargument to lookist theory would be that women aren’t as visual in real life as on apps, and that you can display a bit of personali-tee-hee when approaching a woman, thus overriding hypergamy. Other studies, however, stress on the notion called the “halo effect,” in which your perceived personali-tee-hee could be in correlation to how you look. For example, men are commonly told to be funny to attract women. In reality, it is not the case that being funny makes you more attractive. Instead, being attractive makes you appear more funny and judged less harshly/not seen as creepy in weird situations.
Even in real life, you have to surpass a certain looks level for a woman to even desire you intimately. There has to be physical attraction at first for a relationship to be initiated. While women say that personali-tee-hee matters more than looks, their decision indicates that they value looks first and foremost.
As a result, we can conclude that since females do not regard the vast majority of men to be physically attractive, them being sexually free results in sexual inequality, since only a few men would be actually desired by women. The other 80% have to make up heavily with status or money.
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
The share of men under 30 who aren’t having sex has nearly 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 make the assumption that females are simply not appreciating the facial appearances of most men and not giving their sexual favors to them frequently. Female hypergamy leads to increased male reproductive skew
The Cock Carousel
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.
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”. 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 completely used up and hit the wall, search for a betabux to attain financial security and actually raise children with.
It’s OVER if you’re a male and not wealthy
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 are poor women want you to die in a fire, source okcupid.
It’s OVER if your female partner becomes more physically attractive
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
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 (ie. “Chads”). Thus it is clear that 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).
Woman Talking About Hypergamy Honestly
Universities teach our shit
- 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
- WikiMANNia: Hypergamy
- Thoughts on hypergamy (as a woman) – Georgia Free (September 15, 2018) (Size: 14:00 min.) (Woman talking about hypergamy honestly)
- The Rational Male – Hypergamy: Micro to Macro – Rollo Tomassi (February 24, 2018) (Size: 78:42 min.)
This page probably contains text from an editor (Altmark) who wanted his text released under CC-BY-4.0. This template is automatically applied to every page we think he ever touched, no matter how minor the edit, even if just a period. Even though he mainly edited the “Scientific Blackpill” page, in order to reduce complexity, William also releases his text on this page under the same license, and so this whole page is CC-BY-4.0. If using the whole page you may credit it as: William, Altmark et al, unless otherwise stated to not credit William, in which case to just credit: Altmark et al. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use outside of here unless expressely stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.