Female Hypergamy is Rational

Female Hypergamy is rational.
If a female 7 can get pregnant to a male 9 or 10, it’s rational for her to do so. Marrying a 7 will never accomplish a result as potentially good as what five minutes with a 9 or 10 can do. A single sexy son can trump three plain looking kids for passing on her genes. If she can pass it off as the 7’s kid, or convince him to be a stepfather, then that’s even better. She can have a sexy son and two plain looking kids.
If a female 7 is married to a male who has slumped to a 6, and a male 8 shows her serious interest…it’s rational for her to leave…
Buy Me!


  1. modernguy says

    So much for true love.

    And speaking of rational, all the hot girls are going for thug lifes and douchebags than can barely add two and two. I guess I shouldn't be worried though, cause some smartass will make it all better explaining it through evolution. Except that doesn't make it better…

  2. Novaseeker says

    Male polygyny (even on the sly) is also highly rational, as it involves spreading his seed around in such a way that he doesn't put all of his fertilized eggs in one woman's basket, and, hopefully, gets some beta sap to pay for and care for his own genetic offspring. Win.

  3. jsalvati says

    I'm not sure if "rational" is the right word. I would say it "makes sense" because evolutionary pressures make these things pay off. But we as people just want what we want; there's no rational or irrational about it.

  4. Anonymous says

    If a female leaves one man for another how far does her sex rank drop?

    Any chick that leaves her man for me or cheats on him with me is never considered wifey/LTR material on principle alone so i'm not entirely sure how rational this is in the real world.

    At best the 8 is gonna bang her for a few months and then move onto something better.

  5. Viliam Búr says

    Many immoral things are rational from the evolutionary point of view. Murdering someone and taking his money gives some rational advantage too, assuming the murderer won't get caught.

    When other people are watching our actions, the game becomes more complicated. An advantage can become a disadvantage and vice versa. For example backstabbing someone in the right situation can be an advantage, and inability to do so may be a disadvantage — in short term. But when people start noticing the pattern, they may become more reluctant with the first person and more coöperative with the second person, giving them more opportunities for mutual gain — this way in long term the (perceived) inability to backstab others becomes an advantage. However, the best strategy is behaving morally most of your life, and act selfishly only in those few situations when the gain of selfish action outweighs the negative social impact. This is the evolutionary motive for hypocrisy. Rationalization is the tool that helps us to abandon our official pattern of behavior for a moment while pretending that we keep following it.

    Generally, people behave more morally when others watch them and remember them, when their actions have long-term consequences. (Religion provides the invisible One who watches you always and remembers forever.) Selfish behavior can be more expected towards stragers, or in anonymous city crowds. Also situations where it is politically incorrect to judge others are invitations towards immoral behavior. Strict rules impose limits on rationalization.

    It is OK to expect other people to behave morally and to judge them publicly if they fail. It is in our selfish interest to do so! (And yes, it is a bit hypocritical. We can criticize others and pretend to be are better than them, despite knowing that we are essentially the same. It works.) It is also wise to expect them to fail given enough motivation and opportunity. The goal of morality is to reduce the motivation.

    Therefore Female Hypergamy is rational — but criticizing and punishing it (e.g. by social ostracizing) is also rational. A wise man should remember that no punishment can reduce it to zero level. Still, a wise man can (and probably should) criticize what he considers immoral.

  6. Anonymous says

    I do agree with you on most points. However:

    "A single sexy son can trump three plain looking kids for passing on her genes."

    Why aren't they heading to the nearest sperm bank and picking out the best of the bunch? Pass that kid off as someone else's? I just doubt the genetic legacy matters when it comes to sleeping with a guy at a time it 'feels' like she should/can.

  7. Charles says

    "Rational" may be too broad a term to use here, but there is certainly a benefit to female hypergamy, just as there is a benefit to male polygyny, provided one can get away with either. Athol is inviting us to be coldly analytical about this, and I say we take him up on it.

    And, before we go overboard dwelling on feminine moral deficiencies, remember that Athol himself has dodged a marital bullet or two specifically because his wife is a good person. Solid character isn't all that scarce in women; a man should just remember to select for it.

  8. Athol Kay says

    Modernguy said "some smartass will make it all better explaining it through evolution."

    Um… awkward, exactly why that happens is covered in the first set of chapters in my book.

    Novaseeker – correct

    Anon 3:44 – plenty of times the husbands "best friend" hijacks the relationship and walks off with the wife. It happens.

    Viliam Búr – a most excellent comment (you spamboxed for some reason) and I agree with it all.

    Anon 7:13 – women don't head off to spermbanks in droves because their bodies don't sexually respond to medical arts buildings. It's something they really have to think about as a last resort usually. Plus it's expensive and men are free.

    Charles – not only have I dodged a marital bullet because Jennifer is so good of a wife to me, I've also passed on sexual opportunities as well for exactly the same reason.

    My essentially point here is to act as a counter point to the belief that female hypergamy is monsterously evil and that the women that "act out" and have opportunitisic sex are some how deranged. Once you see it as in fact something quite predictable and expectted, you can better accept and adapt to it.

    Men and women are morally equal to each other. Their sexual strategies are different and sometimes in conflict with one another.

    No one ever said the red pill came with a sugar coating.

  9. hans says

    Any excuse of female hypergamy is suspect.
    Male harem building created specific societies, while female hypergamy destroys societies.

    Both are ultimately counterproductive in maintaining a successful society though. In the modern western "1st" world the male version of this "dark evolutionary imperative" has been ultimately laid to waste due to female birth control pills.

    The male beta nerd crowd may pacify itself with learning game and bedding one slut after the other. But they´re just the same failures as the virginal "omega males". They too can´t create offspring anymore until the female allows it.

    Female hypergamy on the other hand is actually pushed forward by our elites through feminism, no fault divorce(actually his fault, as he´s left to pay the bill) and the "deshaming" of "slutdom". It actively leads to single mom "families" and social dysfunctional offspring(majority of prison pop are single mom bastards).

    You should really spit that poisoned red pill out ASAP if you think Man and women are morally equal to each other.
    The supposed equality you perceive is a total illusion as a female only has to INDULGE in her atavistic urges by looking hot and spreading her legs, while a male has to actually WORK towards attaining his so called evolutionary goal of spreading the seed into many "holes".
    And with work I include suppressing his own moral code before courting his conquests.

  10. Athol Kay says

    Oh great, I'm "suspect".

    Female hypergamy has it's roots in the reproductive cost of her bearing and raising a child.

    Until you can see that it is rational for an individual woman to have sex with the best man she can, you're not going to be able to solve any social problems resulting from hypergamy.

    Seeing women as evil or immoral for these urges isn't productive.

  11. Bob says

    Just as the human brain is built in layers: cerebrum on top of cerebellum on top of medulla, human society has layers: reason on top of morals on top of instinct.

    The top layers are more flexible than the lower layers, but also more work.

    Societies evolve faster than genetics, so morals may actually fit conditions better than instinct. When this is so, an intelligent human being will reenforce the moral structures by understanding instinct and channelling it in productive ways.

    So, it is smarter to recognize female instinctive hypergamy and use it to reenforce the relationship rather than to ignore it and let it sabotage you.

  12. Anonymous says

    Mr. Kay,

    Many of the urges and instincts developed in our evolutionary past have deleterious consequences if indulged in the modern world. A fondness for sugar is good, if one's only source of sugar is in the form of fruits available for a few weeks per year. When sugar is abundant year round, that fondness can become an addiction with predictable consequences.

    Sexual behavior is no different. Hypergamy, cuckolding, infidelity, and rape all make sense as evolutionary strategies. Just as mating with the highest status male makes sense for women, so does mating with as many women as possible (with or without their consent) make sense for men. They are every bit as “rational” and “natural” as the female behaviors you discussed. The difference is that few people are willing to discuss male infidelity and rape (even the mere urges) in morally neutral terms.

    Humans are an intelligent and inventive species. We've responded to the abundance of cheap calories by developing a business dedicated to controlling diet and promoting exercise. It isn't very effective, but we've only had a couple of generations to develop this response. On the other hand, we've had thousands of years of experience in regulating social behavior of which sexual behavior is a subset. We've done such a good job of internalizing that regulation that we don't usually recognize it for what it is. It goes by many names (morality, ethics, religion, custom, law) but it is a response to the creation of large human settlements. The instincts and impulses that we developed after the agricultural revolution are as natural as the ones developed by our hunter gatherer ancestors. They are newer and perhaps weaker, but they are still a part of our evolutionary past. We ignore them at our peril. This is why it is impossible to discuss sexual behavior without reference to morality. I'll grant that there is a lot of nonsense and hypocrisy related to the regulation of sexual behavior, but that is true for any human endeavor and no excuse to abandon the entire enterprise.

    If you've read this far, thank you for indulging me. My point is that it is wrong describe one type of common behavior (infidelity, cuckolding, etc) as rational and therefore imply that the methods of regulating that behavior (morality, law, customs, shame, etc) are irrational. I think that is why this post has generated an unusually large number of negative comments. Rational and irrational are loaded words. Who wants to be described as irrational? A wife's (or husband's) desire to cheat is rational while anger at her desire is irrational? I think that it is better to think in terms of behavior and response. After all, neither the desires nor the methods of controlling that desire are new inventions. Human evolution didn't come to a screeching halt 10000 years ago.

  13. Athol Kay says

    Anon – It's been my experience that any comments addressed to me as "Mr. Kay" are insulting in tone and miss the point of the post entirely.

    Quite obviously I've advocated from the beginning of the blog the advantages of a monogamus relationship and legal marriage. I have about 400 posts to that effect and a 300+ page book coming out about that as well.

    All this post was about was the female hypergamy is a innate impulse women experience. If the reader cares to better himself, it would be remarkably unusual for his wife not to respond positively to him for doing so.

    She COULD cheat. She COULD leave. But if you give her the option to have a better man, by that better man being you, you give her hypergamous desires a safe place to discharge.

    I'm here to save individual marriages, jump start sex lives and am all about the art of the possible. The average guy is not going to save his marriage by advocating for social change and a return to public morality. He's going to do it by getting up off his ass and making a positive change for himself.

    So get to it.

  14. Anonymous says

    "Seeing women as evil or immoral for these urges isn't productive."

    Seeing men as immoral for their innate urges isn't productive either, yet women – and, in fact, the entire social structure – insist on doing it. Reconciliation between the sexes won't be possible until women stop doing this.


  15. modernguy says

    There is no question that pleasing your partner is part of a good relationship. If this means improving yourself in ways that please the female hypergamous impulse and make her proud to be with you then that's what it takes. But there is also no question that for a healthy society to function women have to be 'domesticated' in their ability to express instincts that tear at the social fabric. Boundaries on men are enforced through violence, on women through social pressure. If property rights are not enforced, the 'rationality' of stealing becomes apparent and if you want to keep your property you better turn your house into a fortress. And if hypergamy becomes "liberated" you better spend your days cultivating sexiness if you ever want company.

  16. Athol Kay says

    Hollenhund – do you realize every time you comment here you are negative in tone?

    Marriages saved, sex lives restarted, intact families… is this blog really such a downer to you?

  17. Rum says

    Cheap and easy DNA paternity testing + cheap and plentiful firearms = think twice before trying this at home.

  18. Anonymous says

    This is his blog, he's not obligated to address anything you say. You might want to start your own if it's that much of a problem for you bro.

  19. Athol Kay says

    Hollenhund – Way to ignore the point of the blog. It's not a MRA blog. Everytime you come here you complain that it's not a gender war blog. Go start your own blog and get back to me on how many men you've saved from the divorce and family court nightmare.

    I'm thinking you won't though… because you don't have a practical real world solution to anything you complain about. Obviously if you did, you'd already be writing about it and making a difference in the world.

  20. Anonymous says


    why did he respond at all then? If he bothers to respond, at least he should address what I said instead of moving the goalposts.


    you could have simply written "work on becoming more attractive" and leave it at that. But for some reason you decided to admonish and attack those who disagree with your idea that hypergamy is morally justified, rational and acceptable, also mentioning the difficulties of solving social problems – difficulties that will remain as long as men don't don't agree with your point of view. This isn't about giving relationship advice anymore, it's about taking a position in the so-called Gender War against MRAs. Therefore in this case of this post I cannot accept the notion that this is blog is purely about relationship advice.

    The simple fact is that it'll be kind of difficult to implore men to accept the hypergamy of their women and shut up about it when women, egged on by society, keep dismissing the male desire for sexual variety as something immoral and dangerous that must be tightly controlled and kept in check.

    The reason I'm not writing about practical solutions is a) many bloggers are already doing it b) men and women are swiftly running out of practical solutions that actually work in the current SMP.


  21. Charles says

    A growing cadre of married and marriage minded men, all being the best husbands and potential husbands they can be and being pretty damn good at it, picky about the wives they select and not taking nonsense from the women around them in general – there would (hopefully, will) be a force for social change. Go, Athol.

  22. Anonymous says

    Athol –

    Let me just say how refreshing it is that this is not a MRA blog. I've spent the last year reading one of the more popular MRA blogs in hopes of finding ideas for becoming a better girlfriend. There was genuinely helpful information when I first started following it, but as time passed, it became more and more negative. Constantly reading about how all women are worthless and immoral does not help women who are trying to be a better woman for their man. Luckily I found this blog and have really enjoyed the fact that you speak the truth about women's nature without completely bashing them. You've struck a good balance, and you should be proud of that. So just like they say on all of the MRA sites: don't feed the troll.


  23. Anonymous says

    Are you saying that what Athol proposes is not a practical solution?

    If you say "many bloggers are already doing it" (writing about practical solutions), how about giving us at least one example of a blogger you like who you think is one of those "many bloggers".

  24. elhaf says

    Hollenhund, you seem to believe that some kind of overall reconciliation of the sexes is necessary to have an individual reconciliation between a couple. That is clearly not true, as many stories by other posters here can attest. If you insist that every last man on earth be honored for his manhood before you step up and be a man yourself, without apologizing to those who are bitching you out for it, I don't know what to say.

  25. Confidunce says

    Your post really touched a nerve, Athol! I think they're confusing "rational" with "morally correct" or "excusable."

    To me it boils down to reducing gender relations to the Sexual Market Place: it's all a matter of economics, which I've always defined as the science of rational or predictable decisionmaking. It's about tradeoffs.

    I.e., a woman doesn't cheat on her 7 of a husband with every 8+ who comes around because she loves the 7. That "love," in turn, is based largely on her feelings of pair bonding with the 7. It's nature's way of warning a woman that she can't fuck every alpha who comes along because she'll lose her beta man at home.

    This also illustrates why Roissy's views on the SMP are inadequate — "beta" is not a pejorative term, and it does not mean "not alpha." It's something different altogether, and women have to make tradeoffs to find a balance of men who are both alpha and beta. Hence the reason why a "rational" hamster won't help a woman cheat just because a higher alpha comes along.

    But if a woman can fuck a higher status alpha on the sly and suffer fewer consequences — on a business trip or trip abroad without her husband, e.g. — she's much more likely to do so.

    This is also why it's so crucial to pass fitness tests and to make clear that you are desirable to other women. It helps your S.O. realize that there ARE tradeoffs and that those tradeoffs are easily triggered. Otherwise, the price she pays for infidelity (when measured by risk x impact) is lower. If you're a natural 7 and you're already working out and making six figures, you've probably enhanced your SMP value as far as it can go. The corollary is that losing you on account of infidelity or other B.S. is as devastating as it's going to be. The most you can do at that point is to enhance the "risk" half of the equation — if you cheat on me, I WILL DEFINITELY LEAVE YOU. A woman facing that situation is less likely to cheat than a woman dating the 7 who appears more willing to forgive and forget.

  26. elhaf says

    Hollenhund said,
    "The simple fact is that it'll be kind of difficult to implore men to accept the hypergamy of their women and shut up about it when women, egged on by society, keep dismissing the male desire for sexual variety as something immoral and dangerous that must be tightly controlled and kept in check."

    Actually, game is about understanding that women are, in fact, acting rationally and can be figured out, not some giant mystery. So, when one recognizes the rational basis behind hypergamy, one can exploit the real causes behind it to advantage in the individual battles of the sexes, if you will. And naturally that advantageous position suits both partners well, because the man and the woman in this situation will be getting something they want on an instinctual level.

    As for men, it is true that men want to spread their seed far and wide by instinct, but like hypergamy above, this can also be reined in and exploited to give both the man and the woman an objectively better outcome. For instance the woman can wear a wig if he's into that, or talk sweet one day and dirty another. This latter is not the focus of this blog, but I imagine the author would agree with it.

  27. Anonymous says

    If this is so why don't we see healthier communities and happier people in those communities where women may have multiple children by different fathers and where men have multiple children by different women?Are they just on some long,mistaken futile hunt? Also, many people do all in their power to prevent having said "seed results" acting against their own natures and drives.They are even to the point of being hostile to the result (children). There is even skepticism that it is plausible to find the perfect marriage partner to have "seed sowing sessions" with for a lifetime and actually welcome the prolific results and be gratefully be responsible for these "results". No need to run around the community sowing but just stay in the comfort of your own home and have fun conceiving and having wonderful babies. My husband and I did it and it was a great life for us both.

  28. Anonymous says

    "If he bothers to respond, at least he should address what I said instead of moving the goalposts."

    It's his blog and he can respond to whatever he wants fully, partially, or not at all, and he can set the goalposts wherever he damn well pleases. Again, if you have a problem with this, you can start your own blog, where you can do the exact same thing.

  29. Athol Kay says

    Thanks to the people that commented that get my essential point.

    It defies imagination how I can write a blog devoted to monogamous marriage for over a year, and have people up in arms that I'm pro-female cheating. You guys read far too much into such a short post. I've written so many posts on avoiding wifely cheating that I fear my regular readers tire of them.

    I've got a long standing practice of trying to tie in "what to do", with "why it works."

    In this case the "what to do" was to become a better man. The "why it works" is because women have a strong impulse to mate with the best one they can.

    I remain firmly sympathetic to the majority of MRA concerns, but essentially believe their methology of achieving them part of the problem rather than the solution.

    I happen to like women a very great deal. I fail to see how framing them en mass as incapable, amoral, retarded whores, as the overwhelming majority of MRA blogs do, will achieve any diplomatic gains between the sexes.

    Furthermore, the individual man with a troubled marriage at all influenced negatively by the current marriage laws, simply does not have the time to wait for a MRA solution to work something out to amend those laws. So I've developed an approach that can hopefully turn things around for the individual man and thereby not fall foul of family court drama.

    My plan remains the same as always. To be positive about men. To be positive about women. To be positive about marriage. To be positive about hope for the future of our society and to continue to offer an effective relationship solution for troubled couples.

    If you want to help with that, please do. But if you want to complain that I'm not hating women appropriately, please go.

  30. Anonymous says

    I wonder if you will ever have a post admonishing women for thinking that the male desire for sexual variety is immoral and evil, and also explaining to them that such an attitude isn't productive.

    Unless you do that, I'll have to assume you believe in double standards.


  31. Julia says

    Hollenhund: I don't think this desire is immoral and evil; many women also have the same desire. If a couple can succeed at open relationships, polyamory, or whatever you want to call it, then great for them! Problem is, this isn't a realistic option for most people.

    If you actually mean that men should have cheating privileges and the wife should go along with that (and not enjoy the same freedoms) then, yeah, that kind of sucks and most women won't put up with it.

    Why is that so hard to understand? If you want variety, then just don't marry and make it clear to your dating partners you aren't interested in exclusive relationships? There's plenty of women who would be fine with that. Reciprocation is the key.

  32. Confidunce says


    You're really missing the point. Athol has never said that a woman's desire for sexual variety is immoral or evil. In fact, if anything, it's entirely amoral — incapable of being judged — because it's a natural phenomenon. A person might as well be pissed off when flowers blossom in April.

    The whole point of acknowledging these phenomena is to answer the question so many men have asked themselves, especially in our generation: "Why is it that, despite herculean efforts at being a good guy, do women stop loving me?" And usually what a man means by that is that he followed the mass media-propagated playbook on "Ideal Boyfriend."

    As many men are finding out, this is a crock of shit. Women are driven by certain deep-seated impulses. And if a man doesn't know what to do about it, he's going to get left behind.

    There is no such thing as a happy marriage without attraction. Understanding attraction is therefore key to making happy marriages.

  33. Anonymous says

    I'll rephrase my argument.

    Tolerance is only warranted when it's reciprocated. I'll tolerate a woman's hypergamy in a relationship as long as she tolerates my desire for sexual variety. There's a need for balance.


  34. Anonymous says

    I'm very wary of this Hipergamy in the way you (and most of the manosphere explains it) pregnancy works on a way that the woman not only have to have the good genes but also needs to have enough nourishment and support for at least the last 5 months of the pregnancy and then care for the kid till it reaches a reasonable age to care for himself. If she doesn't have the support of anyone she won't pass her genes. Ancient societies didn't had welfare, neither medical technology and women biggest cause of death was childbirth and there was also a high mortality rate for kids, the human species is designed on a way that we are the most fragile and in need of at least both parents to survive.
    Alpha seeders won't stay around to watch out for their females when they have the job of seeding even more so how that works for the woman?
    I think that many men assumed that the woman just cockholded the kid to another man that will take care of her, but given that Betas managed to pass their genes I would say she couldn't be doing this all the time and she did not only get pregnant from their betas, but also they stayed with them for at least the years needed for the kid to develop.
    Isn't a better explanation that some women did gamble with the Alpha seeders while some other women decided to secure a Beta by getting pregnant of them as soon as possible so they will secure enough care to not only for themselves but for the offspring?
    I really think that you are missing a lot of the way the ancient world was where getting pregnant was a life and death situation and gambling it with Alpha that won't have enough resources to feed you because he would be sharing it with her new hotter females and at least some of the kids, could cost the female live, you cannot pass genes if you die of preeclampsia or if the baby is born malnourished and can't survive after birth and you need help to avoid that, tons of it.

    I know all your work is based on this idea and you can probably have a huge numbers of successful cases, but take in consideration that this is a specific method working on special conditions not anywhere near what we humans went through thousands of years ago, and that sexual strategies are not quite as black and white for either gender YMMV, as usual.

  35. Athol Kay says

    The first two chapters of the book cover all those concerns S.R. The essential problem is that The Time Before Writing Alpha's actually supplied both attraction and comfort, where non-Alpha's supplied nothing. There wasn't even a Beta in the sense I describe it here back in The Time Before Writing.

  36. Anonymous says

    Actually, it's more rational for her to stay with a man she's already attached to, because rationally she'd want to avoid emotional uprooting. So the point here's a little lopsided.

    Jennifer 6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *