Hypergamy is the natural inclination for women to "trade up" in terms of looks, money, and/or status. In a social environment which seeks to free human sexuality from cultural influence, women become more hypergamous than men because they are naturally sexual selectors. Today, sexuality is very liberated, and women are extremely hypergamous, moreso than men, to the point of causing increasingly rampant inceldom among the male population.
Modern 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 promiscuity less of a negative, so women are more likely to jump ship when ready.
In non-human animals, this phenomenon is referred to as Bateman's Principle. Opposition or aversion to hypergamy is sometimes called 666phobia.
Women rate 80% of men as below the average of all men, source: Okcupid
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, people have 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.
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 personality when approaching a woman, thus overriding hypergamy. Other studies, however, stress on the notion called the “halo effect,” in which your perceived personality 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 personality 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).
More and More Males Are Becoming Celibate
Here is a graph from Lyman Stone of the Insitute for Family Studies that shows that male celibacy is rising much faster than female celibacy.
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.
How women chase Chads
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 not Chad
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.
A study that analyzed changes in the distribution of sex partners from 2002 to 2011-2013 showed that compared to 2002, top 20% of men (in terms of LMS) now had a 25% increase in sexual partners, and the top 5% of men had an outstanding 38% increase in the number of sexual partners. The study commented that “no significant changes were identified among women in the top 20% and top 5%, overall, and among subgroups”.