Feed on

Owing to its theme, I feel duty-bound to alert the CH readership to this very good post examining the interaction between technology and female hypergamy, over at a blog named Selonomics.

“Why does it appear that the vast majority of women prefer the same small group of men?”


In my model, I decided to test how simple mate selection strategies resulted in wildly different statistical distributions in each of the final selection pools.

In the simulation, men make their mate selection decisions by minimizing over the age of their prospective partners, whereas women maximize over the status of the men in their accessible vicinity.


Although the simulation results above show only the most extreme scenarios, one biased in the direction of the median man (Regulated Monogamy, or Patriarchy) and the other in the direction of the median female (Open Hypergamy), it is interesting to note that contemporary real world data looks a lot more like the extreme scenario on the female side of spectrum.

The author’s conclusions won’t surprise regular guests of the Chateau, but he spells them out lucidly and adds some insight into how social media and the technology which supports it have magnified female hypergamy and made it nearly virulent.

In summation, I found the following:

  • There is a strong outcome asymmetry in preferences between men and women when it comes to selecting a mate.
  • We don’t have to assume very much to see this play out in the real world, only that men prefer young women and women prefer high status men.
  • The positional trait (social status in this case), when amplified by both technology and the freedom to use those technologies, i.e. social norms favoring the Feminine Imperative (in Saudi Barbaria, women wear burkas and can’t use Tinder) the selection pool of prospective mates increases far faster for the median woman than it does for median man.
  • Given that women are primarily interested in status, which is a positional good, then any technology that amplifies your ability to be noticed by high status men, will also increase mating inequality. Consider, for example, how men do not benefit nearly as much from the scale offered by Tinder as do women. In the graphs shown below, Hypergamy is calculated as the difference in median in-degree (number of incoming links) between the two distributions.

In layman’s terms, this is the MOST IMPORTANT GRAPH IN THE WORLD. It shows the stark sex difference in how mate quality of the opposite sex is perceived. Start at the extremes: the top 1% of men and women will receive “likes” from nearly all members of the opposite sex. The bottom 1% of either sex will get almost no likelove. In between is where it gets interesting.

At a female attractiveness level of 80% (corresponding to an HB8 on the 1-to-10 hotness scale), only men in, roughly, the 97th percentile of male attractiveness will get “likes”. HB6s will give “likes” to men in the top 5% of male attractiveness. HB4s will “like” the top 10% of men.  HB2s (ffs) will “like” the top 25% of men. Men at the 20% attractiveness level will only get “likes” from the BOTTOM 2% OF WOMEN.

You see where this is heading. As far as female DESIROUS INTENT is concerned, the bottom 80% of men may as well be distracting nuisances at best and utterly invisible #MeToo potential violators at worst to the top 80% of women. That’s what unrestrained female hypergamy looks like. A few alphas bathing in a lube-slicked ocean of vagina juice, while the mediocre beta male masses languish in their masturbatoriums.

Of course, real life pairings don’t arrange themselves according to online “likes” (yet). One look around, and you can easily see that far more than 20% of men have some success with women. What accounts for the difference between online intent and offline action are a number of factors, the most relevant of which are:

  1. female resignation to the inevitable and frighteningly quick loss of their beauty and the romantic settling that most women who aren’t batshit crazy eventually accept as a part of living in the real world where men have standards
  2. holistic female attraction criteria that result in more complex mate quality evaluations of men in real life, face to face interactions, which contrast sharply with the artificially myopic female attraction criteria that inordinately emphasize a man’s dating app profile and best-angle photo (this is why Game shines IRL)
  3. porn and other sex substitutes that dampen the realization of female hypergamy by robbing middle of the pack women of valuable feedback on their allure

Social media amplifies female hypergamy by introducing more high status men to more women, and vice versa more hot women to high status men. Localism moderately contains female hypergamy simply by limiting the number of HSMV men in any given woman’s immediate environment, (which many women get around by moving to the big coastal cities). So Burnham’s critique of SCALE is apropos here, as a major factor in the development of runaway female hypergamy.

The THREE CULTURAL CHANGES that have had the biggest negative impact on beta male romantic fortunes have been:

  1. Urbanization
  2. Social media and online dating
  3. Female obesity

#1 and #2 increase beta male competition with alpha males (by proxy) which relationally lowers beta SMV, while #3 reduces beta male dating market leverage by shrinking their pool of acceptable prospects.

If we are to solve the crisis of incel soyboys, we have to de-urbanize the shitlibopolises, log off our gadgets while mocking the women and thirsty betas who remain addicted to them, and Make American Women Waifs Again.

  • Age in men tends to be a proxy of social status, where as age in women tends to determine genetic quality. Genetic quality is normally distributed, on a Bell Curve, whereas social status (and the wealth and income that results) is either log-normally or Pareto distributed in a population (What if Bill Gates Were as Tall as His Money?), following the truism that “20% of the men get 80% of the women.” While close to true, what my simulations actually show is that what is really happening is something closer to “20% of the men receive 80% of all female intent.”

He’s made an important distinction here. Intent isn’t fulfillment, but it certainly smooths the path. Formal social regulations and informal cultural regulations have historically been used to stymie the full and free expression of female hypergamy, at least in Eurasian peoples, because there was a gut instinct understanding that it was a bad arrangement to alienate 80% of men in an asexual purgatory and break the bonds of nuclear family formation by permitting women to waste years chasing the 20% of men they desire most. These traditional barricades against free-wheeling hypergamy loosened the link between raw female desire and domesticated female behavior. Women may not have liked it (though there is evidence in happiness surveys over time suggesting otherwise — aka the “tyranny of choice” paradox), but tamping down on their unfiltered and unobstructed hypergamous drive certainly was good for society as a whole.

Over time, the cultural and geographic constraints against hypergamy imprint via sexual and natural selection onto the racial genetic code, so that today Eurasians are more constitutionally comfortable with monogamy than are, say, Africans. But some universal traits still linger, and female hypergamy is one of them, shared by women across the world. This is because the force of sexual selection provided by the evolved hypergamous urge is such a powerful Darwinian mechanism to ensure survival that selection pressures against hypergamy were only able to slightly alter primal Eurasian female sexual proclivities in the direction of monogamy and intersex SMV complementarity.

  • Hypergamy, then, is ever present. The only thing that changes whether it is realized or not is the extent to which women are free to act on it. Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily guarantee an inequality in actual sexual encounters, but the more free that women are to act on it (and this is personal speculation) the more likely are there to be social norms and institutions favoring women, i.e. fault-free divorce, preferential child custody laws, anti-slut shaming, hyper-popularity on social media, (the free trips to Dubai that entails), etc.

It’s kind of a victorious vagina queefback loop: the greater hypergamous freedom women enjoy, the more that institutions have to bend to cater to women’s prerogatives, and the more those institutions feminize (by essentially locking out beta males from economic and sexual opportunity) the more hypergamous women become in response.

In a way, this knowledge validates Game, because Game (aka applied charisma) is primarily a hack of a sexual market characterized by runaway female hypergamy. In a monogamous, patriarchal society (which America may have had, customarily, during periods of the 19th Century and for a few decades in the mid-20th Century), Game would be less needed and less effective because female hypergamy — essentially the liberty of women to follow in full the whims of their sexual desire — would have been kept under control, and tempered by beta male oversight.

As I’ve written before, it wasn’t a coincidence that modren Game as we know it started in the late 1990s, emerging from the last vestige of male-only public spaces: the PUA forum, as an answer and a solution to the riddle of a dating scene that had radically changed as a result of the absolute liberation of female sexuality that followed in the wake of abolished sexual norms, abortion, female economic self-sufficiency, the latex condom, and the hormonal birth control pill.

A final, somewhat counter-intuitive point. An increase in the female-to-male population sex ratio increases competition for women amongst men because it increases the time until which women decide they are ready to “settle” for inferior quality mates (Briffault’s Law tells us that the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family, and so when there are more opportunities to do better, why settle early?). As a result, and at least in the context of my simulations, there is a sub-linear scaling law in which a doubling of the population of women compared to men increases the median woman’s number of matches by 50%.

I’m not entirely sure I understand what he’s written here. Is he saying that a sex ratio which skews to more women and fewer men actually favors women? That does seem counterintuitive and doesn’t gibe with what the prevailing sociological research says about sex skew and its effects on mate choice. I hope the author clarifies in the comments.


Female hypergamy and *runaway* female hypergamy are a difference in degree with sufficient consequences for the sexual market, and on top of that for society, that the two female selection states function as a difference in kind.

I am not saying female hypergamy is evil, or wrong. It’s an amoral Darwinian mechanism that exists because it powerfully, if somewhat inefficiently in the post-industrial environment, maximizes the reproductive fitness and survivability of women. Given that hypergamy is a part of the world, men should learn to leverage it when it cannot be contained, and to contain it when it threatens civilization. As the Selonomics guy wrote, female hypergamy in moderation and locally contained by limited choice is a positive force for quality control, but unrestrained female hypergamy in highly complex, mass scale societies can turn ugly fast, creating gynarchic dystopias of bluehair fatties bragging about their cock counts and haggard cat ladies “holding out” for a 6′ 4″ Adonis, while swarms of men from invader tribes hate-rape lonely #Resistance divorceés who welcomed them in, and ghetto mommas crank out five or ten bastard spawn who have to blow their allowance on a basket full of father’s day cards:

In summation, Hypergamy is a general purpose filtering mechanism for maximizing the genetic quality of a stock of evolving agents.

In simple systems with few additional feedback loops, Hypergamy can be a good thing. In complex systems, such as human societies, however, Hypergamy, the mating access and genetic inequality that results, is likely to cause a society to self-implode, in much the same way that too unequal a distribution of household income in an economy, for example, stalls growth by making it impossible for a debt-loaded Middle Class to continue consuming increasingly sophisticated and expensive technology.

Beta males are the debt-loaded middle class of the ultrahypergamous sexual market, and the price for entry to the world of slender, chaste, feminine, young White women has skyrocketed beyond their means. An angry young man revolt is all but assured under these chronically persistent conditions of sexual, romantic, and marital inegalitarianism. Trump’s election was the first salvo of this justifiably angry young man revolution. If Trump fails, the next salvos won’t be so benign. Shitlibs and pussyhatters will soon know what real anguish is.

One obvious outcome of reckless hypergamy in a sexually atomized mate market is delayed marriage and childbearing, and too many years spent in endless dating cycles hopping from cock to cock and job to job, only to surrender at the last with a few remaining years on the ol’ biological clock as a consolation prize for the unlucky also-ran herbling who has to eat the pain of wifing up a woman who historically would qualify as a road-worn spinster whore, a pain amelioration which he typically accomplishes by posturing as a white knight male feminist pretending it was his choice to leap at the flappy labia scraps thrown his way.

The good news, especially for readers of this blog, is that there are many Game techniques devised specifically to leverage female hypergamy to the benefit of men….push-pull, DHV, disqualification, outcome independent mentality, assuming the sale, etc. This is a benefit to the few individual men dedicated to learn Game, and more so to those committed to put it to practice. But runaway female hypergamy is a disaster for the West as a whole, after accounting for the few Machiavellians who can extract pleasures from its dwindling resource of feminine women. Female preference cascades in openly hypergamous societies are accelerating the lockout of beta males from the primest cuts of poon, while also locking out women from motherhood and happiness.

My next few posts will cover this explicitly. The Mating Economy is likely best understood as a series of feedback loops, in which a balance between Regulated Monogamy and Open Hypergamy maximizes the “socioeconomic growth rate” of a Civilization.

I’m looking forward to those posts. (To the author: If they’ve already been published, please link to them in the comments, and I’ll add the links to the post.)


Comments are closed.