I keep seeing people throw around the term “hypergamy,” but I’m not sure the logic actually holds up the way it’s usually presented.

On one hand, the claim is that women are always trying to “date up” socially, financially, status-wise. But in the same conversations, people also insist that what matters most for women is looks. Then, for men, the narrative flips: looks matter less (compared to women), and money/status matter more.

So which is it?

If a woman is dating a man who has more money or higher status than her, but he’s not more attractive than she is, isn’t that just an exchange of different traits rather than “dating up” across the board? If he brings status/resources and she brings youth/attractiveness, that sounds more like a trade-off than hypergamy.

For it to really be “hypergamy” in a strict sense, wouldn’t the man have to be higher than her across multiple dimensions including attractiveness? But that doesn’t seem to match what we usually see.

Curious how others reconcile these ideas, because the definitions seem to shift depending on the argument being made.