How some women “commit” in an LTR

[guru1000]

game has extrapolated the idea of hypergamy going beyond a woman marrying up for money
?

“Hypergamy means more than money and status because game said so.”

Lol.

If you want to have a logical exchange, let’s use facts and actual definitions.

 

[guru1000]

if this is your approach, then why would you be on a forum whos ideas and tenets arent officially recognized by the scientific community?

whats the difference there?

SoSuave is a site built on self-improvement for men to maximize their marketability for and retaining women. I and several others directed this site in this manner.

Back in the day when Rollo was proposing his theories, he got shlt from me as well. Nothing new under the sun here.

 

[guru1000]

thats nice, but you still havent answered the question

many of the ideas for maximizing marketability goes beyond superficial changes to ones self/life

we deal with a broad range of topics like evo-psych, behavioral-psych, biology, etc etc yet we are not scientists

so again, how is it different? im going by your own logic. it should be easy to answer

My method (not theory) has always been:

• Maximize your wealth;
• Maximize your status;
• Maximize your physique;
• Maximize your facial aesthetics;
• Maximize your personality and attitude;
• Maximize your self-respect;
• Maximize your spirituality (which means giving, specifically, in the context of women, meeting all her "needs," not "wants")
• Maximize your mental paradigms (of who you are and potential).

This is all a man needs. All else is incidental or a consequence to the above, and thus superfluous thinking.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

My method (not theory) has always been:

• Maximize your wealth;
• Maximize your status;
• Maximize your physique;
• Maximize your facial aesthetics;
• Maximize your personality and attitude;
• Maximize your self-respect;
• Maximize your spirituality (which means giving, specifically, in the context of women, meeting all her "needs," not "wants")
• Maximize your mental paradigms (of who you are and potential).

This is all a man needs. All else is superfluous thinking.

What do you give her to fulfill her needs?

 

[guru1000]

What do you give her to fulfill her needs?

Subjective question. What is she looking for?

 

[RichardTheFrog]

Subjective question. What is she looking for?

She's a human being, so...

Food, shelter, electricity, clothing, etc.

I was going to make a thread about this a few days ago but I forgot. I think I might in a little bit.

 

[guru1000]

I never said women don't see marriage as exclusive. I said they view the intermediate "committed" relationship as non-committal because it is NOT marriage.

Hence my original point in this thread: 50-60% of women think this way. Because BE and a handful of "quality" girls you know stated this does not make it universally accurate.

If they don't find anyone more desirable then they won't discard you regardless, but that doesn't change the fact that bf/gf is an opportunistic shell game.

Opportunistic? In other words, hypergamy and trading up?

Again, this is another erroneous assertion; more Manosphere jargon, under many conditions.

I maintain the following:

When a girl has eyes only for you, hypergamy is dead.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

She's a human being, so...

Food, shelter, electricity, clothing, etc.

I was going to make a thread about this a few days ago but I forgot. I think I might in a little bit.

And a bionic d1ck?

 

[guru1000]

mental paradigms, personality/attitude changes and the like fall under things like basic human psychology. even "spirituality" goes beyond scientific logic or facts. so it isnt any different.

All subsumed under the umbrella of maximizing YOU, and not under the umbrella of concerning yourself with governing impetuses (creating fear-based decisions and responses) outside of you, that are, often, inapplicable.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

My method (not theory) has always been:

• Maximize your wealth;
• Maximize your status;
• Maximize your physique;
• Maximize your facial aesthetics;
• Maximize your personality and attitude;
• Maximize your self-respect;
• Maximize your spirituality (which means giving, specifically, in the context of women, meeting all her "needs," not "wants")
• Maximize your mental paradigms (of who you are and potential).

This is all a man needs. All else is incidental or a consequence to the above, and thus superfluous thinking.

So it sounds like you’re not necessarily saying hypergamy doesn’t exist.

You’re saying that because you follow your method, you don’t worry or think about hypergamy.

Is that your stance?

-Augustus-

 

[guru1000]

Sure, my opinion is based on the evidence I've gathered. If you have gathered different evidence, fine that's your experience.

Your maintained statement is a non-falsifiable circular argument, that is the problem. You could say "love is more powerful than hypergamy" or something like that.

Our opinions are experiential. So if I had met let's say 1000 women, and in conversations and extrapolations with the many, 400-500 women view committed relations as committed, and you met a handful who stated otherwise, this "evidence" does not support your point that 100% of women think committed relations (outside of marriage) are non-commital.

As to the "love" assertion, I did not state that. I simply stated "if she has eyes for you."

 

[guru1000]

So it sounds like you’re not necessarily saying hypergamy doesn’t exist.

You’re saying that because you follow your method, you don’t worry or think about hypergamy.

Is that your stance?

-Augustus-

If the girl is single and thus seeking her best option, in most cases, hypergamy exists along with her seeking physical chemistry (and compatibility is she is LTR -seeking).

Where I disagree in hypergamy theory is that ALL women have or act on their instinct in a committed relation with respect to the following bolded:

Evolutionary Psychology theory on the instinctual desire of humans of the female sex to discard a current matewhen the opportunity arises to latch onto a subsequent mate of higher status due to the hindbrain impetus to find a male with the best ability to provide for her OWN offspring (already spawned or yet-to-be spawned) regardless of investments and commitments made to a current mate

.

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

If the girl is single and thus seeking her best option, in most cases, hypergamy exists along with her seeking physical chemistry (and compatibility is she is LTR -seeking).

Where I disagree in hypergamy theory is that ALL women have or act on their instinct in a committed relation with respect to the following bolded:

.

I don’t think that anyone is going to argue that ALL women are going to act on their hypergamous instinct in a relationship. There are some that won’t.

-Augustus-

 

[Roober]

I would argue that both sexes are essentially hypergamous during a relationship, with or without a marriage contract. Statistics would also support this. There are many men here that will sleep with a taken woman, regardless if she is married or not. So, for a man to sit back and bed all these women with boyfriends, husbands, SO, or whatever, then expect it not to happen at all to him is downright ludicrous...

When a partner (man or woman) meets someone new with interest, they begin measuring up to their current relationship (hypergamy). If they do not measure up, or meet the qualities of their current partner, they will retreat or LJBF. However, if the new interest has "potential" to surpass their current relationship, the dance of relationship death begins. The excitement, the push and pull, the invigorating sex, etc etc... If the new interest reciprocates, then at some point, the partner has to make a decision to stay or leave. The point when someone decides to "upgrade" or "branch swing" to a new mate is the same point when they decided their current mate no longer provides as good of value. If the partner "upgrades" you and is completely unexpected, you failed at filtering partners properly AND being cognizant of your shortcomings in the relationship.

What @guru1000 says is don't be that guy that has
a) let his/her value diminish during the LTR,
*people get lazy in relationships
b) never had much value in the first place, maybe hooked the woman for a number of reasons...
*people put on a facade, one that will only last for so long

This is why you need to be the man she fell in love with (not the simpering fool with the pretty girl) AND give relationships time to develop, so they can truly reveal themselves. You should be the one making the decision when it's over!

Hypergamy is alive and real, but it is part of natural selection, part of our biology, human beings just can't help it. So, if you are always looking for an upgrade, why shouldn't she?

If you are the man she can't upgrade, or even given the opportunity to think it, you will ALWAYS have the upperhand

 

[guru1000]

The main reason why hypergamy theory doesn't hold in most committed relations is hypergamy fails to consider all the woman's needs. Most women don't have the need to be with billionaires or with senators. As long as you are meeting all her baseline needs in a committed relation, most women are not going to trade up to a guy of greater financial resources/status.

Diametrically, you could have all the resources/status in the world, but if you are not meeting her needs in a committed relation, she will look elsewhere.

It's all about her needs and your meeting them ... not hypergamy.

 

[BeExcellent]

what is NOT true is that hypergamy is something that just goes away once you initially meet all her needs. but if you are not meeting her needs in a committed relation, she will look elsewhere IS hypergamy and acknowledges it in your own words.

hypergamy isnt just about "marrying up"

its about mate selection across a range of circumstances

Incorrect. By your definition all humans operate by hypergamy, not just women. You mean to tell me that if you get with a woman who weighs 115lbs and while she is with you she gains weight to end up weighing 300lbs (or whatever threshold you personally find intolerable and grounds for dumping her) you are going to stay with her and love her just the way she is rather than dump her for another woman who values keeping fit? Let's not kid ourselves here. You'll be outta there if she porks out if you have any sense of self respect. But by your definition you would be acting in a hypergamous way if you were to leave the woman since she was no longer meeting YOUR needs (since as a blimp you no longer find her attractive.)

Definitions require specificity or the term becomes utterly meaningless. It's kind of like the LGBT community trying to redefine "marriage". Marriage is one man, and one woman in a sacrament committed relationship. It's been that way for thousands of years. Hypergamy has been similarly defined for centuries as well. Can you make the argument that hypergamy includes wealth and status considerations in a more general sense than moving up in social caste? Yes.

Can you stretch it to mean if any woman leaves you for any reason whatsoever that she is hypergamous? No. That is no different than a man leaving a woman for gaining too much weight or something else he chooses not to tolerate.

Jessica Sienfeld? Hypergamous. She dropped her fiancee for the opportunity to get with Jerry Sienfeld.

Oprah Winfrey? Not hypergamous. She has been with Stedman for years rather than trying to get with someone of higher social status than she is (or someone of higher status than Stedman for that matter. She loves Stedman. Period.)

 

[guru1000]

Let's rehash:

hy·per·ga·my
hīˈpərɡəmē/
noun
noun: hypergamy

1. the action of marrying a person of a superior caste or class.

hypergamy
Evolutionary Psychology theory on the instinctual desire of humans of the female sex to discard a current mate when the opportunity arises to latch onto a subsequent mate of higher status due to the hindbrain impetus to find a male with the best ability to provide for her OWN offspring (already spawned or yet-to-be spawned) regardless of investments and commitments made to a current mate.

Every woman has needs: Those needs comprise financial, status, love, sex, attention,fun, inter alia.

Wherein a man who meets all the needs of his woman, hypergamy is dead.

Hypergamy defined deals only with "money" and "status"; nothing else. However, these account for only two needs (among many) of women. If a woman desires to feel love, to feel safe, to feel seen, to be allowed to nurture, to feel sexually desired, to feel appreciated, to feel she can count on you, a good sex life, <insert one dozen needs here>; and avoids <insert a dozen ways a man can abuse her>-- irrespective of the man's class and caste, she will look elsewhere. Accordingly, hypergamy fails here.

Hypergamy states that a woman desires or will trade up to a man of superior caste or money. So if a woman was born of a low socioeconomic background and LTR's/marries a doctor, and is actively pursued by the head surgeon who's of superior caste and class to the doctor, hypergamy states she will have a desire to discard the doctor and LTR the surgeon if the opportunity arises. Here hypergamy fails, as (1) Her financial needs have already been met, she doesn't need more money for neither her nor her offspring; (2) Her status needs have already been met, she doesn't need more money for neither her nor her offspring; (3) In arguendo, if her financial/status needs were not met, the surgeon may lack physical chemistry; be socially acute, possess a complementary personality, or lack the myriad other attributes she is looking for in an LTR. Accordingly, hypergamy fails here too.

A theory loses its validity if it folds under certain conditions. Hypergamy fails under many conditions.

What a guy like @MidnightCity attempts to do (not even in an astute manner) is change the definition of hypergamy to force-fit its merits into validity. Unfortunately, words are defined and used within their definition. This is how intelligent people communicate. I would encourage you Midnight to think on your own, and opine based on your own experiences, rather than indoctrinate yourself with blog rubbish from men who have likely less experience with woman that you do.

@Augustus_McCrae, as you often preach, encourage, and solicit Rollo's site to others, I'm surprised as a seemly learned 60 yo man, that you did not rise above some of this jejunity.

 

[guru1000]

@guru1000 arent you divorced?

Yup.

 

[guru1000]

so much for killing hypergamy

Without context, is this your logic?

 

[guru1000]

i could be wrong but i somehow doubt you initiated the divorce

I can see why you invested into hypergamy theory. You possess one-dimensional thinking, at least in this regard.

You're a smart guy. Put it to legitimate use.