Reasons on why Hypergamy is extremely overblown

[Murk]

What 90% of all men, even the ones who are older, don't get is that women strive for connection above almost all else. Yes, looks, stability, earning potential, and other things all count for obvious reasons, but women are very relationship-oriented and want a man they can communicate with and one that gets them.

Some guys will claim, yeah, well I know this women who only dates rich, tall, 9.9 looking, Lambo driving, bla, bla...guys. Yes, agreed. But there have also been guys in the NBA who were shorter than me (I'm 5'8). Just not that many.

Exactly. A recent thread was talking about women leaving men when they lose their job or get sick... literally, nothing could be further from the truth in my personal experience. Women who are into you will bend over backwards to accommodate you. On this forum we have men who are really living with experience, men who are half-living but reading too much "theory" and then men who have no clue but purport to have a clue.

I've always gone against the grain on this site, because my real life experiences don't match up to what is banded around the echo chamber.

It comes down to the man, we would all love to believe we are great, the truth is most men are just not doing it right, looking for excuses, black pilling, reading too many blogs and watching too much youtube. Life is very very very different.

 

[Steno]

I interpreted the message of this thread to be "Just be high SMV and have strong frame and everything will go smoothly". I strongly disagree, in fact I think its more beneficial to adapt the attitude of "I am NOT a chad so I have to screen extremely hard". I've noticed that most stable/productive dudes relationships usually go haywire due to bad screening rather than losing frame.

1). To get your GF or ONS, you more than likely beat out a higher SMV guy.

If Hypergamy is so bad then why didn’t your girl choose you over Kyle, Muhammad, or the Tyrone in her friendzone? Could they have had relations before? Sure, but none of that matters now because she picked you! We think what a girl is attracted to is extremely linear when it is far from it tbh. Not every girl finds Brad Pitt attractive.

This is a very risky mindset because a lot of women settle. Most women who struggle to get commitment entertain the idea of getting into a relationship with a guy she isn't that into just because she will derive some sort of benefit from it. The chick will just sneakily keep their options open and do shady stuff on the side until an opportunity to jump ship presents itself.

2). Girls have to compete for higher SMV men.

Y’all make it seem like a girl can just goto the grocery store and find a high smv. Incorrect, that high SMV guy is more than likely not single, can’t stay faithful, or has 10 different girls fighting for them.
Furthermore, that guy has to find her attractive and actually approach her.

I agree but I don't think its a healthy attitude to assume that you are high SMV just because you smashed or LTRed a chick. SMV is way too subjective and even if yours is overall very high, there are way too many factors, maybe some dude had a better pipe game, maybe some dude took her through a deeper roller coaster of emotions than you did, maybe some dude was more jacked than you, maybe some dude was way taller than you, maybe some dude had way more money than you etc. It might sound like a nitpick but over time one of these things can cause her to stray as she reflects on past memories and suddenly she has an itch she needs to scratch that you aren't able to satisfy. Generally I do think that having a high SMV helps but it isn't enough and you don't have a catalog at your disposal to compare yourself to every guy she has been with so all you are doing is assuming. Its always best to take a hard screening and vetting attitude rather than assuming high SMV.

3). It’s dating version of The Lost Cause Fallacy.

The Confederates & Nazis are really famous for this fallacy. The lost cause preserves defeat in the best possible light. For example, instead of admitting that you lost because of your mistakes, you blame it on unbeatable circumstances. In this case, instead of blaming yourself for losing frame, crappy attitude, loss in income, failing to validate properly beforehand, and etc, you just blame hypergamy to make yourself feel better.

I agree that it is generally best to be self critical rather than to point fingers. This doesn't really say anything about hypergamy though, they aren't interdependent variables.

 

[s74rk]

Great discussions in this thread. It really depends how you want to define things - hypergamy could be overblown, or you could just be defining it incorrectly.

The definition I go with, is that value is in the eye of the beholder, and when women choose a mate, they are choosing the highest value mate they can get in their circumstances. By this definition, every choice they make is hypergamous, and they're solving a complicating value equation to associate with a man who meets their needs.

That being said, I think it's easy to get overly negative and pessimistic. You could be in a better spot than you realize in a relationship, because "value" is composed of many factors. If you're a 7/10 and get with a girl (e.g. based on LMSG looks-money-status-game), and pair bond emotionally, that could raise your relative value in her eyes to a 9/10, for e.g. the first 6 months of your relationship. That's awesome! She won't value an 8/10 more than you. I think we subconsciously realize this, and get to "chill out" more in the beginning of relationships before our "mate guarding" instincts start to kick in.

But now let's say you're married for 5 years, novelty wears off, so the "bonding bonus" dissipates and your value in her eyes may regress down to a 7.5/10. Or worse, if her priorities change (e.g. she needs financial stability and that was never your biggest selling point), you may look like a 6/10. Now if she gets to know a 7/10, he has you beat, and she may evaluate and plan to monkey branch.

That's why it's so key so always be striving for improvement, especially if you get into a relationship. Security and stability is NOT a thing in modern feminist societies where women have tons of choice and freedom.

But also I want to give a mention to @Steno 's comments on vetting. Super important, and IMO really is 80% of the work. Many relationships are over before they even start due to screening, even if you are high value. You think rich hollywood celebrities inspire supernatural loyalty from women due to their high value? Wrong - many of them still date the wrong girls and get royally ****ed over. Some smart ones (Matt Damon comes to mind) seem to vet really well and pick an 'unknown' chick that works well for them.

In our version of things, we need to also avoid girls chasing status and fame - no instathots as a first step. But then the list keeps growing for factors that will help: very low bodycount, young and innocent (less baggage), no degenerate beauty markings (tattoos, dyed hair, etc), and modest activities (no frequent clubbing, drinking/drugs, etc). These are just some obvious starter examples; unfortunately, this already is disqualifying a large proportion of women.

So I'd conclude by saying: it's tough, hypergamy is absolutely real, but we can also be overly negative about it; a great way to minimize its impact on your well-being is through strict screening before beginning a relationship. And even then fellas, you gotta keep your value up and be ready for it to end and move on.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

You might be 6'4 and ripped but you're also bald, middle eastern looking and give off psycho energy if I remember your pictures correctly.

And if true that's why the struggles with women...psycho energy will scare a woman off faster than just about anything else. No amount of looks, being in shape or money will overcome that.

 

[DonJuanjr]

And if true that's why the struggles with women...psycho energy will scare a woman off faster than just about anything else. No amount of looks, being in shape or money will overcome that.

Funny thing is, actual psychos don't even give off that energy until it's too late...

 

[BeExcellent]

Advice from the old lady:

The whole construct of hypergamy is dubious when you really get to looking at it.

The word derives from caste law in India where by definition hypergamy was marrying up a caste (social or class strata) above your caste of birth. The use of the term in pick up communities essentially means a woman will pick the best man from among her choices. So it is a term that doesn’t really resemble its original definition in pick up parlance.

Um. Guys. Isn’t that what each of you do too? Pick the best woman you can pull? Right? You hypergamous sons of guns!!!

The question is not about hypergamy really. The question is more micro than that. Why does one individual choose another? We can argue the ins and outs of that all day long.

You broaden your individual appeal by becoming the best version of yourself. By self improvement you raise the number of choices available to you. Same is true of women. You take the same woman for example at 5’6” and 115lbs. All things being equal her choices, no matter what she looks like, drop as she gains weight for example. The same woman at 150 lbs will not have the same choices. Same for long hair versus short hair. Looks maxxing and staying fit is important in overall attractiveness. And if you cannot be bothered to put down the beers and get a decent haircut why are you expecting a Victoria’s Secret model to fall in your lap?

Like attracts like. There is a reason Cindy Crawford is with Randy Gerber and a reason George & Amal Clooney or Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban are couples. These people inhabit the same league on looks and other fronts. Like attracts like works all the way down the food chain. What game does best is assist you in out competing your peers but seems like some folks need to really assess just who their peers are. And be real about it.

Yes there will be the occasional outliers where some ugly man is with a hot woman. For those apparent mismatches there is ALWAYS a reason. Often one you cannot see from the surface of things.

When I choose from among options for example all my options have similar characteristics but stack up differently as individuals.

Guy A might be an 8 on looks, an 8 on personality, a 6 on trustworthiness and a 10 on financials and a 10 on fun factor.

Guy B might be a 9 on looks, a 7 on personality, a 10 on trustworthiness, a 7 on financials and a 9 on fun factor.

Guy A has an aggregate score of 42.
Guy B has an aggregate score of 42.

I pick based on who I like better and enjoy more. So do most women I know. That’s based on the two individuals and choices are always individually based when you pick a partner…lots of things go into this.

Look. I’ve had ridiculously wealthy men choose me. I’ve had ridiculously good looking men choose me. I’ve had ridiculously wealthy AND good looking men choose me…but @Dash Riprock has it correct…

Women worth having are going to choose based on connection. Honestly I know lots of men who also choose on connection, all other factors being equal as noted above.

Last year I dropped cold a very good looking, very successful property developer. We dated more than 6 months. No real emotional bond developed. After giving it some thought I let him go. Never thought twice about it after that. This is a man raised in a 40 million dollar mansion with a ballroom in an exclusive enclave who has made it in his own right. A man so handsome that women swoon. No real connection. Pass. I could still be seeing the guy probably. But I’m much happier with the man I’m with, who is equally as attractive, ten years younger and while he earns a 6 figure salary he’s not a millionaire like the other guy…hypergamy theory would say I’m chasing after the millionaire. Nope. The man I’m with now I have connection with (it’s mutual). It’s really unusual to find it.

And if you are a good woman honestly it’s what you hold out for. And it’s the glue in the bond.

Now. Lots of women pick based on transactional equations. You know, looks for resources, that sort of thing. Those are women who have given up on finding real connection or become jaded and sold out. These are the “Hmmmm, what can this man do for me…” kind of women. Be very careful of such women. These are the ones to avoid. But many men play into this as well. Who knowingly offer up “stuff” in return for a woman’s favor. It’s as old as the hills that game. And it will burn you in time if you play it.

 

[zekko]

The word derives from caste law in India where by definition hypergamy was marrying up a caste (social or class strata) above your caste of birth. The use of the term in pick up communities essentially means a woman will pick the best man from among her choices. So it is a term that doesn’t really resemble its original definition in pick up parlance.

Um. Guys. Isn’t that what each of you do too? Pick the best woman you can pull? Right? You hypergamous sons of guns!!!

You are correct, but there is a difference between men and women, at least in the Red Pill version. Generally speaking, if a man marries a woman, he will be satisfied that he has found a good woman. For women, the hypergamy game never ends. If she is dating a guy and she meets a better one, she will monkey branch if she can. And later, if she marries a guy and she finds a better guy who is buying what she is selling, she will dump her husband like yesterday's garbage. And the man is left blindsided. That's the manosphere version of it anyway, and there is some truth to it, although it's not across the board in every case.

One case where I don't find it to be true is I know a LOT of women who are emotionally stuck on some guy and she is basically the head of the household, earning the money and taking care of the guy, who often floats from job to job only to quit or not show any interest in working at all. Basically, the guy is a deadbeat (and he doesn't have to be good looking or in shape either). If these girls were truly hypergamous, they would move on from these guys, but there are other factors at play.