From IncelWiki.org, the incel encyclopedia

Hypergamy refers to an individual marrying someone of higher socioeconomic status. Contrary to some media narrative, the term 'hypergamy' was not coined or first used in the incelosphere or manosphere, with the term instead being used in academia and literature for decades prior.

In today's incelosphere, hypergamy mostly refers to dating rather than marriage. Specifically, most of the modern incelosphere uses the term to refer to women who are only willing to date handsome or high socioeconomic status men. Many people in the incelosphere think that women are naturally hypergamous, and that if this is not kept in check, then women would increase mating skew to the point that male incel increases.

Opposition or aversion to hypergamy is sometimes called 666phobia.

What causes hypergamy?[edit]

Lack of resource security[edit]

Women tend to be hypergamous in societies with a lack of affordable, basic resources (such as a lack of affordable, independent housing in modern times or scarce food in traditional times).

Today, average men can't afford land with which to prove resources required to raise children or simply have privacy while fucking in a prudish society built around nuclear families. Median rents have surpassed over 200% the median cost of living in major US cities, and were as high as 160% in 2010.

Starting with the austerity and neoliberalism accompanying the 2008 housing crisis, the hikikomori segment of society accelerated into a full-blown, “Peter-pan generation”. The amount of men living with their parents due to resource insecurity, rose from 11% of adults in 2008, to 17%+ of young adults in 2019.[1]

Women are 1000 times pickier on the issue of a potential partner’s resource security, than men, according to an academic research study by Guanlin Wang.[2] Also, a large majority of women consciously admit to automatically deselecting almost all prospective pair-bonders who don't have a steady job. However, these women report much less hard limits on looks or total wealth.


Female hypergamy was empirically, not substantially worsened by the sexual revolution,[5] but only to the degree that conservatives enforced independent dwelling disparity, in combination with monogamy, as retaliation for the sexual revolution.

Female hypergamy is a contributor to male inceldom, but not the single contributor.

The principle of least interest[edit]

In contexts where women aren't materially and/or socially incentivized enough to have sex with young men, young men fall victim to the fact that women have a naturally lower sex drive, and thus decide the terms of how often men will have sex. This is known in academia as the principle of least interest.

When an activity depends on mutual agreement, the person with the least interest decides the terms of that activity.[6] This is because the person with the most interest has fewer options, thus they more likely compromise than the other party to reach an arrangement. Today, women desire initiating sex with a partner of average attractiveness much less than men.[7] Thus, most young men today have few mating options and hence more likely make compromises in order to get any sex at all.[8] Making compromises means dating down, which in turn means women date up.

Trade in general[edit]

Main article: Pussy cartel

In societies which tolerate trade, women tend to utilize that against the sexual health of men. A whole academic field arose to describe this, called, “sexual economics theory”. It describes how women sexually commodify themselves, with a certain exchange value whenever they sexually reject or accept men based on the resources they have.

Sex then becomes a resource itself that men can purchase by amassing a broad array of valued goods, including non-monetary resources such as fame and competence.[9] Women compete in “selling high” by strategically withholding sex, thereby increasing men’s sexual frustration, thus inflating the “price” of sex and baiting men into engaging in more committed resource provision.

Women are also believed to slut-shame one another to maintain the value of sex, as sex given away for free lowers the value of sex, which reduces women’s leverage over men.[10] In this manner, women collude, forming pussy cartels, and inciting one another’s hypergamy. By having men work for them, women become a leisure class.

Increased Male Celibacy[edit]


The share of men under 30 who aren't having sex has nearly tripled in the past decade according to the Washington Post using data from the General Social Survey.[11]


GINI coefficients[edit]

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”.[12] Famous sexologist Kristin Spitznogle says this is proof that Bateman’s Principle now applies to humans.[13] 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).[14]


A data scientist for Hinge reported on the Gini coefficients he had found in his company’s abundant data, treating “likes” as the equivalent of income. He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542. While the situation for women is something like an economy with some poor, some middle class, and some millionaires, the situation for men is closer to a world with a small number of super-billionaires surrounded by huge masses who possess almost nothing. According to the Hinge analyst:[15]

On a list of 149 countries’ Gini indices provided by the CIA World Factbook, this would place the female dating economy as 75th most unequal (average—think Western Europe) and the male dating economy as the 8th most unequal (kleptocracy, apartheid, perpetual civil war—think South Africa).

—Hinge analyst[16]

The top 5-20% of men are having more sex than ever before[edit]

Data was drawn from the 2002 and 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth, a US household survey focusing on sexual and reproductive health.[17][18] [19]

The researchers found that compared to 2002, men overall had the same number of partners in 2013. However, the top 20% of men had a 25% increase in sexual partners. The top 5% of men had an outstanding 38% increase in the number of sexual partners.

Thus while the amount of male sex that was had was unchanged, more of the sex was consolidated into extra sex for the top 5-20% of men (i.e. “Chads”). Thus it is clear that Chads are truly having more sex than ever before.

Direct Quotes:

  • Although we found no change in median numbers of sex partners [for men], we found significant increases in the numbers of sex partners reported by the top 5% and 20%.
  • We found an overall statistically significant increase in reported lifetime opposite-sex sex partners overall for men in the top 20% from 12 in 2002 to 15 in 2011–2013 (95% CIs, 11–14 and 15–15, respectively).
  • Similarly, there was a statistically significant overall increase in reported lifetime partners for men in the top 5% from 38 in 2002 to 50 in 2011–2013 (95% CIs, 30–40 and 50–50, respectively).

80/20 Rule[edit]

okcupid deleting their internal dating studies shortly after the Alek Minassian attack
Women rate 80% of men as below the average of all men, source: Okcupid

An internal Okcupid study revealed that the vast majority of modern women only consider about 20% of men to be actually attractive, and irrationally evaluate 80% of men as below the average of all men.[20] Because women are sexual gatekeepers their preferences decide the dating scene.

In the most popular dating app Tinder, a mating analyst found out that because of gender ratio imbalances on Tinder “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”.[21]

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.



Some people who read this page to write in an academic journal about the incel attitude towards hypergamy (like Rebecca Karlén) think incorrectly that incels mean that 20% of the men get 80% of the women. Firstly, with the 80/20 rule we are talking about trends in access and attention in mating instead of trying to describe 100 percent of the end results of mating. Although, we think the trends in access and attention in mating have a downstream effect on the results of mating. Obviously, many women and men don't end up partnering despite their dating pool. Secondly, we mean that the 80/20 rule is only strictly applicable to *online dating* apps given the evidence cited above. And the fact that all dating is moving online means that this is becoming more true IRL as well.

Pointless copes[edit]

There exist a number of false copes sold to men to deal with female hypergamy. 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[22] and judged less harshly/not seen as creepy in weird situations.[23]

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 personali-tee-hee matters more than looks, their decision indicates that they value looks first and foremost.[24]

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.

Hypergamy models[edit]

Dual-mating strategy[edit]

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”.[25] 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.

However, the entire dual mating strategy hypergamy model is heavily controversial and without much empirical evidence, on the whole. Certain women do act like this though, perhaps the ones incels with a, “fast-life strategy”, chase, in their younger years.

The Cock Carousel[edit]

The cock carousel, is a manospherian theory associated with hypergamy. According to this theory, some, most, or (all!) women chase as many Chads as possible, chasing the 666 rule, during their prime years before settling with a betabux.

After the sexual revolution, female promiscuity absolutely did increase to an extent. The cock carousel extends upon this fact and insinuates it was negative for incels. Others claim the sexual revolution was neutral or positive for incels and/or that modern promiscuity isn’t the same as historical polygyny due to it being less involved with resource scarcity or patriarchy. Others suggest chad-chasing female promiscuity is a minor phenomenon that manospherians exaggerate.


It’s OVER if your female partner becomes more attractive[edit]

Normalfaggots love to state that since ugly/average men can get women, that a woman won't leave them when a more societally valued man comes along. This is so wrong on many levels, since women today, 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
  5. less inclined to stay with their current partners”.[26]

Universities teach our shit[edit]




  1. https://www.latticepublishing.com/blog/cities-with-the-most-adult-children-living-at-home
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381730315X
  3. https://iranianredneck.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/sex-marriage-and-income-why-prudes-fail-and-how-conservative-pseudointellectuals-misunderstand-social-processes/
  4. http://archive.is/rBE2U
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002115/#!po=30.4878
  6. Waller & Hill, 1951
  7. https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gender-differences-in-receptivity-to-sexual-offers.pdf
  8. https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X
  10. Baumeister & Twenge, 2002
  11. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/?utm_term=.9b52429c7136
  12. https://contexts.org/blog/who-has-how-many-sexual-partners/
  13. https://resett.no/2018/06/29/menn-i-ufrivillig-solibati/
  14. https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
  15. https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/
  16. https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/
  17. Harper CR, Dittus PJ, Leichliter JS, Aral, SO. Changes in the Distribution of Sex Partners in the United States: 2002 to 2011–2013 Sexually Transmitted Diseases: February 2017 - Volume 44 - Issue 2 - p 96–100. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000554
  18. https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2017/02000/Changes_in_the_Distribution_of_Sex_Partners_in_the.5.aspx
  19. https://incels.co/threads/science-confirms-compared-to-last-decade-women-putting-out-only-for-chad.42066/
  20. http://archive.is/489UV
  21. https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
  22. https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/may/19/are-funny-people-sexy-or-are-sexy-people-funny
  23. https://splinternews.com/homely-men-judged-more-harshly-than-hot-men-instantly-1793848040
  24. https://youtube.com/watch?v=iOHdZKDldIg
  25. http://pillse.bol.ucla.edu/Publications/Pillsworth&Haselton_ARSR.pdf
  26. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2013/02/The-Mate-Switching-Hypothesis-FINAL-PUBLISHED-2017.pdf

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

This page has been deemed a quality article! It's one of our best articles

This page contains text from editors (Bibipi) and (Altmark22) who wanted their text released under CC-BY-4.0. In order to reduce complexity, this whole page is CC-BY-4.0. If using the whole page you may credit it as 'Bibipi, Altmark, William et al', unless otherwise stated. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use by non-copyright-holders outside of here unless expressly stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.