Hypergamic Reductionism
Hypergamy is overstated and used to explain everything to the point it's almost reductionist.
Whilst hypergamy certainly exists, there are many relationships in which the woman could clearly do better (marry richer or smarter or better looking) but hasn't and won't.
Women value the emotional attachment they have with their man.
If she can easily discard you, that's not because of hypergamy.
It's because you aren't very masculine and never made her feel like she belonged to you so she sought to have that void filled elsewhere.
Stated another way, a man smarter, better looking & richer than you could show interest in your woman.
But if you've been fucking her right, bonding with her, leading her and taking care of business, she's never gonna leave you. You're her world.
She doesn't care about that dude.
Sure he's better than you in a bunch of ways, but why would she care?
You make her feel like a woman. She has history with you. She's bonded with you. She knows fuck all about that guy. He could be a piece of shit.
They have no history. She isn't unhappy enough to "try him out".
A man only needs to reach a certain threshold of competence and emotional connection with a woman for her to be loyal to him and feel like she's his.
Be passive and lazy as a man and sure she might cheat, but is that hypergamy, or just leaving a guy because he's a lazy loser bum?
Believing women are constantly optimising hypergamy to get the best potential man at any given moment possible credits them with too much rationality.
It suggests they're hypervigilant opportunists, when really they're too emotional to keep breaking pair bonds like that.
Really broken women don't trust men and don't pair-bond easily.
They, in actual fact, hate men.
So they want to use them. They're predatory, and money driven.
They see men as wallets & never truly connect.
These gold digging types do optimise their hypergamy.

NB: This essay is derived from a thread that was first published by Illimitable Men on 22 April 2021.