Gender relations around the world are deteriorating. The rise of feminism has contributed greatly to this, but there is something that is much bigger. That is Lookism and how it affects men today when it comes to, well, practically every part of their lives. Despite starting by throwing out terms like “Lookism”, “Hypergamy” and “Sexual Revolution” I hope you don't treat these concepts as buzzwords. all three of these terms represent different things, but they are all connected to each other. It's very intersectional.
The Internet plays a very important part in modern dating. Traditional and conventional forms of dating are virtually destroyed. Apps like Tinder make it much easier for everyone to access potential partners. Caveat: just because one can communicate with the opposite sex, doesn’t mean that you have the possibility of attaining relationships. Interestingly enough, the Pareto principle plays a hand in dating. On Tinder, the bottom 80% of men compete for the bottom 20% of the women while the top 80% of women compete for the top 20% of the men. This leads to Hypergamy, where women have easy access to sex/relationships with attractive men, whereas unattractive men have to compete for fiercely for the scraps -no offense intended. Post Sexual Revolution as sexuality became a non-taboo subject, so did the number of people one has had sex with; which enables Hypergamy.
The claim that “Hypergamy” is declining is quite naïve. Hypergamy is still ever-present in our world. Hypergamy has declined in terms of polygamous marriages, but the dating aspect of it remains as strong as ever.
Attractive people have an easier time finding dates, that seems easy to digest. We also know what an attractive woman is; but what makes a man attractive? A lot of people would talk about things such as personality, ambition etc. But just like how we judge women primarily by their looks, so the same standard -if not even an amplified form of it- can be applied to men. Physical appearance matters a lot. The worst part for men is that we are talking about parts of males’ physical appearance that men cannot change, such as height and facial structure. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the dating world, it also applies to each and every aspect of life. Attractive people (both men and women) are much more likely to be employed. The interesting part is that while racial preference is also present, the more significant aspect -lookism- is ignored. Race plays second fiddle to attractiveness. As stated in Busetta, Fiorillo and Visalli's abstract:
“Callbacks rates are statistically significantly higher for attractive women and men than unattractive ones. Racial discrimination appears to be statistically relevant, but less than discrimination based on the physical features, especially for women."
This phenomenon is also known as the Halo Effect. There is research proving that physical appearance matters the most, to most people. Even in the long term, physical appearance matters a lot more than personality. Several people would claim that acquainted people look past looks and that person is still an important factor. This claim is naïve and wrong because while personality doesn’t change based on how you look, how others perceive your personality is in fact based upon your appearance. That's the Halo Effect in action. This means that attractive men are more likely to have friends -which also increases their chances of finding a mate- because attractive people are more likely to be trusted, more likely to be considered as intelligent, and so on and so forth.
How Lookism and Hypergamy connect to the Sexual Revolution is simply that the moment sex becomes more accessible, women's options increase get while the options of men reduce (unless they are handsome). Biologically speaking we all care about looks. The emphasis on looks has been amplified through modern societal norms to the point where personality is a non-factor to most parts of our lives. Modern feminists recognize the advantage and capitalize on it, of course. Most people who get the short end of the stick of feminism end up being ugly men (which is why a lot of soy boys and emasculated men tend to be unattractive). The moment an attractive man uses anti-feminist talking points, nominal feminists suddenly turn into traditionalists!
The Sexual Revolution also developed the idea that chastity for women was a bad thing; no girl likes being called frigid, after all. The result was that women were socially permitted able to have sex much more compared to previous epochs. This sexual and promiscuous lifestyle has terrible results, especially when it came to marriage. Quoting Michelle Langley:
“Feral female sexual behavior is governed by a number of chemicals. The euphoria of infatuation is associated with the stimulant phenylethylamine, naturally produced in the body by erotic attraction. As with other drugs, it is addictive, and people gradually build up a tolerance to it, requiring ever greater levels to achieve the same effect. Over time, it loses its power over us, and infatuation is replaced by a calm feeling of attachment to our mates. There are neurochemical factors at work here as well. But the feeling of attachment or bondedness is akin to the effect of a sedative or narcotic rather than a stimulant.”
In short, as the number of sexual partners a woman has increases, her the ability to pair-bond decreases. the knock-on effect for the relatively modern social-construct of marriage which socialized sexual availability and enabled peaceful civilization to form should be obvious. What long-term effect this reversion to nature may have, is up for debate.