FEMALE HYPERGAMY

[WhoTookVendetta]

DO YOU THINK FEMALES ARE HYPERGAMOUS BECAUSE THEY CAN BE

OR IN THEIR DNA?

IF THE ROLES WERE REVERSED AND ONLY TOP 20% OF WOMEN CAN GET MEN

WOULD MEN BE LESS HYPERGAMOUS THAN WOMEN?

 

[Revan]

its biology, simple as that, easily explainable as well

 

[mrdouchebag]

Both men and women are hypergamous bro. Don't let the copers fool you.
Hypergamy, the original definition, is that women tend to marry across and up in socioeconomic status. It never said anything about looks. But guess what? Why would a man high in socioeconomic status even bother with a woman of similar attractiveness and considerable less socioeconomic that is essentially a financial liability? He'd only bother with her if the woman ranked high in attractiveness relative to him. An equivalent exchange of value. Wealth/status for beauty/youth/fertility.

Men are indeed less selective, but only when it comes to low effort low investment porking. And the reason for that is simple. Women are the ones who shoulder the risk of pregnancy and the 9 months of pregnancy. They are the ones who bond more with the baby and are incentivized to raise it. Paternal investment after a man fucks and impregnates a woman is not mandatory for the man, it's optional. He can have many kids with many different women, without him putting any effort and investment. A hot guy leverages his high level of attractiveness in order to gain quick access and fuck less attractive women without sweating it much, then he bails. If he has 20 kids, due to the high number, a few are bound to make it to adulthood and pass on his genes even if the paternal investment on the guy's part is zero.

However, men are quite selective when it comes to paternal investment. They'll only invest in a woman that is the best they can do. Essentially paternal investment goes to the highest quality woman a man can get, because that woman will birth the highest quality offsprings. The man's bastards get pennies to nothing at all when it comes to the man's time and resources. The king marries the queen and the queen's heirs get the most resources and inherit the kingdom. The mistresses and the hookers that he impregnated, along with the bastards that came into being from those unions, usually are sidelined and discarded, barely getting anything at all.

Men can opt for three reproductive strategies: a)heavily invest in a small number of high quality offsprings, b)little investment in a large number of low quality offsprings, and c)a combination of the two strategies above.

So for a woman to secure the best genes she can get, she'll have to forgo full paternal investment from the man.
For a man to get the best genes he can get, he'll have to offer full paternal investment.
See? For one to win big, another one has to lose big. The mating strategies of women and men come into conflict with one another.


But ultimately all people are hypergamous. They want much better than what they can get usually, and if they settle, they'll settle for the best they can realistically do and nothing less. This applies for both men and women. You assume there is charity, but there isn't much actually, especially when it comes to longterm monogamous relationships and marriage.

Just like women want Chad, men want Stacy.

 

[ForestRotter]

Both men and women are hypergamous bro. Don't let the copers fool you.
Hypergamy, the original definition, is that women tend to marry across and up in socioeconomic status. It never said anything about looks. But guess what? Why would a man high in socioeconomic status even bother with a woman of similar attractiveness and considerable less socioeconomic that is essentially a financial liability? He'd only bother with her if the woman ranked high in attractiveness relative to him. An equivalent exchange of value. Wealth/status for beauty/youth/fertility.

Men are indeed less selective, but only when it comes to low effort low investment porking. And the reason for that is simple. Women are the ones who shoulder the risk of pregnancy and the 9 months of pregnancy. They are the ones who bond more with the baby and are incentivized to raise it. Paternal investment after a man fucks and impregnates a woman is not mandatory for the man, it's optional. He can have many kids with many different women, without him putting any effort and investment. A hot guy leverages his high level of attractiveness in order to gain quick access and fuck less attractive women without sweating it much, then he bails. If he has 20 kids, due to the high number, a few are bound to make it to adulthood and pass on his genes even if the paternal investment on the guy's part is zero.

However, men are quite selective when it comes to paternal investment. They'll only invest in a woman that is the best they can do. Essentially paternal investment goes to the highest quality woman a man can get, because that woman will birth the highest quality offsprings. The man's bastards get pennies to nothing at all when it comes to the man's time and resources. The king marries the queen and the queen's heirs get the most resources and inherit the kingdom. The mistresses and the hookers that he impregnated, along with the bastards that came into being from those unions, usually are sidelined and discarded, barely getting anything at all.

Men can opt for three reproductive strategies: a)heavily invest in a small number of high quality offsprings, b)little investment in a large number of low quality offsprings, and c)a combination of the two strategies above.

So for a woman to secure the best genes she can get, she'll have to forgo full paternal investment from the man.
For a man to get the best genes he can get, he'll have to offer full paternal investment.
See? For one to win big, another one has to lose big. The mating strategies of women and men come into conflict with one another.


But ultimately all people are hypergamous. They want much better than what they can get usually, and if they settle, they'll settle for the best they can realistically do and nothing less. This applies for both men and women. You assume there is charity, but there isn't much actually, especially when it comes to longterm monogamous relationships and marriage.

Just like women want Chad, men want Stacy.

dnr but high effort

 

[RecessedCels]

Both

 

[fleurybobby]

DO YOU THINK FEMALES ARE HYPERGAMOUS BECAUSE THEY CAN BE

OR IN THEIR DNA?

IF THE ROLES WERE REVERSED AND ONLY TOP 20% OF WOMEN CAN GET MEN

WOULD MEN BE LESS HYPERGAMOUS THAN WOMEN?

Its not only about biology, humans are much more complicated than that