Blackpill A look on a scientific article about hypergamy: Effects of gender inequality and wealth inequality on within-sex mating competition under hypergyny

[Eventy]

It’s an article that I found on the internet that delves into the concepts of hypergamy, mating competition, and economic inequality.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513822000502

”Resources are often central to the formation and persistence of human consortships, and to the evolutionary fitness consequences of those consortships. As a result, the distribution of resources within a society should influence the number and quality of mating opportunities an individual of given status/wealth experiences. In particular, in a wide variety of societies, both contemporary and historic, women have been shown to prefer mates of higher rather than lower status and wealth, a pattern known as ‘hypergyny’. Such status-dependent within-sex competition is influenced not only by the preferences individuals express but also by the distribution of resources within and between sexes.”

The article elaborates on how resources or wealth play a role in human sexual reproduction choices and that women prefer men with higher status and wealth, which is called hypergyny or hypergamy.
Essentially, since the dawn of humanity, toilets have preferred men with high status and wealth or resources over anything else. And yet they say personality or good character matters.

”Empirical studies show that economic inequality within a sex can amplify mating competition, and that inequalities between women and men also influence behaviours related to mating competition, but the links between resource distribution and mating competition have attracted limited systematic attention. We present simulation models of hypergynous preferences and the effects on mating competition among men and among women within a heterosexual mating market. Our modelling shows that the lower mating success of poorer men and richer women (when compared with richer men and poorer women) is worsened when resource gender gaps are relatively small or when women out-earn men on average.”

It basically says that economic inequality between richer and poorer people can influence the dating market between men to be more competitive and that if women are richer or equal to a man in wealth, then they have a low chance of getting into relationships.
Just another proof of how rich and high-status toilets will never date men lower than her.

”Economic considerations and incentives have shaped the evolution of human mate choice. A consortship is, inter alia, an economic arrangement, in which both parties share, to some degree at least, their wealth, income, time, and labour (Becker, 1973, Becker, 1981; Chiappori, Fortin, & Lacroix, 2002; Grossbard-Shechtman, 1984). Human mating preferences and strategies may have evolved a fine tuning to this economic dimension of mating, biasing individuals to choose mates who have, or are likely to have, the attributes likely to lead to a successful economic partnership (Buss, 1989, Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, 2001; Hopcroft, 2006; Hopcroft, 2021).”

The quote above says that when people choose romantic partners, they often consider economic factors like money and how much time and effort each person can contribute to the relationship. This is because relationships involve sharing resources, and individuals tend to pick partners who can contribute to a successful partnership.
In other words, people choose to partner based on how they can benefit from each other.

”Data from traditional, historic, and contemporary societies show that male status and wealth are often strongly associated with success in marriage, extra-marital mating, and producing offspring (Voland, 1990; Cronk, 1991; Weeden, Abrams, Green, & Sabini, 2006; Nettle & Pollet, 2008; von Rueden & Jaeggi, 2016; Hopcroft, 2021; see review by Hopcroft, 2006). The effects of status on female mating success are more variegated; women of higher status or greater wealth often bear fewer children (Hopcroft, 2006). Those children, however, are more likely to survive early childhood (Boone III, 1986; Hughes, 1986; Lartey, Khanam, & Takahashi, 2016; Lummaa, 2001), suggesting that for women, too, status can elevate evolutionary fitness.”

Jfl, the quote above says men with high status and wealth, in other words, a chad as a highly successful marriage, prone to cheating, and having children.
It also says that female mating success is complex. Toilets with high status or greater wealth have fewer children, and that status influences women's mating choices. In other words, a stacey wants someone with a higher status than her.

”Part of the fitness benefit that high-status men enjoy derives from the practice of hypergyny, according to which women are more likely to “marry upward” to men of higher status than themselves, or to sons of families of higher status than their own. Even though individual women can — and occasionally do — pair with men of lower status, it is far more common for women to pair with men of equal or higher status. As a result, hypergyny is a widespread pattern across contemporary and historic societies (Betzig, 1986; Betzig, 1994; Boone III, 1986; Dickemann, 1979; Nettle & Pollet, 2008; Van Leeuwen & Maas, 2010; Wooding et al., 2004), whereas the reverse pattern (hypogyny – women pairing downward) is unheard of at an aggregate level.”

”Even though individual women can—and occasionally do—pair with men of lower status," I wonder what type of lower-status men that higher-status toilets would want? surely cacogenetical extraversive thugs?

Also, hypergamy is the norm in all of human history on Earth, and hypogyny (the opposite of hypergamy) is inconspicuous.

”Adaptive theories of human mating emphasise Trivers' (1972) argument that sex differences in obligate parental investment drive the evolution of mate choice and within-sex competition. In humans, ‘parental investment theory’ is often invoked to explain women's preference for hypergyny and thus men's competition for wealth and status (Buss, 1995; Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Trivers' view has, in the intervening half century, been developed into less static models (Fromhage & Jennions, 2016; Kokko & Jennions, 2008) that better account for among- and within-species variation in animal sex roles and mating behaviour. The promise of this more dynamic approach has, to date, yet to be realised in human research on questions like how cultural variation in the strength of hypergyny arises and how it is enabled or enforced culturally.”

This quote above talks about the parental investment theory, which is basically women wanting to mate with higher-status men and men who are more caring about their investment on women. In modern human society, more success leads to better to investment into relationships and offsprings. It also talks about how the Trivers theory on parental investment is still an ongoing research project, and researchers are trying to explain how cultural norms are enabled and enforced in hypergamy.

”Having observed the widespread pattern of hypergyny across societies, we ask what psychological adaptation may be responsible for producing it. The answer to this question invariably concerns women's preference for mates with high status, a preference which has been demonstrated reliably and across cultures (e.g., Buss, 1989). This psychological mechanism likely evolved to solve the problem of securing a mate who can, by investing in a woman's offspring, improve their fitness prospects. Although male parental investment is not obligate, it is often found in environments where paternity certainty is high and paternal investment is fitness benefiting than mating effort (e.g., seeking additional matings; reviewed by Geary, 2000). Among humans, male parental investment has been a critical factor for offspring health and survival throughout human evolutionary history and in many cultures, still to this day (Hill & Hurtado, 1996; Hill & Kaplan, 1988; Kok, Van Poppel, & Kruse, 1997; Reid, 1997;c.f. Draper & Harpending, 1988 for a thorough discussion of cross-cultural differences in parental investment). A psychological predisposition toward choosing a mate with high status is well-designed to solve the recurrent adaptive problem of securing a mate with offspring provisioning capabilities.”

The quote above talks about why toilets tend to prefer partners of higher status and resources. The quote suggests that this preference evolved because it helps ensure better care for offspring. Even though men aren't always required to invest in their children, they often do so in environments where paternity is certain.

Also, the psychological predisposition towards high status and wealthy males equals adaptability and living comfortable lives. Toilets like to have children with high status (chad) and wealthy (rich) men.

”While the evolution of hypergynous and status-dependent mating preferences has received considerable empirical and theoretic attention, less attention has been paid to how economic and cultural conditions interact with those preferences to shape mating competition. The primary aim of this paper is to predict how economic inequalities shape within-sex competition. Considerable evidence points to the importance of economic inequality within a sex on competitive behaviour (Blake, Bastian, Denson, Grosjean, & Brooks, 2018; Blake & Brooks, 2019; Daly, 2016; Daly & Wilson, 2001; Wilson & Daly, 1997). Likewise, inequalities between women and men have been shown to influence behaviours related to mating competition (Price, Pound, & Scott, 2014). Despite the importance of inequalities to human mating markets, most thinking on the subject comprises verbal models and interpretation of empirical evidence. Here we present a simple simulation model that begins with the observable phenomenon of hypergynous female mate preferences. We describe how hypergyny predicts competition among men to mate with women, and among women to mate with men. Our model predicts how these forms of competition are likely to be affected by economic inequalities among men, among women, and between women and men. Our aim is to lay a foundation for a more formal and integrated adaptationist study of how inequalities shape sexual competition and its various manifestations, some of which have important psychological, safety, public health, and security implications.”

Here comes the real deal. The quote above says that economic inequalities influence men’s and women’s sexual mating partners. It also talks about how less focused economic disparities and culture have been on trying to understand hypergamy.

”In contrast to the limited modelling of economic inequality's effects on mating competition, the effects of sex ratios on mating competition have received extensive theoretic development and review by biologists (de Jong, Forsgren, Sandvik, & Amundsen, 2012; Emlen & Oring, 1977; Klug, Heuschele, Jennions, & Kokko, 2010; Kokko & Jennions, 2008; Kokko, Klug, & Jennions, 2012; Shuster, 2016; Shuster & Wade, 2003). Operational Sex Ratios (OSR) – defined by Emlen (1976) as “the ratio of receptive females to potential mating males at any one time” – are widely used in studies of animal mating systems and sexual selection (Kvarnemo & Ahnesjo, 1996), amounting to, according to Shuster (2016), over 4500 articles. In parallel, the effects of relative numbers of women and men (i.e., human adult sex ratio) on within-sex mating competition have been subjects of theoretic modelling and empirical research in the human behavioral sciences (Chiappori et al., 2002; Grossbard-Shechtman, 1984; Guttentag & Secord, 1983; Kandrik, Jones, & DeBruine, 2015; Marlowe & Berbesque, 2012; Schacht & Borgerhoff Mulder, 2015; Stone, 2018).”

The quote above explains that while there's been extensive study on how the balance of males and females affects mating competition in both animals and humans, there hasn't been as much focus on how economic inequality impacts competition for mates. It talks about the use of Operational Sex Ratios (OSR) in studying animal mating systems and the research on the human adult sex ratio's influence on mating competition in the human behavioral sciences.

”Sex ratios affect mating markets by altering the supply of mates relative to competitors. Under male-biased sex ratios, women enjoy greater bargaining power over the establishment of relationships, as well as within relationships (Guttentag & Secord, 1983), leading to higher rates of marriage, lower rates of births to teen and unwed mothers, and better mate choice outcomes for women (Barber, 2000, reviewed by Stone, 2018).”

The quote above essentially talks about In societies where there are more males than females, toilets typically have more control and bargaining power in forming and maintaining relationships, both within and outside of marriage. This imbalance leads to higher rates of marriage, lower rates of births to teenage and unwed mothers, and generally better outcomes in mate selection for toilets.

I think that it could mean that when men are more dominant, toilets tend to act more virtues and traditional, or that they have a higher chance of finding a higher status mate.

”Male-biased sex ratios intensify competition among men, and some sources show this elevates rates of violence, property crime, addiction, and radicalisation (Edlund, Li, Yi, & Zhang, 2013; Hudson & Boer, 2004). Other studies show that when sex ratios are female-biased, men invest less in their consorts and children, invest more in mating competition (Stone, 2018), are more open to uncommitted sex (Kandrik et al., 2015) and to ‘poaching’ mates from other men (Schmitt & Descript, 2004). These forms of elevated mating competition stoke male-perpetrated violence in some societies when men are relatively rare (Schacht, Tharp, & Smith, 2016). It is clear from the ample work on sex ratios that the effects are manifold, if somewhat complex.”

The dominant male sex ratio equals more competition, more violence, crime, addiction, and radicalization.
The female sex ratio is dominant, which means men are less interested in children and relationships, engage in more mating competition, cheat more, and steal other men’s girls... yikes.

”The effects of sex ratios, or any other variable, on within-sex competition are seldom uniform in their expression. In general, young unmarried men who are poor, unemployed, and thus have dim prospects of finding a partner, experience the most intense competition. As a result of this competition, violent offending, dangerous driving, gambling and other risky behaviours are highest among these men (Daly & Wilson, 2001; Wilson & Daly, 1985). Wilson and Daly (1985) named this constellation of traits “young male syndrome”, arguing that these traits function adaptively to enhance status as a means to outcompeting sexual rivals.”

Men who are unmarried, poor, unemployed, and have a have a low chance of finding a partner experience the most hardship of competition, basically those who have the hardest. These men are also prone to violence, dangerous driving, gambling, and other risky behaviors.
Another very objective proof that incels have the hardest time in the sexual competition where high status and wealth play a role, but personality, just be yourself...

Factors that perturb mating markets have a disproportionate effect on young, poor, uneducated men, especially those from low-status groups. A male-biased sex ratio exacerbates the intense competition among low-status men who massively outnumber available women, whereas the mating prospects of high-status men remain largely unaffected. As a result, it is often the poorest men, ceteris paribus, who are at greatest risk of being unable to mate, and thus of falling into violence, crime, addiction, and chronic physical and mental illness (Hesketh & Xing, 2006; Hudson, 2002; Zhou, Li, Yan, & Hesketh, 2013).

Here, HERE it says that the sexual mating market has a negative effect on men who are young, poor, and uneducated—in other words, incels—and that in a society where males dominate, low-status males have to work harder while higher-status men don’t have to. Low-status or incel men are more prone to violence, crime, addiction, and chronic physical and mental illness because of this pathetic clown world we are in.

”Competition among women is also not uniform. Women in low socioeconomic status (SES) neighbourhoods in England reproduce at younger ages when sex ratios are female-biased, whereas women from high SES neighbourhoods do so at older ages (Chipman & Morrison, 2013). The interpretation is that, when mates are rare, poorer women cannot afford to wait for a high-earning mate, whereas richer women can do so, and often do. Likewise, when women outnumber men, it is often high-earning or high-status women who are at greatest risk of remaining unpartnered.”

Poorer female mates marry younger when males are scarce.
Also, poor women or beckies prefer chads but will marry below chads if men are rare; however, rich women or staceys refuse to marry below chads and have time to wait for chads if available; also, staceys are the most affected, being without a partner in a female-dominated place.

”Just as the supply-demand effects of sex ratios exert uneven effects on competition, the distribution of wealth is expected to exert comparable effects. The most studied such effect is that of income inequality on male-male competition. Income inequality predicts risky male behaviours, violent crime, and homicide (Daly, Wilson, & Vasdev, 2001; Krahn, Hatnagel, & Gartrell, 1986; Peñaherrera-Aguirre et al., 2018; Wilson & Daly, 1997). Martin Daly and Margo Wilson marshalled a number of strands of evidence showing that these links are due to an intensification of male-male competition under high economic inequality, particularly for poorer, younger men (Wilson & Daly, 1997, Daly et al., 2001, Daly, 2016, see also Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2017).”

When the gap in the economy between men is high, more competition equals high crime, violent behaviors, and homocide, and it is due to the competition between high-status males and lower-status males, and lower-status males have the worst of it.

”Competition among women, too, responds to economic inequality. Teenage and unwed births are associated with high inequality (Wilson & Daly, 1997). Recently we showed that women's self-sexualisation in the form of posting ‘sexy selfies’ on social media is robustly associated with high economic inequality at the level of U.S. cities, U.S. counties, and nations (Blake et al., 2018). Moreover, at the U.S. city and county level, women's expenditure on clothing was associated positively and robustly with inequality (Blake et al., 2018). Whether the effects of inequality on self-sexualisation, grooming, and other expressions of women's competition are uniform, or if they are particularly strong in some women rather than others, currently remains unresolved (Blake & Brooks, 2019).”

Yikes, low-status toilets are really that promiscuous, and that inequalty leads to more toilets becoming more promiscuous, like self-sexualizing, showing their bodies towards men, especially chads, and their desire to dress sexy, just lol.

”Part of the rationale for this study is to model, under simplified conditions, the mating success implications of economic inequalities within and between the sexes for women and men in relation to their status/wealth. Based on the assumption of a very simple and static hypergynous preference, we explore how the mating success of women and men of varying status is altered with varying levels of wealth and gender inequality. In simple terms, our aim is to predict whose mating prospects improve or deteriorate under changing conditions. We hope that such predictions will enrich the study of how individual behaviours and well-being are shaped by the inequalities in their milieu.”

”Income and wealth inequality are most often measured and studied at the household level, with little heed paid to the possibility that inequalities among men and among women might exert different effects on behaviour. Within 20th Century Western economies, inequalities changed from the 1920s (high gender inequality and income inequality among men, low income inequality among women) to the 1950s (high gender inequality, low income inequality within each sex) to the 1980s (lower gender inequality, high inequality within both sexes), with effects on mating markets and gender relations that remain contested (Goldin, 1990; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007). Theory concerning whether and how the effects of inequality among men and among women might differ remains limited, at best. One of our aims, here, is to begin the process of dissecting the likely effects of economic inequality on each sex.”

”Inequality between the sexes has profound and pervasive effects on human behaviour, including on mating systems and norms concerning sex and the family (Jetten & Peters, 2019; Reiss, 1986). Differences between women and men in wealth, earning potential, status, and power define the landscape of relations between the sexes (Autor, Dorn, & Hanson, 2019; Bertrand, Pan, & Kamenica, 2013; Price et al., 2014; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007). Nonetheless, few published accounts explicitly consider how gender inequality influences the intensity of competition within each sex.”

”The more men's mean incomes exceed those earned by women, the greater the return from marriage that women experience (Becker, 1973; Wilson, 1996). Dwindling gender gaps in employment and income have been named as likely drivers of declining marriage rates and increasing divorces as the proportion of women who can achieve upward mobility on the mating market declines (Autor et al., 2019; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007; Wilson, 1996). Indeed, couples are less likely to form, and are more likely to separate, when the woman's earnings approach the man's (Bertrand et al., 2013; Doumbia & Goussé, 2021).”

Wow, look at the proof that when men earn more than women, their relationship is more stable. Also, payment equality is one of the things that drives high divorce rates and declining in traditional marriage, in other words, lessening the payment gap between men and women, more equality, lowered marriage rates, more divorcement, and probably a more promiscuous society.
There is a high chance for women to separate when their earnings come closer to me. Its just like when men are more dominant and females submissive in their relationships, the better.

”As with sex ratios and wealth inequality, it is reasonable to expect that the effects of gender inequality on mating competition will vary among individuals, depending on their status, age, and other characteristics. Our models are designed to generate predictions about the effects of varying gender gaps in wealth on the competition that individuals (of varying status) experience, and thus to predict behaviour in a way that is informed by adaptationist thinking.”

I found it very interesting that there are so many articles and facts written about hypergamy, yet most of the toilets deny it and say to just get better with personality and sociality and be more submissive to toilets. Many articles, including the ones I've quoted above, have stated that society places men at its best when they are more dominant, high-earning, and of higher status.

staceys prefer chads that are above her and gigastaceys somewhat prefer men and areas above her; her looks matching could work, but less likely their relationship could work because women want to look up. In essence, society works perfectly when men are the highest and women the lowest.'

Incels have it the hardest because they are seen as low-status men, with many mental and physical side effects; thus, these effects could jeopardize the parental investment theories, which place that women are attracted to men who are prone to taking care of children and men who are seen as having higher status, which includes wealth. Chads gives women the comfortability of life; they are seen as having grown up in a healthy environment; they have experienced higher status things; they have experienced teen romance; they probably will end up in a good job; they have the experience; and thus, they are not more competitive in the matin market because they are desired by the majority of beckies and acquaintances. Beckies see chads as a ticket to higher status; they are also the most aggressive about getting chads. Meanwhile incels and normies are those who are competing with each other, while chads get toilets for just existing.

Being a chad must truly mean living in another dimension, the dimension of tutorial life, kek.

 

[Rationalizer1999]

Read everything.

 

[tulasdanslos]

 

[Pancakecel]

Kek, all that for another wet thread

 

[Eventy]

Kek, all that for another wet thread

I know that this thread is water, but mostly afraid of Toilets and other lefties that tries to reduce blackpill and inceldom to an ideology and the action of deplatforming this site.
Since its good to sticking to the blackpill content and powering this forum up with scientfic articles on hypergamy and foids sexual choices because it gives value judgements with evidence even if its water.

I read on an old thread fro Master on how Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) tries to deplatfrom many and including this site, so it is best to write about blackpill content to be sure that these scumbags doesn't have much empirical arguments for deplatforming. Just lol imagen they get the power to do it.

You could read here below.

https://incels.is/threads/we-are-exploring-our-legal-options-ccdh.510616/

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

whereas the reverse pattern (hypogyny – women pairing downward) is unheard of at an aggregate level.”

Such a simple but brutal summation.

 

[subhumangnome]

I hate virtue signaling toilets

 

[_meh]

Money does matter a lot (as you get older). Especially, as you get into your mid-20s, even more or so past your late 20s and early 30s (if you have gotten promoted at your work place or move up to a senior position role). Income/wealth is only less of an issue if you're in your late teens and early 20s, even then they expect you to someday get a good job and provide them. College/university does matter to some degree.

Anyway it sort of does remind me of this video where this woman in her early thirties complained about getting with broke men (the men she's getting are likely above her looksmatch and better looking than her, but they were too poor to consolidate a relationship with her):


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsUoq4x4EY


Money does indeed matter a fuck-ton and is usually underplayed.

A 30s something year old woman wouldn't want to date a 30s something year old McDonalds worker or some janitor (granted if you're average looking or a little below). 70% of women have already been shown to want to be with a man that earns a higher income than them.

 

[Eventy]

Money does matter a lot (as you get older). Especially, as you get into your mid-20s, even more or so past your late 20s and early 30s (if you have gotten promoted at your work place or move up to a senior position role). Income/wealth is only less of an issue if you're in your late teens and early 20s, even then they expect you to someday get a good job and provide them. College/university does matter to some degree.

Anyway it sort of does remind me of this video where this woman in her early thirties complained about getting with broke men (the men she's getting are likely above her looksmatch and better looking than her, but they were too poor to consolidate a relationship with her):


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAsUoq4x4EY


Money does indeed matter a fuck-ton and is usually underplayed.

A 30s something year old woman wouldn't want to date a 30s something year old McDonalds worker or some janitor (granted if you're average looking or a little below). 70% of women have already been shown to want to be with a man that earns a higher income than them.

Foids tend to start carrying about money when they are done with their promiscuous lifestyle. Remember middle adolescens (14-18) and late adolescens toilets (18-22) are different than adult toilets when it comes to choosing their sexual preference. The toilet on the video probably had a very hedonistic lifestyle during her youth.

Foids tend to pick dysgentic traits at very young because they have been brainwashed or are just downward pathetic since its very obivous that they share traits with reactive organism. When they start to enter the adult life they will choose richness, not because of love or anything, but betabuxxing. Adult foids always will prefer a man that earns more than her, such a thing creates hypergamy in wealth, which make women the involuntarly subserviant, but they would rather fucking want a rich chad above anything, its then that they would find true happiness and true subserviance to superiority.

Younger foids don't need money since they have their parents supporting them, so then they can practices their hedonism at peace.

Mind you this a group of young swedish foids talking about what their whore crush is.

Headlne says: Whore League vs Celebrity Crush



Check this thread, it explain more on foids dysgenical choices:

[It's Over]Foid Sexual Choices by Default are Dysgenic.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-022-10107-w For quite some time, I have been considering the broader impacts of behavioral sink & the general decline in civilization: What other factors are at play? Who else could be a driving force behind it? And many, many other such...

incels.is