One of the primary pieces of wisdom in The Red Pill is that women are desperately hypergamous, always going after the men that are out of their league.
This leads to the belief that dating is a Pareto distribution: 80% of women chasing (and only getting) 20% of men. This, in turn, leads to the further belief that if a man can’t find a woman that it must be because he is in the 80%. In other words, it is the woman’s fault for being too picky.
The problem with this is that both men and women are hypergamous (see the article by “The Nuance Pill” here). Yes, you heard that right. Both men and women shoot for the sky, rejecting lesser looking options for people who are out of their league.
There have been many, many studies on dating and virtually all of them show hypergamy in both sexes.
In terms of online dating, men and women have the same patterns regardless of who is doing the seeking and who is doing the responding:
There are differences between men and women in that women as a group are generally perceived as more attractive than men. Whether this is because men are less picky or because women are “the fairer sex” is not the point: both seek partners who are above their (looks-based) station.
More attractive people are more likely to be married because they are in higher demand. This, of course, isn’t hypergamy because it applies to both sexes. Or, put differently, it is hypergamy only if both men and women are hypergamous.
The problem is that you can’t logically have hypergamy in both sexes at the same time, because both men and women can’t simultaneously be with someone who is more attractive than they are.
So why do people think that women are subject to hypergamy but men are not? The answer is surprisingly simple.
Hypergamy is not mate selection, it’s date selection. Women are more selective when it comes to choosing their dates regardless of attractiveness. This is because both men and women rate women as being more attractive on average than men. Because they are perceived to be more attractive, they can be more selective because they are in higher demand. So, it is true that unattractive men will get less dates than their “looksmatched” counterpart unattractive women, but this is because more attractive people—whether men or women—get more dates overall.
Thus, women are having more dates (early relationships) than their objectively attractiveness-matched counterpart men because women are perceived to be more attractive overall. More perceived attractiveness means more dates.
But, hypergamous relationships typically don’t last as long. They simply get “priced out of the market.” When it comes to marriage and long-term relationships in actual practice, hypergamy effectively does not exist.
If women were not more selective than men, they would have to fight over a smaller pool of men because men are perceived as being less attractive than women. This would lean towards the 80/20 principle that The Red Pill believes is true. But this belief only exists because men are getting less dates than women, not because women are actually “marrying up.”
Ultimately when it comes to longer-term relationships and marriage, the perception of female hypergamy disappears. This is one reason why single men are much more likely to view women as hypergamous while married men—like myself—do not.
Hypergamy in the Red Pill is a myth. Comments like this…
…only serve to highlight how out-of-touch The Red Pill is with reality. You can see how desperate Red Pill men are to blame so-called hypergamous women for failed relationships, when the fact of the matter is that men are just as guilty as women (and just as likely to fail at it). Would Sharkly condemn hypergamous men? I doubt it. The best advice you can give a man is not to try to date or marry a woman who is in a different attractiveness tier. Whether man or woman, don’t try to marry a person who is out of your league. Ironically, if a man avoids his own hypergamy, he solves the pitfalls of so-called “female hypergamy.” Of course, this more-or-less happens automatically. In psychology this is known as “assortative mating.” People naturally sort themselves to match with others who are in their own league. You don’t really have to try to accomplish this, it is just the way it is. The only advice you—whether man or woman—really need is to avoid the personal impulse to hypergamy. But there is one more observation that needs to be made. As noted above, men and women in the same percentile tend to marry each other. But because women are perceived as being more attractive than men, a 50th percentile man and a 50th percentile women are not perceived as being “looksmatched” even though they are. This, ironically, means that most people perceive that men who marry their counterparts have “married up” leading to the general feeling that “he didn’t deserve her.” In other words, in actual practice it is men who are perceived as hypergamous. You can see how The Red Pill saints (like Dalrock) get angry at statements like “he doesn’t deserve her” even though on average most men are perceived to have married up. The Red Pill claim of female hypergamy is an overreaction to the false perception of male hypergamy based on perceived differences in average attractiveness. It’s also worth noting that marital success is not dependent on attractiveness. The positive correlation between relationship success and attractiveness is rather low. A variety of studies even show a very small negative effect. Both men and women try—and fail—to get into long-term relationships with people who are more attractive than they are. Women are perceived as being more attractive than “looksmatched” men (i.e. those in the same percentile). Because more attractive people get more dates, this leads to women being more selective than men when choosing dates. Female hypergamy is based on more selective women dating a smaller pool of men. Over the long-term, people tend to stay with statistically “looksmatched” partners. Given a “looksmatched” man and woman, she will be perceived as more attractive. Male hypergamy based on this perceived difference. Thus is appears that both male hypergamy and female hypergamy are true at the same time. But it is plainly logically impossible for both men and women to marry up. One must marry down for another to marry up. Obviously either or both of male and female hypergamy must be false. It turns out that both male and female hypergamy are based on false perceptions. Both are illusory. The perception of hypergamy (male or female) disappears as relationships lengthen. Both men and women almost invariably settle for someone who is close to being in their league (according to statistics, if not perception). True hypergamy is exceptional. Assortative mating follows a Normal, not Pareto, Distribution. The perception of hypergamy is confounded by age. Women tend to become more attractive and become less attractive at younger ages than men. On average, women marry men who are a few years older than they are. This makes things more complicated, because as the age gap widens, the perceived attractiveness difference grows, leading to the belief that men are hypergamous (much more attractive younger woman) while simultaneously enforcing the belief that women are hypergamous (much more wealthy, mature, debonair older man). I’m not going to attempt to untangle this contradictory mess.Summary
Notes
Do you know what else is a myth?
Stuff about the story of Cinderella being a perfect example of hypergamy:
As seen here on Instagram:
jeeangelo
https://www.instagram.com/jeeangelo/reel/DBDf8QPu5k0/
Cinderella: The Original Hypergamy Blueprint
Ever noticed how Cinderella’s story is the ultimate “date up” scenario? She rises from rags to royalty 👗➡️👑, all because of a magic makeover ✨ and her beauty 😍. But what does that say about relationships today? Is this the OG hypergamy story? Let’s break down how Disney’s classic sets the stage for modern dating dynamics. 💡
As DAL himself once explained(& most people who can’t remember small details but only the bigger picture forget), her Father was rich, and Cindy’s stepmother took all his wealth(that should have at least partly gone to Cindy) after his death.
So, she was originally from the noble (rich) class that her stepmother kept her from being a part of which would prevent her from being competition for her two daughters(she wasn’t really ”marrying up”) as she would have been in the running anyway if not for her stepmother taking away all her Fathers wealth.
Your comment reveals another aspect of hypergamy: it is ill-defined.
Is hypergamy a woman marrying a more attractive man? A man with more money? An older man? A higher class man?
If a woman is smarter and more attractive, but his family lives in a better neighborhood, somehow still female hypergamy.
It’s not hard to cherry-pick some—any—condition in which the man is subjectively better than the woman. Then all you have to do is call that “hypergamy” and you win. Nevermind that it’s easy enough to find something in the woman that is subjectively better than the man. That doesn’t count because…..?
Give the bimodal distribution of male/female intelligence, if you are below 100 IQ, your “looksmatched” partners will likely be smarter than you. If you are above 100 IQ, your “looksmatched” partners will likely be less smart than you. Since most Red Pill men are above 100 IQ, they expect (correctly) that they will be paired with a woman who has less intelligence than they are. Their idea of hypergamy is nothing more than selection bias.
Young women have no choice but to marry older men, because they are often not “looksmatched” with same-aged men. This isn’t hypergamy, it’s the necessary logical consequence of avoiding hypergamy! It’s also been a constant effect for centuries (and probably longer), long before the sexual revolution of the 60s and modern relationship problems.
Cinderella is great because it highlights that people tend to marry within their own social structure. Cinderella is in the genetic stock of a higher social class, and her “genes tell true.” It’s a tale of a woman taking her rightful place in the society that she was born into, regardless of the apparent trappings.
Also this is from the Nuance pill:
Evolutionary psychologists, on the other hand, have theorized that men place a higher premium on beauty and youthfulness because they signal reproductive potential, while women prioritize the ability to acquire resources to enhance the offspring’s chances of survival.
i always laughlzlolzzlollzzzz when people claim MEN or women (& especially the Government)are ”doing it for the kids” unlike Evolutionary psychologists and other tradcons I live in the real world not fairy tale land where either men,women or Government is so righteous & saintly as they never are in RL as so sayeth the Scriptures too:
All the World Guilty
1 Then what is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?2 Great in every respect. To begin with, (C1)the Jews were entrusted with the (C2)oracles of God His very words. 3 What then? If (C1)some did not believe or were unfaithful to God, their lack of belief will not nullify and make invalid the faithfulness of God and His word, will it?4 (C1)Certainly not! Let God be found true as He will be, though every person be found (C2)a liar, just as it is written in Scripture,
“(C3)THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED by sinful men.”
5 But if our unrighteousness (C1)demonstrates the righteousness of God, (C2)what shall we say? God is not wrong to inflict His wrath on us, is He? ((C3)I am speaking in purely human terms.)6 (C1)Certainly not! For otherwise, how will (C2)God judge the world?7 But as you might say if through my lie (C1)God’s truth was magnified and abounded to His glory, (C2)why am I still being judged as a sinner?8 And why not say, (as some slanderously report and claim that we teach) “(C1)Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? Their condemnation by God is just.
9 Well then, (C1)are we Jews better off than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both (C2)Jews and (C3)Greeks (Gentiles) are (C4)under the control of sin and subject to its power.10 As it is written and forever remains written,
“(C1)THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS none that meets God’s standard, NOT EVEN ONE.
11 “THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD.
12 “ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, NO, NOT ONE.”
13 “(C1)THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE;
THEY habitually DECEIVE WITH THEIR TONGUES.”
(C2)”THE VENOM OF ASPS IS BENEATH THEIR LIPS.”
14 “(C1)THEIR MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS.”
15 “(C1)THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN THE PATH OF PEACE.”
18 “(C1)THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD and His awesome power BEFORE THEIR EYES.”
19 Now we know that whatever the (C1)Law of Moses says, it speaks to (C2)those who are under the Law, so that the excuses of every mouth may be silenced from protesting and that (C3)all the world may be held accountable to God and subject to His judgment.20 For no person will be justified freed of guilt and declared righteous in His sight (C1)by trying to do the works of the Law. For (C2)through the Law we become conscious of sin and the recognition of sin directs us toward repentance, but provides no remedy for sin.
Justification by Faith
21 But now (C1)the righteousness of God has been clearly revealed independently and completely apart from the Law, though it is actually (C2)confirmed by the Law and the words and writings of the Prophets.22 This (C1)righteousness of God comes through (C2)faith (C3)in Jesus Christ for (C4)all those Jew or Gentile who believe and trust in Him and acknowledge Him as God’s Son. (C5)There is no distinction, 23 since all (C1)have sinned and continually fall short of the glory of God,24 and are being justified declared free of the guilt of sin, made acceptable to God, and granted eternal life as a gift (C1)by His precious, undeserved grace, through (C2)the redemption the payment for our sin which is provided in Christ Jesus,25 whom God displayed publicly before the eyes of the world as a life-giving (C1)sacrifice of atonement and reconciliation (propitiation) (C2)by His blood to be received through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness which demands punishment for sin, because in His (C3)forbearance His deliberate restraint He (C4)passed over the sins previously committed before Jesus’ crucifixion.26 It was to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus and rely confidently on Him as Savior.
27 Then what becomes of our (C1)boasting? It is excluded entirely ruled out, banished. On (C2)what principle? On the principle of good works? No, but on the principle of faith.28 For (C1)we maintain that an individual is justified by faith distinctly apart from works of the Law the observance of which has nothing to do with justification, that is, being declared free of the guilt of sin and made acceptable to God.29 Or (C1)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not also the God of Gentiles who were not given the Law? Yes, of Gentiles also,30 since indeed it (C1)is one and the same (C2)God (C3)who will justify the circumcised by faith which began with Abraham and the uncircumcised through their newly acquired faith.
31 Do we then nullify the Law by this faith making the Law of no effect, overthrowing it? (C1)Certainly not! On the contrary, we confirm and (C2)establish and uphold the Law since it convicts us all of sin, pointing to the need for salvation.-Romans 2-31 AMP
This is why the phony ”I’m 100% innocent, yet a sinner bros ” ”righteousness” of too many ”rp leaders” is seen just as Disingenuous as any woman’s or Government’s by outsiders & insiders alike in the Roissyosphere!
Right, men and women have different priorities. Labeling one set of preferences as hypergamy is…. not very clever.
Some of it is just “Red Pill Boasting” / “Im more of a man than you, here’s why”
And it always boils down to: I can attract hotter / tighter women than you can
That is what their masculinity is based on in the end, when you strip it all down. Lived up and down this state (California). Lived in two foreign countries (West Germany 1980’s for a year) and Inida (1990s for ten months). Grew up in a very rural area, and live now in the “second” largest metropolitan area in the USA.
During the PUA boom (early 2000’s) it was funny to watch average guys, who not ugly nor model material speak about the girls that that they attract “all nines and tens, eights are a norm” and then you see their girlfriend or wife. Average gal. Hardly a ten or nine. Not an eight. Not unattractive, but hardly a supermodel. As Kevin Samuels said once to a woman who claimed she was a “nine, easily”
“Okay, where are the modeling contracts? You an influencer….how many subscribers on your TikTok? TV contracts for commercials….they are always looking for women at that level in physical looks”
Of course this woman was delusional. Red Pill would agree.
All these very attractive men, who have “no problem” getting women evidently still have abysmal marriages, divorce, infidelity on the wife’s end….and his too in some cases.
I dont know how to explain it. Late night talk show host Art Bell once said on his “coast to coast” AM radio show in the 1990’s when a discussion about marriage was the topic in the mid 1990’s (and it was ‘in a horrible crisis’ even back then evidently) said
“Men and women in the dating world today think they are more attractive than they are and they are the ‘exception’ to all these rules and societal norms. I think we’re all more alike than we would like to admit”
I was lying on the floor at the time, in a sleeping bag (could not afford a bed yet) in spartan, tiny overpriced studio in Santa Cruz, CA thinking “that is the smartest thing I have heard said in awhile”
Holds even more truth today.
EVeryone seems to be on the cusp, on the edge of always “someone better” or “they could easily get better if they didnt have the kids / child support / because of Biden / because of “laws” / those cuckservatives in the church”
Most people are all talk in these matter, and men have now been conditioned by Red Pill to make their “sexual prowness” or attractiveness to women and what they want as the only metric of manhood. What did they expect?
The general female mating strategy is for the top-tier women to control group dynamics while subtly (and not subtly) shunning their competition. Female-coded behaviors include a variety of vicious social dynamics.
When men talk about hypergamy, it’s the same kind of female-coded behavior that says:
Yes. Barbershops are prime place for this talk. Been getting my haircut every two weeks since 1989. I’ve been to a billion shops over the decades. I really want to write a book about my experiences in barbershops. Some downright hilarious situations and shop talk!
Every shop, you always have that guy who has to tell you “how amazing he was with women when he was younger” Doesnt matter the predom race or ethnicity of the shop (black, white, latin, asian). You always have that guy who just has to remind everyone that he bedded more women than all of you, all perfect tens, tons of dates……and he could do that now….but he’s married / live-in girlfriend / the kids
My favorite barbershop ever was in Fresno:
Luis was an awesome barber. Pool table in shop. Cool music. Solid vibe. Hip setup (polished concrete floor, cool lighting……)
He had rules for the shop posted in English and Spanish posted on the wall:
the last statement was the best: “There has been more fish caught, more game stalked, faster cars built / owned and more women bedded in this room than in any other in the State of California. Men, watch your bullsh*t it will be called out”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfiuepvlQmI&t=141s
Really learned a lot at this shop about life. Fresno had some real stand-up men that came to this shop. This was the shop I got my haircut at the most (almost ten years). Luis sadly closed the shop in 2021.
Forget a book. You should do some videos. Tell some tales. I enjoy the way you present yourself in your videos. Your sarcasm always hits hard and is quite funny.
I could I suppose but no one really watched them. Years ago, I did a video about the Gillette boycott, it got about 1000 views. I told men who “threw out all their Gillette products” were stupid because they were already paid for. I told them to send their blades to me instead.
I also called out how everyone was saying how overpriced they were and how they were garbage blades anyway. Really? Been using Gillette since I was started shaving. I explained their 5 blade sensors were the best out there aside from a straight razor shave. Please send them to me.
No one did 🙂 But I was told what a “simp” I was for still using them. Dollar Shave Club endorsed Clinton. BIC (garbage blades) were woke as well. Schitck blades were owned by a european conglomerate that was no better than Gillette on these matters……..
The boycott was pointless, and every real man has a beard anyway…only cucks and simps are clean shaven anyway, right???????
Yeah, there really isn’t any reason to do videos except as a hobby where you are not looking for a return on investment. But, I suspect, the same would be true if you wrote a book. Most books, even by regular publishers, have few if any sales. It’s the little secret of the publishing industry.