Are All Women Slaves to Hypergamy? | Girls Chase

Are All Women Slaves to Hypergamy?

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.

Hypergamy is her tendency to date or marry ‘up’. She wants the best, richest, highest status guy she can get, they say. But science disagrees.

One of the memes of the manosphere is that the women of Western society are ardently in pursuit of the wealthiest, highest status man they can get. The qualities women are said to prize most of all include:

  • Wealth
  • Status
  • Looks
  • Fame
  • Other forms of power

Manosphere pundits call this phenomenon ‘hypergamy’.

‘Hypergamy’ originally described the practice of marriage into a higher social or economic class by women. The manosphere has expanded that definition to describe women’s desire for and tendency to pursue men who are their ‘betters’ in some way or another for hook ups and relationships, as well as marriage.

I’m not a fan of the manosphere alpha-beta redefinition, but I have no qualms with its expanded definition of hypergamy. Seems like a natural fit for the term, especially in our present sexual/romantic environment.

So, let’s discuss.

Is hypergamy bad for you?

How big are its effects?

And, how must you adapt?

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his One Date System.



simflip10's picture

Hey Chase,

I'm trying to start approaching girls & you said the best way to go is direct openers for approaching in the day, like grocery store, mall, etc. I read somewhere (maybe here, maybe another site?) that for guys who are below-average looking (like me) that you should go indirect caz it gives her more time to make a decision rather than a split second decision if you state your interest right away - what do you think? I also usually try and stick to naturally cute girls if matters.

Also by having no experience w/ girls, I can be uncomfortable talking to girls, nervous & stuff - how can I have this go away? Do I just have to keep talking to girls in nervousness & eventually if I get a girl, I'll grow in confidence & it goes away more naturally?

My goal by the end of July is to kiss a girl. So far my plan is solid fundamentals (check) ---> approach cute girls who do "When women want you to say hi" ---> light deep dive/get to know her ---> get a phone number using your article on it ---> get her out on date ---> deep dive well (check) + light touching (no experience here lol) ---> Kiss a girl on the date. Do you think this is doable in a month for someone who gets pretty nervous talking w/ girls at the moment?

Thanks - simflip10

Jesus's picture

From personal experience, I'd say that the fundamentals will take the most time. Depending on where you're at, it could take a month to sharpen those up, or it could take a year of gradually working through and mastering each one of you have shit fundamentals. For instance, learning to how to walk, how to speak, cultivating a good body, and learning to dress yourself well are habits that can take some time to implement. But once you have the basic building blocks of attraction down, applying the plan you outlined should work well for you, and te learning cube is usually pretty steep if you get out there and try it enough. Just make sure not to get hung up on getting any one particular girl. At first, especially, it's a numbers game. And experience is the best teacher.

Good luck, friend

simflip10's picture

The couple good things of me procrastinating on taking real action w/ girls for a long time is that I worked on deep diving & fundamentals as much as I could.

So far i have good posture, deliberate movements, at times really sticky eye contact, dress well, the walk is ehhh, the speech is not good due to lack of confidence due to lack of successes, some presence, but overall my fundamentals are good enough where I can get an AI (as a fugly-looking guy lol) from a regular cute girl about once every 5-6 times I go out like to the store or something, so I think I'm just ready to take action.

What do you mean about the learning curve being pretty steep - Like lots of rejections? Idk from the outside looking in, it seems simple to me if you approaching a girl & you can feel the sexual tension btwn us right there, and then deep dive a little, etc. I think the hardest part for me is just being cool, calm & collected rather than appearing to be such a rookie. But it's probably a lot more nuanced than I think it is (beginner problems)

Chase Amante's picture


Well, it’s past July now – how’d you do?

You can use something other than direct to get started. If you’re nervous with girls, direct might be too intimidating to begin with. Once you’re more comfortable opening though, I’d suggest you start using it, even if you’re missing an eye and most of your teeth. You’ll soon discover that no matter how good looking you are or how ugly, some women respond well to your compliment opener and some women do not.

Kissing a girl when you’re not use to talking to girls is definitely doable in a month. Doesn’t mean you necessarily WILL do it in a month, but if you set out a good plan and execute on it, you can. Much of it will come down to what happens when you get scared – do you take the leap or chicken out? If you take the leap it’ll happen fast. If you chicken out it’ll come down to how long it takes you to stop chickening out. When I used to coach guys in-field, we could take guys out who’d never kissed a girl and if we really wanted to we could often get them their first kiss by the end of the night. Kisses aren’t that hard to get, but you do have to take that leap and go for them.


recon's picture

Chase, could you write about things that turn you into a buzzkill around people? I read your article on how to overcome depression and I'm currently working hard to get myself out that rut. But sometimes when I'm around people I turn into buzz killington without even knowing it. What are the things I can consciously do to hide my depression?

Chase Amante's picture


I’ll add it to the topics queue.

For now, anything depressing, heavy, political, fatalistic, nihilistic, pessimistic, etc. – any of that stuff is a buzzkill. Talking about how tough life is, how hard you have it, how impossible it is to do things, etc. Don’t talk about that stuff.

And if you catch yourself veering onto topics like this, change the topic and make it something fun, something funny, or something about building things up for the future instead. Inspire, don’t depress.


Iisswole's picture

Idk if this is true but I noticed that girls with low self esteem also want to date high status, good looking men. They seem to be obsessed with them. I knew a girl that stayed with a guy even after he cheated on her three times, because he looked like an Abercrombie & Fitch model. She even wanted to get back together after he broke it off.

simflip10's picture

There was an article somewhere on GC where Chase pointed to a study and/or wrote girls/people w/ lower self-esteem tend to have higher standards. I think it goes back to since you don't feel so good about yourself, by dating people who are these superficial things, it makes you feel better about yourself & better about your desirability, etc.

From personal experience, when I had low self-esteem, I was more concerned w/ the appearance of who I would be dating, what my friends would think, how "hot" the girl was & when my self-esteem grew, I cared a lot more about who the girl was & still wanted to date a pretty girl but more from a point of view of that's what I want v. that's what will make me look cool, make my friends think I'm a stud, etc.

Chase Amante's picture

Exactly what Simflip said.

Low self-esteem people seek the approval of society on superficial metrics. They do this by going for whomever they think ‘society’ will approve of. It’s a mechanism to look for social safety via conformance with current social standards.

High self-esteem people are more self-reliant and more confident in the value they provide to society. When you’re high self-esteem, your mentality becomes “I can date whomever I want, and society will be cool with it because I’m awesome.” So then you go for someone who feels like the best overall match for you or someone who satisfies the most of your desires, rather than someone you think will garner you the most social approval.

It is this way for both guys and girls. The most superficial, appearance-focused, hypergamous women I’ve known have also been the ones with the deepest and most numerous psychological problems.


James Alino's picture

Hi Chase!

Thanks for your article, it got me thinking about a peculiar situation I am in. I had previously met a girl and after having sex with her a few times, I messed things up by portraying myself as a player (ie., boneheaded move of making out with other girls in a club in front of her). She told me at the time she wanted a relationship but I got scared and bailed. I could tell afterwards she probably was hurt, but we still talk to this day. Recently, I've really wanted to get back with her, but she is throwing up resistance to dating. I was wondering if I should directly confront her about how I messed up in the past and how I want a relationship now? Would you have any idea what kind of text would I send as a last ditch effort? Or should I just drop her and go on? thank you chase!

Chase Amante's picture


This isn’t something to do over text.

I’d either get her out in person and do it there, or call her up on the phone if she won’t meet up. The blueprint is to first tell her all things you really genuinely like about her, and then tell her you really want to see her.

Then, when she comes out, just be more affectionate and boyfriend-y with her. You don’t want to tell her you’re changing, you just want to change, and let her deduce the change on her own.


Mr. Shark's picture


I have an unorthodox request. I have read your website past year non-stop and past 2 or 3 months you bring really great content that tucks into mainstream advice too but puts it in more of a real spotlight, I would say. Just like this one or the one about being alpha provider.

Anyways, you are the kind of guy who has so much experience that you could write some overarching article about that. What I mean is some kind of list about types of women and what they tend to go for. So that people can have some broad idea and aim toward becoming what the girl wants. I know you talked about eliciting values, but just like in this article you said that girls like this usually come from poor background.

In one article you mentioned that in order to get certain people in your life (whether its friends or girlfriends) we have to give them what they want/value. And second, with fundamentals, if a girl wants to date a athlete or a tough guy for long term, you will probably not attract her and keep her interested if you are a twitch streamer or professional esports player. Imagine that as a certain road map like your "geography article" where you discussed almost any country in the world and girls there. I remember that with Argentina have some inner belief to play hard to get. So from this article you could take "girls from poor upbringing might care more about your status and money, therefore dress this way etc".

I am not sure how helpful this could be in reality. I got the idea from one of your posts on forums in beginner section I think where you discussed how to get a girl and you listed fundamentals there and an example of a hood girl.

Best regards,
Mr. Shark

The Dude's picture

You're writing about higher income girls in countries that are currently wealthy, which is a minority globally. You mention Aladdin or Romeo and Juliet - those are about upper classes.
But, just as wealth can disappear in a family, it can happen to a country or a local environment a girl lives in (industrial base moves to other countries, oil dries up, welfare parasitism, diseases, climate change, political revolutions, recessions & depressions, immigration, population decline etc.), so the girls who don't care about money now could easily find themselves in a situation poor girls are in.

The main reason girls don't optimize their game for rich guys is because there are very few rich guys out there and competition is fierce.

Globally, there are about 200k ultra high net worth individuals (rich). Those would be the ones who could buy a Ferrari, few nice houses, luxury items, take expensive vacations, have investments and not have to worry about money - things typically associated with wealth. Some of them are women, many are old(60+) or happily married with children, while others are gay. So, lets assume that the number of straight rich guys under 60 who are actively looking for hot girls is around 50k.

  • There are 1.02 billion women between the ages of 18-35.
  • Lets say just 1% of them are attractive.
  • That would be 10.2 million hot girls globally.
  • There are 50k rich guys who might want them.
  • The ratio of hot girls to rich guys is 200:1.
  • If you are a hot girl, you are competing with 199 other hot girls for a single rich guy.

This shows that it is irrational for regular girls to optimize for rich guys. It doesn't make sense to optimize your life for something when even the best (hottest) girls are struggling and competing for it so hard. Also, rich guys have many options, so a girl will automatically reject him to protect her ego, since she could easily be replaced at any moment, which diminishes her feeling of being special.

This is good news for pickup artists and for guys who are working on becoming wealthy. Either way, you'll get a ton of pussy. When it comes to women, rich guys are not having problems. People who have and will continue having problems are bitter guys who blame their failure on everything other than themselves; those who call women whores, gold diggers, superficial etc. Those are the biggest losers.

Anonymous's picture

Well said bro..i think people just think a lot of rich guys don't have game.but the main mission Is to get game and be wealthy and u can have as many women as you want, gold diggers or not.
It's no nice to be wealthy and have game because you can get any girl whether she likes your wealth or not. Since chase teaches us so much about game at least that is taken care of.

Motiv's picture

The Dude, I find your comment intriguing, but I am wondering about a few details: first, what financial threshold do you consider "rich?" 200k seems a very low figure to me. A quick Google search indicates over 5 million net worth millionaires in the US alone.

Totally agree about bitter guys who blame their failures on everything but themselves. When the day comes that I am swimming in disposable cash, I am quite certain I won't want women to know my true wealth – I'll make use of conspicuous consumption, but that's about it. I want women to desire me for my dick or not at all – just my personal take.


She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

Breeze's picture

You're right that people don't like what's unfair. It's interesting that much of America supports Trump, and many of his supporters are blue collar individuals whose industries fell out of favor in our globalized world economy. They hate the elite establishment, they feel that their misfortunes are unfair, and that distant elite politicians are clueless and won't fix their problems. So somehow they think Trump (a billionaire elite) will save them from something that's unstoppable. Same deal with many who supported Brexit. Brexiters hate the elite leaders of the European Union in Brussels...

What's the common thread with Trumpettes and Brexiteers? They feel that life is now UNFAIR. What's so interesting however is that black people, for example, in America have been talking about the unfairness of society for DECADES. They've been talking about police brutality, unwarranted surveillance, job discrimination and not being able to move out of poverty into the middle class, talking about how poor neighborhoods breed violence and despair. And black people in America have been told by many Trumpettes and others: "you people complain too much, your fortune in life is your own fault, slavery was a long time ago so get over it, affirmative action is bad and you less educated blacks don't need government help to get into college..instead you need to work on valuing education and stop having so many kids out of wedlock, etc."

But now many white Americans and Britons are realizing that in this global capitalist society, they are just as expendable as black and mexican people have been, and it's a sudden new reality for them. The cognitive dissonance is real! "How is it the underlcass are living in the upper middle class, and I am struggling?!?" So now they proclaim "LIFE ISN'T FAIR!!" But black people and puerto rican, cuban, mexican, middle eastern people know this...know that our society is set up for the elites and oligarchs, and have been saying so for a LONG LONG TIME!! It's a wonder that the rest of the world took so long to wake up!

So Chase, how would you respond to people who say life isn't fair, that immigration and globalization results in a reality that isn't fair? How would you placate the masses?

Motiv's picture

I say get financially educated and join the elite yourself. The same laws actually apply to everyone, but since most never bother to learn financial concepts outside of balancing a check book (just as most men never bother to learn game either), they place themselves in the growing, underwhelming majority by their own free will.

We live in a time of unprecedented free flow of information, yet so many people ironically cling to outdated, Industrial Age values. Those who refuse to adapt will be left behind, and not even the most altruistic politician of all humanity could save them from their own ignorance.


She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

Chase Amante's picture


I’d say this.

An open, globalized world is a wonderful utopian ideal. It may or may not be achievable. We haven’t done it yet, so whether it can or cannot be done remains to be seen. Whether it’s doable relies upon whether the lowest common denominator countries in terms of economics and savagery can pull themselves up to the level of the wealthiest, most civilized countries, or whether they can’t. Sort of like how a relay team is only as fast as its slowest member, a borderless world can only be as safe, well-mannered, wealthy, and civilized as its most savage, impoverished societies are (as the Europeans are slowly seeing, and as European men discover as they slowly become more feral, wild, and savage again in response to the newest additions to their societies):

Globalization actually results in a reality that is MORE “fair”, in that no one is protected and everyone is forced to compete with everyone else. You are now not just competing for your job with the other folks who graduated around the same time you did with about the same degree, but some self-taught kid in India and some scrappy guy in Eastern Europe. It is a far more brutal, Darwinian “only the strong survive” kind of world (it’s actually interesting to me that the increasingly globalized world is the brainchild of the liberal thinkers, who tend to want to protect and nanny people, while the more individualistic self-reliance folks tend to want to reduce competition and be more protectionist / nationalist / isolationist – you would think it’d be the other way around, with the self-reliant folks reveling in a tough, Darwinian world, and the nurturers longing for the days of safety and protectionism).

What I would tell an individual unhappy with globalism is that now is the time to develop your skill set and protect your assets. Now is the time to get wise. Most governments have signaled their desires to look out for big players over little citizens, which means you need to learn to play ball the way the big players do. It is a more Darwinian world now; if you can’t keep up, someone younger and hungrier than you will fast make you irrelevant. So develop yourself, build skills you can monetize, know multiple channels you can tap for income, and spread your wealth out through multiple accounts in multiple countries and multiple holdings (whether trusts, corporations, or the like). And of course in republics (like the U.S. and U.K.), fight special interests that are against your interests, vote for candidates who represent your values, and work to change rules and regulations that hurt you. In the U.S., Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump supporters have done just this. Whether they are right or wrong, no one can predict; topics as complicated as economics, politics, and national direction only look clear in retrospect. They’re impossible to accurately predict in advance.

As far as placating the masses, I have ideas, but I’m not running for political office at the moment, there’s plenty more reading I’d like to do on how civilizations have run themselves successfully and not throughout history, and I have not had the chance to run my thoughts on country-building past other informed individuals I respect of varied political positions, so I’d prefer not to go around laying out policy ideas that likely are at this point poorly informed in some places and cockamamie in others ;)


Ben's picture

How in the world did you go from hypergamy and gold digging to politics?

Motiv's picture

*Edit (TLDR): In other words, if we measure true wealth as a function of one's financial intelligence and NOT just the numeric value of an ever-depreciating currency, wealth is really not fleeting at all.

I have recently adopted the mindset that the path to true wealth is little different than that of building any other skill, i.e. seduction, fitness, music, etc. Just as mindset plays a critical role in seduction, so too does mindset play a key role to becoming truly rich.

One secret I believe is to stop associating professional proficiency with financial success. That is a typical middle class mindset – that one can outsmart his/her money problems simply by excelling as a doctor, lawyer, investment banker, etc. The world is filled with highly educated, hard-working people who struggle financially.

Secondly, it might unburden many of us to draw a distinction between measuring wealth in raw net worth (which is really just an opinion anyway) versus real cash flow. There are men who make a LOT of money ($500,000+) but because of their choice spending habits (and the way they earn this money, i.e. earned income that is the highest taxed), they barely manage to hold onto any of it.

Contrast this with men who have achieved financial freedom by building a base of passive income (or earn all or most of their income doing ONLY something they truly enjoy) that covers 100% of their personal expenses – expenses curbed through wise cost-benefit determinations.

The second man in my opinion has a far better shot at bedding an abundance of beautiful women, while the man who has to work at a job he hates, only to spend his hard-earned paycheck on doodads to relieve some stress, is usually too worn out (and/or bitter) to spread his seed around.


She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

Chase Amante's picture



Another way I think of financial abundance these days (and this would tie in with your financial intelligence) is how quickly can a man get back to abundance if his world’s turned upside down?

Say for instance he’s fired from work, or his business collapses. Or he goes through a terrible divorce that leaves him reeling financially. Or the taxman comes to call and it turns out he owes a lot more than he thought he did. How long does it take him to rebuild?

If you can’t rebuild in a couple of years you’re not financially secure enough. If everything you’ve built is a house of cards and you wouldn’t be able to go from zero to [whatever your desired wealth level is] in that time, you haven’t actually “figured out” wealth at all, and have only managed to do a slow climb up a steep hill. Better hope you don’t slip.

So at least for me, these days, much of my focus on wealth-building is both on being a success now, but also learning the skills I need to rebuild that wealth in the event of a worst-case scenario and I’m forced to start from scratch.


The Dude's picture

This could be an example of survivorship bias (a type of selection bias). When you cold approach women on the street, you are going on a date with those who:

1. Are neutral about wealth, status and natural looks when it comes to men they go out with
2. Are okay with being approached on the street and picked up by a random guy

The most powerful source of views and conclusions is personal experience. If you approach 10 girls on the street and you manage to bang 1 one of them and maybe later continue the relationship, you will be writing and forming the picture of the world based on that experience. Your advice on how to hookup and how to maintain a relationship will be based on instances where you were successful, not where you failed. More precisely, it will be based on that one girl you banged and other 9 girls are left out of the picture.

Wealth is fleeting. Status is fleeting. Most girls are clever enough to know that.

Looks (supposedly a signal for good genes) are more fleeting and fake than any of those. If you say that women hookup, get into relationships, marry or reproduce with good looking guys, then they aren't as clever as you've stated. Today, with plastic surgery, fashion, makeup, steroids, height enhancers, fake happiness (antidepressants & other drugs) you can trick her into thinking that you have 'good genes' (whatever that means). So, if you say women are clever, then they should be able to understand that looks are the most manipulatable. Most women have not analyzed generational wealth and don't really understand history, economics, wealth-preservation, political power and many other things. Most girls will understand that looks are manipulatable (since they are doing it everyday to guys) way before they even come close to understanding wealth creation, preservation and investment.

You are only pointing out examples where wealth is squandered. But, what about many cases where wealth in not only not squandered, but increased substantially? Or cases where it's transferred to political/religious power? Or when the wealth is hidden, so you think they don't actually have it?


You are referring to "best all-around DNA" or "good genes", but does that even make sense? Is it the best/good in absolute terms? That seems to be relative to future physical environment, cultural and personal preferences.

How can a woman then determine what 'good genes' are? Babies are born in the future and the future is unknown.

Advantage today can be a disadvantage tomorrow.

  • Having a strong immune system was a disadvantage during 1918 flu pandemic.
  • Being an educated urban elite was a disadvantage in Cambodia under Pol Pot.
Chase Amante's picture

The Dude-

I’d never argue girls value looks highly. They’re a part of the picture (same as wealth and status), but they aren’t what women value most by a long shot. Confidence is.

That said, I agree with your point on confirmation bias. A girl who only wants rich guys is a lot less likely to respond well to a street approach, unless you’re driving your Lamborghini when you approach her.

You ask does it make sense for a woman to look for the best all-around DNA or good genes. I’m open to alternative suggestions. What do you think biological organisms evaluate more carefully and value more highly in reproduction than the genes they choose to mix their genes with to produce offspring? Your own answer seems to imply “the best genes”: strong immune system, not being an educated urban elite. When the conditions change, so change the selection criteria. If they didn’t, everyone around the world would look exactly the same. And yet, as in Darwin’s finches, different environments lead to different genetic profiles: different races, different sub-races, and so on and so forth. What we judge as “best” depends on the situation, but just because situations change doesn’t mean humans quit judging what the best is right now. And whether we like it or not, humans don’t live nearly long enough (nor are their environments stable enough) to plan their gene mixing 20 generations out.


SZ's picture

Chase. I don't remember what article or comment if there is about getting better with women while you are in a relationship. Could you tell me how I can still get better skills while in a relationship or show me the article that tells you?


Paul2's picture

You might be interested in The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility by Gregory Clark see also

He tracked the fate of various famous surnames and found that people with high status surnames seem to have an advantage even after 10 generations.

Chase Amante's picture


I’ve seen that, yeah. It helped change my thinking on families and heredity, actually. I used to think about all people as discrete, isolated individuals prior. Now I’ve come to recognize how much you really are your father’s son (and mother’s son). All the “sins of the father” stuff in the Bible is actually true to an extent. You really are an extension of your parents, who are extensions of their grandparents, and so on and so forth. Children, grandchildren, etc., are extensions of you. Prior generations live on through you, and successive generations carry your legacy forward. Puts a lot more weight on your actions when you realize you carry the burden of the hopes and dreams of all those who preceeded you.

They’ve also found that children who know more about their family history go on to lead more successful lives, which I also found intriguing. Ties back in with the same stuff.

I suppose the way it would tie into mating is that when she chooses you, she’s not just choosing you, but your heritage as well. There’s something to the old “family alliance” system of marriage that was the case throughout much of the world in pre-industrial times.


JJ's picture

I'm a woman who finds education, financial status, job position very important not because I care about all the luxury sports cars, travel, private planes or shopping I could hoard into a mansion, but for other reasons I'll mention in a moment. I actually don't even like hoarding to many items I'm too organized and neat for that. I'm for the most part low maintenance when it comes to apparel/accessories except for grooming/hygiene I spend a lot on dentistry, facials cosmetics, hairstyling & acupuncture and I won't lie I love traveling that's one perk I worship, but not to fancy superficial western Europe.When I went to Russia I didn't even go to the European part, but the Asian side the Russian Far East which one of the coolest weirdest places on earth. When I travel I'm laid back to the core I go to Aalska, Baja, Guam, the southwest and recently Asian Russia b/c I love the rich history & culture of those places and they're so peaceful, natural & beautiful ,but those places are not glamorous which I'd seek if I were a status egotistical money worshipping troll. I relish spiritual/emotional gratification that really counts for my contentment and A clear calm state of mind. I wouldn't by any means call myself a fortune hunter for materialistic luxurious meaningless objects more so just for stability, commodity & tranquility. I had a very bad early life and want to give my kids what I never had emotionally, financially, physically of course never spoiling I hate parents who raise selfish, immature brats. I'm very strict about having kids earn certain stuff and have high standards. Anyway, being that I earned two degrees in s.t.e.m. fields I want a man especially when I formalize a family to be able to help the kids in math & science as well as the easier aspects in life not one who can't do anything past arithmetic, can't tell what's where on a map or without any principles. As for age I like older as is,so I'm not that choosy about outward appearance as some ladies. I just tend to love some well done tattoos and expect a man who shares a mutual love for positivity, absence of drama, animals, physical sciences, philanthropy, knowledge, sex etc. the way I do.

Chase Amante's picture


Yes, definitely. There’s a clear difference between a woman who values ambition, education, status, etc., because of what it says about the man himself, versus a woman who values these things as the ends and the man simply as the means to get them.

It’s a noticeable difference the moment you meet a woman. The girl who values the man will be intrigued when she finds out he’s a success, and wants to know more about him. She’ll often even start checking him then to make sure it hasn’t gone to his head TOO much. On the other hand, the girl who’s a gold digger, just shifts into “shark mode” as soon as she discovers you’re successful; it’s like a light switch flips, and she goes from “So bored; don’t care” to “Oh, you’re such an interesting man! Tell me more.” You can tell it’s ersatz interest, because of how fast it comes on and how different it is from the moment before, when you were just another guy.


SZ's picture

How do you know about tag the sponsor Chase? lol

Do you think regular guys can fuck those type of girls at all without paying?

because... she's still a girl right? she still wants to get fucked by a man! and not a trick!

how would one fuck these girls?

SZ's picture

Gotta few questions after a great article Chase,

1. Why do you think generations go back to poor? why can't they go to wealthy to say middle class?

2. With the African Americans, why are the women going to college and getting better jobs? are the men just lazy or not as lucky? I for one do not want a woman to make more than me.

3. So I'm guessing day game is the way to go... shit!;) I do a lot of approaches in clubs and I wouldn't say I go for girls that are gold diggers, but they are time wasters.

Is day game really that good? Even though I'm black in a mostly white area where every race fawns for white men, I have a better chance than the club?

4. in a sense, is day game easier than night game? does it help you get better faster and make women want to date and sleep with you more ?

5. is there a way to still get girls off tinder and pof, etc. without them having to know how much you make?

6. all in all what you are saying is being a man! is the best way to get these girls.

Chase Amante's picture


Tag the Sponsor, well – came across it a while back. It’s interesting.

As for shagging those girls, no idea. A lot of them are so plastic surgery’d and Gucci’d up that they probably roll in the big nightclubs and have an army of wealthy-enough guys around them competing for them all the time (lots of guys get rich to get girls like this, while these girls make themselves up that way to get rich guys like that).

If you’ve got great game tailored to club-type girls, you might be able to pull it off… Maybe. But this isn’t a demographic I go for at all, so I’d leave that to someone more knowledgeable about these kinds of girls than I am to weigh in.

As for your other questions, on #1, I’m not certain wealthy folks go broke or slide into middle class more often. Though it does seem like folks who get fabulously wealthy and then blow it often go poor → rich → poor.

On #2, American black culture treats prison as a kind of rite of passage for men. Young black men who study and excel academically are told by their black male peers to “stop acting white”. Colt Williams, whose parents were from Africa, encountered this, and just decided he didn’t want anything to do with American blacks in school and stuck to hanging out with the white kids (and ended up doing great in school and got a good university education and now runs his own business). There’s no such peer pressure on young black females to go to prison or not study, so they avoid prison, to good in school, and get out of the hood, leaving black males behind to fail out of school and get in trouble with the law because that’s what all their buddies tell them they have to do to be cool.

Day game’s great. Give it a try. It’s harder to get started than night game, but the results are faster and typically more plentiful / higher quality. #5 – sure. Just don’t post your income. Or make a million dollars or something ridiculous if you have to post it. And #6 – that’s it ;)


Pride's picture

First and foremost, what a Buzzfeed-ish title. "Slaves to Hypergamy" sounds very dramatized and over the top.

Women always will date up. Men will always date up. Isn't that why this website was created in the first place? Guys want better looking girls or quality girls, thus start to learn the "game". This article tries to downplay that really hard, when infact it is etched in our monkey brain to obtain a better sperm/womb.

Yet, the definition of dating up differs from women to women. Some might say money/status, others might say better persoanlity or social skills. It is not always "the thing". It obviously differs from women to women. However, women will never, ever date down. If a rich girl dates a poor guy, that's because she is attracted by some quality that makes him better than her: for instance, nonchalance nature.

Chase Amante's picture


So in other words, you agree with the article?

“the definition of dating up differs from women to women” – right, that’s the premise of the article. This is not hypergamy. Hypergamy specifically means marrying (or, now, dating) up in terms of money or status. Some women do this, but there are a lot of men online right now who seem to be convinced that ALL women do it.

The title is accurate. It addresses a fallacy currently running rampant on the Internet (that all women are slaves to hypergamy), and does so with style. The aim of a website like this is not just to inform, but to have fun doing it. You don’t learn much if you fall asleep in class… Or don’t feel compelled to click on the article. Fun is part of how you keep folks awake and clicking. The rest comes after the click.


Hoodlum's picture

I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment about women not being directly attracted to wealth, status etc, but rather to the attractive behaviours which men who possess these things naturally display.

As someone who has come from being out of shape and broke to the other end of the spectrum, I can certainly tell you I don't struggle for girls any more. But the difference is me. Along the way, the value I have gained has caused me to naturally adopt behaviours which are extremely attractive to women.

You can "fake" these with game as a low value man, but you're always fighting a battle of internal incongruence, and people of high social intelligence will see right through it anyway.

Bolt's picture

Hey Chase, I notice in your article on moral panic you mentioned the importance of good, close friends. Well, all my life I've had no problem making friends and being extroverted. However, recent events with a former close friend of mine who screwed me over financially has caused me to increasingly be wary of who I let into my inner circle. Since then, I've made it a point to surround myself and strengthen my relationship with other friends who are higher quality and who I trust more. I'm approaching my last year of college, and am a member of a fraternity and this past year I have not been feeling terribly excited about meeting new people and making new friends/building a stronger network. I don't want to say I'm becoming introverted just feeling too lazy to make important connections with new people and have just been sticking to my close friends. I still have many acquaintances around campus and in general who I know I can make into friends if I desired to. Yet my question is how to screen and find high quality friends? I'm going into my last year of college, a member of a fraternity, and recently married. I've been added to countless GroupMe between my fraternity and other chapters/sororities/etc. but I don't participate because I see these as a huge waste of time since a lot of the things discussed in the chats don't interest me. I've always been an in person kind of guy when it comes to connecting with people, that's why when I utilized your texting tips, it was so effective for me back when I was single since it focused on getting the girl out in person. I hate Facebook, GroupMe, texting, instagram, etc. but in these days and times I feel like it is a necessary evil when it comes to connecting with other people since so many people are fixated on these forms of technology. I know this is long but what I'm asking is how to connect with high quality people and turn them into friends (where to find them...etc) and secondly how to optimize all these forms of technology and social media to still strengthen and further my network since true freedom is having a smaller social circle of trusted, high quality friends and a large amount of acquaintances all over the world?

Chase Amante's picture


I can just tell you personally I’ve had a lot of luck participating in forums oriented toward the topics I’m interested in.

e.g., I’ve participated in pickup boards and once you make a name for yourself on there, you start to make friends with a lot of the top guys. And then I’m a guy who likes to travel, and when I travel I will often plan to stop off in cities where I have friends I’ve cultivated online but not met in person. So I’ll go crash with a guy, meet him in-person, get to know him, and slowly we become good friends. Same deal with entrepreneurship – some of my entrepreneur friends I’ve met via the pickup world, guys doing pickup who started businesses themselves, like me. Others I’ve met from participating in business forums. As you distinguish yourself more, the top guys come to respect you, and eventually you make friends with many of them.

I’ve found forums a much better way to friend-sort than in-person. I have some friends I’ve met through parties or whatnot, but for finding folks who are really “my” kinds of people, forums are the most efficient vehicle out there. The other great way is friends of friends; I’ve met a lot of really cool people through really cool friends I already had. Many of my initial friends post-university were from either pickup or business boards, but many of my later friends came as references, as in, “Hey, I’ve got this buddy and I think you two would get along.”

Forums are a bit of an investment, but pick the right one and it’s a lot of fun. You’ll learn a lot, get to talk about a shared interest, and with time, meet some super cool people.


Magenta's picture

Chase, is it possible for you to share a copy of that Byrne, Clore Jr., and Worchel (1966) article as I'm interested in reading that myself.


Chase Amante's picture


Legally I cannot. JSTOR and the other research publication websites do a pretty good job of making sure folks who share research articles outside their purview are far outside the bounds of the law (see: Aaron Swartz).

PsycNet makes it available for 12 bucks here:

Or, if you have a university account, you may have access to the article through your university's plan with the research publishers.

Another alternative is you can request access directly from the authors - they are free to give you access to the paper legally, and there's nothing the publishing companies can say about that. You can ask them for access here:


Buz Kill's picture

You’re absolutely correct.

Most women have absolutely no interest in dating, marrying or copulating upward...none whatsoever.

After all, research proves this theory--research that took place during major waves of feminism no doubt.

Might there be something that smells like wet dogs here?

No way! We’re gotta to trust the findings because it was done with people wearing lab coats! Therefore, the research is accurate, not shocking! Always, always trust authority figures without question.

...who cares really? the "research," which is synonymous here to Judge, Jailor and Executioner gives us “concrete” evidence finding women are no more inclined to desire a suitor with more [resources] than one with fewer [resources] then guys would be.

If she has a pretty nice tits, and an ass that calls his name most don't give a shyt about her wealth; he care most about wetting the meat!

hmm, who is funding this PUA site really? Are you getting all New age and shyt with this metrocentic, gender-equivalence, NAWALT attitude so reminiscent of less informed millenniums?

It is a fact that females do tend to have a rapid expiration date not according to me but according to biology; her eggs and child-producing years are limited...whereas men generally happen to be seed-splurging wonders much longer on average.

Therefore resources or "hypergamy," (unless she is hormonally challenged) is a necessary consequence to feminine biology in order to increase chances of her and her progeny’s survival within a harsh environment.

Hypergamy is wired into her psychology and it refers to stability…and stability often manifests within the real world for the feminine as:

(1) wholesome foods on her table;
(2) shelter from probability of rape or worse;
(3)experiences such as sex in picturesque locations, getting out of legal troubles, fine wine, etc.;
(4) i-phones to satisfy her narcissism,
(5) utilities like heat in the house, lights on and the latest appliances;
(6) travel to remote destinations beyond Sesame Place or Arby’s;
(7) greater educational opportunities;
(8) better health care options after she gets knocked up with children(and that’s often the time when her daddy legal system steps in as an additional financial burden or worse on men.
(9)newer more stylish vehicles that shout status and need fewer repairs...

I’m sure readers get the point.

But no!

Research shows such need based realities are not highly important to women or her offspring...Perhaps this may be why Sugar Daddy sites have become increasingly the most popular dates sites for women across the country according to various news reports…

Who am I kidding? Women have no wired in hypergamic agenda…they’re equal to men in needs, wants, desires, emotions and output capabilities…

As a result, since at most only negligible gender differences exist between male and female resource needs, most women would be elated for her children and herself should they have to:

(1) defecate on the streets (just note the smiles on the faces of poor women in 3rd world countries as they empty their rectal contents on roadsides because they have no resource stability) ;
(2) shower in public, viral infected restrooms (increasing her chances of her being assaulted why don’t you?)
(3) receive poorer educational choices (reduce her likelihood of economically surviving in a rapidly evolving technological age);
(4) ingest horrific food choices regularly (tends to be more prevalent in impoverished communities leading to more social diseases such as obesity, diabetes, etc…);
(5) have access only to Obama-care (enables more human experimentation utilizing implanted RFID chips often without patient consent); (or planned parenthood’s centers that customarily prescribe DEPRO-VERA, a documented sterility contraceptive, to “marginal” women);
(6) constantly fight off the real probability of violence against her or her children because she believes it necessary to sell her as* to any high bidders in order to make ends meet;
(7) fight in bloody, long drawn political wars where fatalities will occur because she loves [consumerism] her country so much she is willing to die for it.

Not shocking because according to the research it can be generally agreed most women are perfectly fine living in a world of MAD MAX 'cause resources don't mean a lot to her.

Is this how Girl’s Chase defines success with women, manhood and common sense through denouncing a woman’s biological, hypergamic-imperative through siting questionable research?

Oh so sorry for being contrite! Forgive me.

Since the listed research presented in this article shows no significant difference in how often either sex goes for a wealthy partner
again, we should openly believe it---especially if a lab-coat wearing authority says it’s so.

On another note, it was brilliant the writer framed the adverb "ardently" in the article. The way the writer incorporated the word was probably missed by most readers in reference to how it shaped a shaky argument regarding female hypergamy…mastery of semantics indeed! It's like the writer does not even believe what's being stated.

A more fitting adverb might have been, "naturally."

Women are naturally hypergamic and it’s not a good or bad thing. It’s simply a necessary biological reality to propagate the species because at the end of the day bloodlines cease without procreation. And if all women were just like all men in this regard, humanity would cease to exist as we know it.

Sure, he may not be capable of landing a man with value in the top 20%, but you can bet your grappling ass she will always seek to pair with the most resourceful man available to her at the time--always! Actually,it would be self-defeating for her not to.

I think you guys do a great job on this site helping men improve their lifestyles. And I’m sure selling the products and theories listed on this site keeps money on the table for many staff members.

And Dude there is absolutely nothing wrong with free enterprise...Hail to capitalism and Free Speech!

But producing content as such within this article hovers against reasonable logic, common psychology and DNA induced biological imperatives since the beginning of humankind.

Such advice will not assist less skilled men in becoming the best men they can be. Instead such advice, which are flavored toward gynocentricrism, may significantly stunt growth over time!

Try as they might lab coats won't easily change millions of years of gender evolution.

Other than that, keep up the good work at Girls Chase.

Chase Amante's picture


So in other words, “hypergamy” means one simply does not want to crap in the street and subsist off of McMuffins, then?

In that case, color me hypergamous too. In fact, I suspect most of the male readership of GirlsChase is wildly hypergamous under that definition. Perhaps you, too, also fall prey to this sort of insidious, horrible, not street-shitting, not crappy-food-eating hypergamy.

Reductio ad absurdum is a useful argumentation tool, but the absurd example you reduce a scenario to must fit for the argument to make sense. In this case, all men, women, and children fall under the umbrella of your definition of hypergamy (well, just about).

The purpose of the science is to add another voice aside from my own. Had the article simply been, “Here’s what my experiences have been. Here’s what I’ve seen from countless men and women in all manner of relationships. Here’s the way it is,” (which was what the much of it was), your argument would’ve doubtless been that this is pure conjecture, my conclusions are self-selected or confirmation bias and thus invalid, or something along those lines.

If we return to the agreed-upon definition of hypergamy not as “women want to live somewhere other than the gutter” but instead as “women look to date and marry up in terms of money and/or social status”, and we accept your premise that “[most/all w]omen are naturally hypergamic”, how do we make sense of your follow-up statement “I think you guys do a great job on this site helping men improve their lifestyles”? Either this website is a sham, and the path to success with women is not game + fundamentals but, rather, “get status or get money”… Or women are not nearly as hypergamous as you suggest, and this website does a “great job helping men improve their lifestyles”. Which is it? I’m afraid the two cannot coexist.

For further reading on the topic, with a different kind of take on it, may I suggest this article:

“I Can’t Get Girls Because Girls Only Want [BLANK]”

All women prefer a higher status, more resourced man, of course. Just like all women prefer a handomer man. And all women prefer a more intelligent man. And all women prefer a healthier man. And all women prefer a man with more ripped abs than a man with less ripped abs. And all women prefer a more confident man. And so on and so forth across myriad different attraction factors.

The fallacy the hypergamy guys make… Or the “girls only want good-looking guys” guys make… Or the “girls only want tall guys” guys make… Or the “girls only want white/black guys” guys make… Is assuming that their one particular fixation rules supreme over all others, across all women.

Now, had you argued that women love powerful men above all else, I’d have agreed with you wholeheartedly. Let a woman choose either a high status man, a rich man, or a powerful man who can have both of those men destroyed and face no consequences for it, and I can tell you which man she is most likely to choose. The actor, the millionaire, or the warlord? Hypergamy’s focus on wealth and status misses the point.

Women like power and capability. Wealth and status are convenient metrics for this sometimes, and certain women become overly fixated on them or confuse them with power itself.

But what women truly desire in a man is dominance, conquest, and power. Sometimes that overlaps with what hypergamy attempts to define as women’s object. Often though, hypergamy is a facile but flawed mental model for understanding what really makes women tick.


leo's picture

Do girls care if you have acne scars? I have acne holes left over from acne I had when I was younger. I'm wondering if I should game or if I should just not approach girls until I get some sort of treatment for it, but it will have to be a while since I'm pretty broke right now. I had a girl I was talking to once tell me I should fix my craters. It makes me feel real self-conscious.

Chase Amante's picture


I suppose if it looks really terrible it might be a detriment with some girls. Other girls just won’t care.

I have a bunch of keloids (raised acne scars) on my shoulders, basically bumpy red nodules. When I take my shirt off, most girls don’t say anything. When I meet girls on the beach, it doesn’t seem to make an ounce of difference.

We’ve had guys on here who talked about meeting girls shirtless on the beach with concave chests and things going fine and the girls apparently not even noticing.

There will always be some girls who notice and don’t like it. But most, if you’re confident and cool, it’ll be minor or they may not even notice.


simflip10's picture

Hey Leo,

I"m not Chase, just a fellow reader, but I have similar experience. I'd say the acne scars are probably not that big a deal, you can still attract attractive girls as long as you are attractive in other ways and I think the problem is bigger in your mind.

For example, I have a big, messed up nose. A while ago, I caught a girl I liked talking to her girl friends about me, saying "But his nose...." in an kind-of-repulsed kind-of-way & her two friends - both I knew - sounding in agreement. I was hurt. Since I have never actually gotten/been w/ a girl sexually, that experience created a belief in me that "I am unattractive to girls because of my nose/how I look." (For reference, the girl who said i was never interested in me sexually/romantically to begin w/)

So from that, my mind is now running on this above belief when it would be best running "I am/can be attractive to girls regardless of my nose/how I look" or something like that, point is you can be attractive to girls while having some unattractive features, etc.

Hard part tho is that developing that belief - which brings w/ it the confidence & lack of self-consciousness we both want - can, I think, really only be developed thru experience(s) of attracting girls w/ your acne, or in my case, w/ my messed up nose/face. Even harder is the courage to get started talking to girls & get working on developing these new experiences w/ girls (Chase calls them "reference points") when you feel self-conscious & feel unattractive/unlikeable to girls. Like that's how I feel right now & it just takes more courage & more grit in the beginning, caz my self-consciousness will make me even more unattractive to girls because of it.

Anyways, one experience w/ a girl is not all experiences w/ many girls, and tho you probably know this, your mind doesn't prob doesn't emotionally/consciously know this & that's why you're caring much about this, just like I am about my nose/how I look. I'd say work on being more attractive in other ways (fundamentals on GC, attractive personality qualities, conversation, etc.) & get more experiences.

That's what I'm doing but it is easier said than done, caz the self-consciousness/unattractiveness FEELS very real which makes it harder to take action caz the brain thinks "What's the point, this girl won't like me caz of XX" & it's just coming from that/those experiences.

To make matters worse, at least for me, like if a girl isn't into me, my mind seems to add this experience of "Girl not interested in me" as evidence to the belief of "Girls don't like me caz of how I Look, etc." even if a girl rejected me for other reasons like I wasn't confident enough, came across awkwardly, etc. My mind is just seeing what it wants to see essentially.

Just gotta keep grinding until i can hopefully get some successes w/ girls (aka better experiences where girls want me/attracted to me) & then my brain will automatically change, seeing that some girls care about XX & some girls don't care about XX in me.

I"d say shoot for the same. I think we have same mental hangups, tho the feature thing is different.

So hopefully this is a relatable enough experience to help you. (And not too complicated caz if you haven't learned about mind/beliefs - which IMO, can be life-changing - this is probably too much I think). Anyways, let me know what happens. I'd like to hear


Niko's picture

Women don't want to be with men who are lower level than them. And they don't want to be with their "equals."

They want men who are better than them. Women want to marry up.

by Chase Amante - "Was the 1950s Housewife a Historical Aberration?"

Why are you constantly contradicting yourself?

Chase Amante's picture


From immediately before the quote you took out of context:

If education and wealth were a perfect proxy for what women most desire, I dare say you'd see 0% divorce rates (or something close to it) among the absolute top of the socioeconomic scale, and 100% divorce rates (or something around there) among the absolute bottom. This isn't the case, though, because there's more to it than this.

What more is there? Everything that's taught on this site. No one here can give you a college degree; nor can anyone provide you with a high-paying business or profession.

But we can train you how to be a dominant man.

How to maintain respect in and manage your relationships.

How to be a great lover and rock women's worlds in bed.

How to have purpose and know your mission and go get what you want out of life.

How to ignore the victim mentality of the "just be yourself" class, who rail against understanding why they can't get exceptional friends and mates who've become exceptional through hard work, study, and sacrifice, without having to work hard, study, and sacrifice themselves too.

These are all things that top-of-the-scales men have in common, and they're what differentiate the elite, more than income and education alone (though those things play a role too).

If you want to win a debate with me, when I've laid out my points very carefully with a mix of scientific research, personal anecdote, and just general common sense, you're going to have to step it up a lot more over selectively quoting me and hoping nobody notices.


dsmith323436's picture

The societal conversation on hypergamy focuses on how social media have changed the modern dynamics and women now are all much more hypergamous than in the past. Citing studies from the 60s is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Social media has unleashed women's hypergamy, because they now think they are in reach of all these high status males who in previous generations were simply out of their reach.

Motiv's picture

"For all a man’s very imaginative, creative, endeavors to manufacture a romance that will endear a woman to him, his ‘trying’ to do so is what disqualifies his intent. For every carefully pre-planned ‘date night’ after marriage, there’s a college girl swooning to bang her boyfriend living in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. Romance isn’t created, romance just happens, and it’s a tough, but valuable, lesson when men come to realize that a happenstance bag of skittles, or a ring made from a gum wrapper at the right time meant more to a woman than every expensively contrived ‘romantic getaway’ he’d ever thought would satisfy her need for lofty romance." —Rollo

She enters your world… not the other way around.
Tweak your way to the top ;)

Add new comment

The Latest from