Women (almost) never date men socially "lower" than them: Men who earn less money than them, men who are less confident than them, men who are shorter in height than them, and men who are physically weaker or weight less than them.
Also (because it's the one thing many women bring to the table), women also never date men who are better looking than they are, because it would devalue the one thing she has going on for her, and make him more likely to be unfaithful or leave her.
So men HAVE to earn more money than her, be more confident than her, be physically taller and stronger than her, and can't be "hotter" than her or else, she has little value. This is supposedly why 80% of all women (more like 95-99% in my opinion) are only attracted to the top 20% of men in which all of these not only apply, but apply more so than every other man out there as well.
Do you think Hypergamy is true or false?
True / Mostly True
False / Mostly False
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Hypergamy: Women never date men poorer, shorter, or better looking than them. True or False?
Post Opinion
6 Opinion
Like
Share
Follow
3 likes
MCheetah wants to hear from Guys only. Login to share your opinion.
Hypergamy is a relic of how humans evolved. It is dominant in polygamous societies and generally more prevalent where monogamy is less prevalent. Monogamy evolved after hypergamy because non-monogamous societies tend to be violent and unstable, which is bad for children, and by assuring most men were able to settle into relationships with women, it reduced the level of social unrest. Monogamy is particularly important for the functioning of non-tribal, non-nomadic civilizations, so it is no surprise that a breakdown of monogamy always occurs during civilizational decline. We’re noticing a rise in overtly hypergamous behavior now because the number of people who are monogamous is decreasing. Combine this with policies that actively discriminate against men in education and business and we are going to have an growing number of frustrated women who are unable to find a “good man” willing to settle down and commit.
It's true most of the time except for looks. Women do want the best they can get on looks as well.
My sister is a medical doctor and married a fellow medical student who is 4 years younger than her (she had been married once before but had no kids). They guy is a brilliant surgeon and she still complains that he is "only" 5'11 (she is 5'9).
Think about it like how a pride of lions works. There's the one top male, who dethroned the former top male. This male then gains exclusive mating right to all the females of the pride. So they dominant male spreads his genes (obviously through intercourse), and the females end up with the genes of the strongest and most capable male, survival of the fittest. If humans in nature, would've acted in anyway similar to this, it makes sense that this would be the case. Males would be fine mating with any females, and females would attempt to reserve mating to only the most capable males. This would then ensure the best genes are passed down to the next generation.
Wouldn't that also cause a lot of inbreeding and genetic homogeneity though? "Survival of the fittest" only works if the environment never changes. But if it does, what was considered "the fittest" today, may no longer be that tomorrow. Which is why *ideally* human were supposed to have different types of people; short ones, tall ones, dark skinned, light skinned, fat, thin, muscular, etc., so that diversity in genes ensures survival in all conditions. Of course, women don't care about any of this and only go after 6'2" six-packed Chads anyway. Just sayin'... That argument with lions doesn't work.
@mcheetah While this may seem to be true on the surface level, you forgot to take 1 thing into account. That being adaptation is a result of environment and thus exclusively dominate within certain geographical areas. In other words, a black women in Africa is most likely to be attracted to a black man in Africa. The same can be said of Arabians in northern Africa and the Middle East, of Germanic peoples in Germany and Italy, of Amerindians in the Americas. In Africa it's best to have dark skin, so people there have darker skin than the average. Over the years whoever had the darkest skin would become in effect, "Top dog". So they would pass on their genes. Also when it comes to the environment changing, well that's simple... it doesn't matter. This is to say animals don't adapt with this in mind. All animals grow to become more specific to their unique environment, filling niches. This form of evolution doesn't take into account possible changes to the environment. If it did some dinosaurs probably would've adapted to being smaller, and we'd still have plenty roaming around if that were the case.
But dinosaurs DID adapt to their environments! They evolved into chickens and other birds. There's some that say even ostriches may have evolved from some dinosaurs.
Either way, I don't see how that story works in modern times. Tall, handsome, successful men are not the norm in Western society, so why do almost all straight women still want men like that, while short men (5'8"-5'11") and really short men (under 5'8") get seen as undateable, along with unattractive men (4-6 out of 10) and ugly men (sub 4 out of 10)? Women still want the top 20% of men. Humans aren't really much more "intelligent" than animals, if at all, so I'd argue this is natural selection in process, which is why generations of men are getting taller and taller, despite most men being considered "unworthy" to modern women.
Is it really just the 20% of men keeping the entire species continuing with 80% of women?
First of all, the vast majority of dinosaurs didn't survive nor evolve. The few that did became birds and than birds evolved into many kinds. Second of all, humans absolutely are more intelligent than other animals, it's not even close. Third of all, you're right, tall, handsome, successful men aren't the norm. But they are the peak of desirability. The point is, women in ancient times would go for whoever was the cream of the crop. Whereas men in ancient times, would strive to become the cream of the crop. It's simply wired into modern day women, to choose only the best available mate. Which is not the case for men.
I think it´s mostly true though I think it has mostly socially reasons. Women are more likely to be interested in guys that are socially best. If a short guy is well known to be good with women and be known as a loving and kind partner I´d say many women also be attracted to him. But because many poor guys are also socially poor meaning they don´t have a good working social life, women are less likely to be attracted to them.
Most Helpful Opinions