HoeMath explores these questions. His zones video answers this question really well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4aMiAesXjE

Hypergamy tends to towards social status and provider strength

That's the purely sociological understanding of hypergamy, which fails to take into account the highly forbidden idea (within the humanistic sciences) of women's dual mating strategy (AF/BB).

Although the term "hypergamy" is borrowed from sociology, TRP expands the term to entail everything that makes a man "better", or "worse" - both beta and alpha credentials.

Obviously, the TRP understanding of "hypergamy" is far more accurate and all encompassing, as you can't just ignore 50% of what makes women tick (the alpha side of the equation), and still think you've explained anything.

This post is silly.

As far as I can see, OP is trying to unravel hypergamy and SMV, but in the process gets all mixed up and confuses the two even more. In many ways, OP demonstrates a way of thinking that is very similar to the way that women think.

@Testme ..... this is not the first time we have had this convo. You seem to think that women are disgusted with men that have 'low morals' and are promiscuous, shallow, vain, arrogant etc. You seem to think this because a) you want the world to be that way and b) because that is what women say they don't like. They say they don't like assholes (but their actions prove otherwise).

You then proceed to wonder out loud why women will marry 'good men' but want to sleep with 'bad men'. This is all kinds of retarded. Women don't even know what they want, and have zero consistency over time. You have to stop analysing women as if they had rational or logically sequences. They are totally irrational. Women marry men that they really really lust after, and then dont' lust after them anymore once they are married BECAUSE THE MAN HAS MARRIED THEM!

Just because it makes no sense, doesn't mean its not happening. You still have not understood this. You still seem to think that if something makes no sense, it can't be true. You haven't made the leap yet.

Is OP going for the all time record of most downvoted post?

Hypergamy tends to towards social status and provider strength (or according to Xander, moral strength), but SMV involves bodily attractiveness, preselection, abundance and so forth

This is nonsense.

So, what turns a woman on? Hypergamy or SMV?

Hypergamy describes women’s tendency to «date up», in terms of sexual market value. It’s not one or the other.

Xander says that ultimately hypergamy trumps SMV because a woman wants a man who is "better" than them, meaning morally better according to him

Dude is a red pill adjacent dating coach who will define things as he sees fitting to his program. Dont worry about that. Take what practical advice you can get and get out.

Dude. Stop consuming Casey Zander for one. Fuck that guy. It's not canon, and he confuses almost every guy that seems to watch his content. Ive had to remove Casey Zander viewer posts over on the reddit because his content is not RP and is confusing to guys who watch him.

Two, you misunderstand the vocabulary if you're even asking this at all. Glossary of Red Pill Terms

SMV = Sexual Market[place] Value

Hypergamy = Reproducing/dating/fucking upwards (as @coolsocks00 mentioned.)

Women hypergamously date/fuck upwards based on SMV. If you are conflating the two terms or consuming the content of a guy who can't keep them straight either idk what to tell you.

Evolutionarily speaking, women fucked upwards as high as they could (high value mates back then would just fuck the most fertile and attractive women they could before making it down to the uggos, because they didn't have to) but not so high that high value men would abandon them during pregnancy

Women fuck upwards for the best genetics they can get for their offspring (fitness/symmetry/health, which is what physical attractiveness indicates evolutionarily) but not so high they'll be abandoned after pregnancy.

Modern dating has changed some of that (men weren't CEOs during caveman days) so there is some provisioning value that monkeys up women's overall dating decisions in the modern era, but their biological drives still have them trying to seek the best genetics for their offspring.

..

Going to use an example to answer your specific question

Kayla is a HB6. She likes Jimmy, who is a 7.5. (that's their SMV.) Kayla is a woman, so she is hypergamous, and Jimmy's SMV is higher than hers so she wants him for evolutionary and biological reasons. Now, Jimmy also acts and behaved like a masculine, ambitious, and confident man, so his perceived SMV to her (because tingles etc) has him at an 8 or 8.5 in her mind depending on the day/mood.

Now, Jimmy gets upset about something and starts acting like a groveling bitch and lets his appearance start sliding a bit from depression and anxiety. He cries like a complete fagg0t in front of Kayla and spills all his insecurities and life story while also looking more like shit and being drunk.

So even though Jimmy is a 7.5 at base value, he looks like a 6.5 from letting himself look like shit physically and his behavior drops him to a 5.5 to her.

Now his perceived fitness and attractiveness and masculinity is lower than Kayla's to her. So she stops being attracted to him.

Make sense now??

SMV is a measurement of a person's attractiveness. For males, SMV often includes social status as well as physical attributes.

Hypergamy is the concept that women always seek out a higher-SMV male to satisfy their evolutionary goals.

These two words are not interchangeable. One utilizes the other.

if you watch Casey Xander's videos

Most YouTubers aren't worth 2 shits. From what little I've seen of this one, he does what most of them do: rip off shit that Rollo Tommasi and/or Roissy/Heartiste and/or Roosh wrote over 10 years ago, but get chunks of it wrong.

The only YouTubers worth bothering with who come to mind right away are Rollo Tommasi, Rian Stone, and Aaron Clarey. Of those three, Rian would do you the most good.

Really, though, stick to reading. Read the sidebars at the various manosphere subreddits. Read any archived blog posts you can find from Roosh, Roissy/Heartiste, Rollo, and Dalrock.

Most of YouTube is a waste of time.

Hypergamy tends to towards social status and provider strength (or according to Xander, moral strength), but SMV involves bodily attractiveness, preselection, abundance and so forth.

His understanding of hypergamy is lacking.

There are multiple facets to hypergamy depending on what stage a woman is at in her life, as well as where she is on her menstrual cycle (which you can't see), and being on birth control pills or other medications can fuck with this.

The gist of hypergamy is that a woman wants the best (in her perception, not objective reality) man she can get. This can be for genetics (alpha fucks) or long-term provisioning (beta bucks). Ideally, she'll seek both in the same man. Real World, she isn't likely to find that (not to mention, such a man has other options including not to commit to anyone), so she'll seek what she wants from different men at different stages of her life (or even menstrual cycle).

So, what turns a woman on? Hypergamy or SMV?

Hypergamy is within the woman.

The man's SMV is what turns her on.

His MMV/RMV is what makes her likely to stick around.

[the rest of your post]

Utter nonsense, best to discard everything you think you know and just start from scratch.

Forget everything you heard from Zander and other retards on YouTube.

Rest the sidebars at TRP, MRP, askTRP, WAATGM, and WATGMA. Go to the Red Archive and read everything from Roosh, Rollo, Roissy/Heartiste, and Dalrock you can find.

Everything I've read from you points to a faulty foundation and a lot of confident ignorance.

So, what turns a woman on? Hypergamy or SMV?

Sexually speaking, women are excited by SMV.

Hypergamy means "always wanting the best" - and that applies in multiple dimensions.

Xander says that ultimately hypergamy trumps SMV because a woman wants a man who is "better" than them, meaning morally better according to him (ie, not lustful, jealous, gluttonous, slothful, etc.),

What the fuq? Since when does high morals mean anything in the world of women and dating? Being non-lustful/jealous/gluttonous/slothful gets you absolutely nowhere. You can be lustful, jealous, gluttnous and slothful and get laid like a rockstar if you look good.

He claims (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrNlX5HRIV8&ab_channel=CaseyZander) that women will not actually sleep with high SMV guys on the side IF they have a hypergamous option,

That claim is rubbish - ask a million high value men who have been cheated on because they are not physically attractive enough for their wives.

I definitely get this sense sometimes with some of the women I am exposed to, especially the higher value ones

That's because women try to give that impression, in order to keep those beta bucks flowing. You never know that a woman will cheat on a guy until she's siting on your dick. If she's sitting on someone else's dick, you can be sure that it's gonna stay a secret.