It's time to debunk the "female hypergamy" myth. All data show Gen Z'ers (male and female) are having less sex than previous generations. Experts sa

[Bigpapa]

For all the men that cheated and all the women that let the men cheat, did they self report themselves correctly to the research scientists during the surveys and polls?

last time I checked these famous guys are mainly in sex scandals with prostitutes or women that are hierarchical inferior ( like the maid in your example ), not with normal women

 

[Clockwerk50]

The only thing that matters is what women think of you.

Not really. A woman's opinion can determine how desirable she finds you but it doesn't by itself determine your character or moral worth.

 

[CornbreadFed]

Not really. A woman's opinion can determine how desirable she finds you but it doesn't by itself determine your character or moral worth.

Are the two mutually exclusive? It is also a subjective measure too. Just because a guy won’t cheat on his wife with a maid doesn’t mean won’t cheat strategically with another woman that he can get away with.

 

[BaronOfHair]

One explantion, albeit it's far more prosiac than anything produced by Yale's faculty lounge or content creators LARPing as academics over on YT:

One has to go out into the wild in order to increase their chances of mating and securing companionship. By '01, it was already possible to spend most of one's time out of the office online, on chatrooms, porn sites, and the like... Wouldn't be surprising to learn that teens and 20somethings THEN were already less sexually active than folks in this same age bracket had been during the early 90s

The temptations to avoid the discomfort of navigating human relations have gotten stronger ever since, now that no one except those engaged in manual and menial labor are required to go on-site, and most of even our professional lives have moved onto Zoom

 

[Bokanovsky]

You're conflating two different questions: how much sex people are having versus who women are choosing when they do pursue relationships or sex.

"Choosing" is a two way street. A woman cannot unilaterally chose who she is going to be in a relationship with, or have sex with. The "hypergamy theory" suggests that average and below average women have sex and even relationships with "Chads", which is completely implausible. Even if you were to assume that "Chads" are willing to bang/wife up average and below average chicks (which, with rare exceptions, is patently false) the total number of "Chads" is only a fraction of the total number of average and below average women. The math just doesn't add up.

 

[craider]

The math adds up very well. Women these days simply hold out for their ideal mates no matter what. Less sex overall, going to the best qualified males ONLY.

Something tells me the people on this forum aren't getting laid all the time. At least anecdotally things seem to be even easier now than they were in the past if you're well qualified. Beware that preferences have changed as women became more game-aware though - stereotypical Chad behavior is seen as weak now.

 

[Hal9000]

COVID turned an entire generation of men and women into anti social hermits who are perfectly content to never even leave their homes. Perhaps future generations will recover but until this group gets a lot older they are going to dominate all of these statistics about an overall lack of joy being in their lives.

 

[Clockwerk50]

Are the two mutually exclusive? It is also a subjective measure too. Just because a guy won’t cheat on his wife with a maid doesn’t mean won’t cheat strategically with another woman that he can get away with.

No, they are not mutually exclusive, hence the reason why I reasoned and rationalized in my original post that both terms should be treated as separate concepts, SMV being desirability while high value referring to character and morality.

Some people use “high value” as another way of describing a man's SMV, which is exactly what I’m trying to separate.

"Choosing" is a two way street. A woman cannot unilaterally chose who she is going to be in a relationship with, or have sex with. The "hypergamy theory" suggests that average and below average women have sex and even relationships with "Chads", which is completely implausible. Even if you were to assume that "Chads" are willing to bang/wife up average and below average chicks (which, with rare exceptions, is patently false) the total number of "Chads" is only a fraction of the total number of average and below average women. The math just doesn't add up.

I think in Rollo's Hypergamy article he says that women seek or prefer an equal-to-or-better arrangement in SMV relative to their own while also agreeing that not every woman will actually pair with a top-percentile man. The theory, as I understand it, is that women may want a higher-SMV partner while, at the same time, most women will not successfully obtain one.

I don't think the fact that there aren't enough Chads for every woman actually contradicts the theory. I also don't think OP's argument that both men and women are having less sex tells us whether women's tastes have become less "picky" or selective.

Hypergamy – The Misconceptions

 

[BaronOfHair]

COVID turned an entire generation of men and women into anti social hermits who are perfectly content to never even leave their homes. Perhaps future generations will recover but until this group gets a lot older they are going to dominate all of these statistics about an overall lack of joy being in their lives.

Hell, in some respects, lockdown STILL hasn't ended

The preponderance of folks on all sides of the proverbial aisle who, back in '19, pounced on the justification to retreat from day to day life indicates: Our thinking HAD BEEN going awry, long before COVID

 

[BadBoy89]

If you believe "female hypergamy" is happening, men would be having same or less sex while women would have skyrocking way more sex and with way more partners.

As was said, you are confusing the issues.

Hypergamy is a woman dating or marrying a spouse perceived to be of higher "mating value" than themselves.

That has NOTHING to do with women having way more partners or men having less sex.

 

[CornbreadFed]

No, they are not mutually exclusive, hence the reason why I reasoned and rationalized in my original post that both terms should be treated as separate concepts, SMV being desirability while high value referring to character and morality.

Some people use “high value” as another way of describing a man's SMV, which is exactly what I’m trying to separate.

Cool, but if your goal is genuine sexual and romantic interest from women, then what matters is whether women actually find you desirable.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I think in Rollo's Hypergamy article he says that women seek or prefer an equal-to-or-better arrangement in SMV relative to their own while also agreeing that not every woman will actually pair with a top-percentile man. The theory, as I understand it, is that women may want a higher-SMV partner while, at the same time, most women will not successfully obtain one.

I think that's equally true of men. Not many prefer or deliberately seek women with a lower SMV. That would make no sense.

 

[Solomon]

"Choosing" is a two way street. A woman cannot unilaterally chose who she is going to be in a relationship with, or have sex with. The "hypergamy theory" suggests that average and below average women have sex and even relationships with "Chads", which is completely implausible. Even if you were to assume that "Chads" are willing to bang/wife up average and below average chicks (which, with rare exceptions, is patently false) the total number of "Chads" is only a fraction of the total number of average and below average women. The math just doesn't add up.

I agree with some of this but....


Choosing is a two-way street, but preferences aren’t symmetric, and that’s the part the pure “math doesn’t add up” take misses.

Hypergamy isn’t the claim that every average woman is in a relationship with a top-tier Chad. That’s a cartoon version. It’s the observed tendency for women, on average, to prefer partners of equal or higher mate value on the traits they weight most heavily (status, resources, ambition, social proof), while men weight physical attractiveness more.

In pure short-term mating, physical attractiveness and immediate sexual market value dominate for both sexes. Women still apply filters most don’t treat looks as irrelevant but the threshold is lower and the willingness to overlook low status, low income, or poor long-term prospects is higher when it’s explicitly casual. “Broke but hot” can and does get casual sex more often than it gets serious relationships or marriage. You see this in nightlife, casual-mode apps, and survey data on one-night stands and FWBs.

For long-term pair bonding and especially marriage, the hypergamous filter tightens like a knot. Status, resources, reliability, and future trajectory matter more. Women are, on average, less willing to “settle” downward on those axes for a serious relationship than men are willing to settle on looks. That’s why the “Chad gets the girl long-term” claim is stronger in the LTR/marriage domain than in pure casual sex.

So the numbers problem you raised is real if someone is claiming every average woman is exclusively banging or marrying the top 10%. That’s not what the data or the preference research supports(which I agree with you on that). Mate value is multi-dimensional and relative; most people still pair assortatively within ranges. The underlying preference asymmetry is still there it just doesn’t require the extreme version of the theory to hold.

 

[RoadKing_Rabbit]

I'm going to repeat something that should be base. Hypergamy is a word. Why? Because there is no observation or record of seeing a certain behavior? Hypergamy IS often used as an excuse as to why someone is an incel or an AFC. It often IS used as cope. That doesn't "prove" it doesn't exist. That's a complete reversal of a burden of proof.

Further, sexual activity or frequency of said activity does not indicate who you had or who you did not have sex with.

How about this? Let's say all one has to do is pull out your phone, get on the PC or watch tiktok to see something hot enough to bust one out to? You don't have to buy magazines anymore or go to those adult dvd stores. That, and you've got dweebs dusting themselves off by watching pre recorded stuff on OF for little money. When you've got dudes out here who are increasingly seeing less of a point in "performing" like a circus monkey to get some poon, there's less guys women are going to want to bang.

Like it or not, women make the decision on who bangs and who doesn't. Therefore, she has to want you to! Women don't want to have sex with incels or AFCs. So who aren't incels or AFCs? People who are out there being social, who have developed an actual personality, know who the heck they are and who they'd like to be, and yes... Even who they'd like to be with. Most of the time that's not with an overweight woman with an unchecked attitude who is blissfully unaware of its existence.

Is it plausible that this explanation and social situation (AKA 'battle of the sexes') could point to the conclusion less people are having sex? I certainly seem to think so. Hypergamy only suggests that a woman will seek someone she deems as valuable, worthy, whatever word you want to call it. It makes no point in quantifying the amount of sex. Although it should be obvious that almost any woman isn't going to find a fat dude who is 5'3" working part time at sonic, is 26, lives with his folks, drives a 98 Neon and only has video games as a hobby to be sexy.

It's also absurd to suggest that a man would pick a woman who is 45, has 3 kids, is 30-60lbs overweight and is a proclaimed feminist out of a lineup containing 50% of the same and chooses to shoot his shot with women who are almost always going to say no. It also makes sense for men who aren't even incel or AFCs to pretend or pose long enough to bang someone and then scram regardless of what he doesn't like. I've been a complete idiot just to get some. I think a guy that says he never has just never has period. But that's just my opinion on that one statement.

 

[BaronOfHair]

I think that's equally true of men. Not many prefer or deliberately seek women with a lower SMV. That would make no sense.

Analogous to choosing a restaurant: An individual(no matter their gender)has to decide whether or not their going to be Micky D's or a 4-Star Steakhouse. Either will get clients, nonetheless the quality of those clients is predicated on what sort of shape the venue is in

 

[Clockwerk50]

I think that's equally true of men. Not many prefer or deliberately seek women with a lower SMV. That would make no sense.

Pretty much.

Unfortunately, the party with more options generally has more ability to choose the option they prefer while the party with fewer options is more constrained by what is available to them.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Pretty much.

Unfortunately, the party with more options generally has more ability to choose the option they prefer while the party with fewer options is more constrained by what is available to them.

There is a difference, though, between having more options and the illusion of having more options. Because of social media and dating apps, there is a belief that women, on average, have a lot more options than men but it's a mirage. On a macro level, reality is determined by hard facts such as the gender ratio (which is roughly 50-50), not by the number of messages a woman might get on Hinge.

A lot of people live in this make belief reality thinking that women are drowning in options but it's not real. That may be true for a small subset of women during their prime years (i.e. hot women in their 20's and maybe early 30's who live in the right geographic area) but even they often struggle to capitalize on those options. That's why so many hot women end up with losers, criminals, etc. It's like they have some built-in measure of entropy that sabotages their outcomes.

 

[BadBoy89]

A lot of people live in this make belief reality thinking that women are drowning in options but it's not real. That may be true for a small subset of women during their prime years (i.e. hot women in their 20's and maybe early 30's who live in the right geographic area) but even they often struggle to capitalize on those options.

Its make belief when its women. I don't think its make belief when its hot women.

Hot women in 20s and early 30s are the reason Sosuave exists. They are in demand by all men. They are the reason men get confused about what to do or how to act. They have a lot of options.

Now when we talk about single mothers, or menopausal, or ugly, or fat women, then yes, its make belief to think they have alot of options.