How some women “commit” in an LTR

[guru1000]

Guru, c'mon man. You know you're wrong. You're using two differently nuanced definitions to serve your point, and even then your point fails to be argued with them.


You've used two differently nuanced definitions, one focused on action and the other on desire. You switched to whichever one was convenient to support your points, and even the latter definition you later bolded to show disagreement of, you had neglected to bold the phrase "desire" to make a point about action. The definitions referenced don't even necessarilly include wealth, but you made that apart of your statement about hypergamy too. Weird.

You kept mentioning needs, but how did you come to discover and verify such needs? How can you test if hypergamy is "dead" if it's but a desire? What does "When a girl has eyes only for you, hypergamy is dead" even mean as a hypothetical when it can't really be tested. It has no existential grounding to it so it practically is saying nothing.

1) Definition One serves status. Definition Two serves status and wealth (as to provide for offspring requires money). Whether you choose Definition One, Definition Two, or both doesn't invalidate the argument that some women will trade "down" (within the scope of status, wealth, or both), hence hypergamy is invalid in such contexts.

2) Identifying needs deals with her "story." Open her story, look for the "holes," and you will find the needs. For operating examples, feel free to create a thread in how to Identify Needs vs. Wants.

3) "Has eyes for you" was already clarified as "Meeting her needs." For purposes of discussion, both are homogeneous and interchangeable.

When you can logically explain why women trade "down," then we can continue. Otherwise, the Needs Theory supersedes Hypergamy Theory.

Guru there are two main sides on Sosuave today......which makes for great discussions by the way.

- Side A: Believes the dating market has completely and utterly changed to the point where LTRs are practically non-existent, no matter what level of self-development, success, or level of prosperity one achieves.

- Side B: Believes that the onus is on the individual, if the individual is quality enough or has whatever required characteristics, then the market will provide to said individual the level of success based on the characteristics he has.

People like myself and @Urbanyst are Side A and people like yourself and @BeExcellent are Side B.

So either Side A is right, or Side B is right, or there's a Side C which is sort of an "in between".

Guru you have just admitted yourself that you don't date American Women for that list of crap you provided that American Women provide. Black Women especially. Then you turn around and say guys can't blame the MARKET for issues with dating American Women, even though you list out a ton of things that American Women are doing as a generic whole (the market) which is why you won't date them.

Every market having varying levels of disadvantages (to me) affects neither my overall happiness nor volition.

So sometimes I just get completely confused on your positions lol. Here you are saying that the Market can't affect your happiness, so if you become a victim of IDENTITY THEFT (external force) and a dude hacks your bank accounts, credit cards, etc., to where you have to make SERIOUS adjustments to lifestyle until everything gets back in order.........you mean to tell me that's not going to piss you off? Come on dude lol.

You confuse "operating stress" from or "transient emotions" incited by deleterious events with "overall happiness." Do you understand the distinction here as you are repeating this for the third time?

You and @BeExcellent are divorced, why? Well, because external forces that you couldn't control destroyed the duration of your marriage. So how can you guys say that market forces, environment, etc., doesn't matter? How can you keep preaching a "you are the only commonality" message when we don't live in a vacuum and at no time, are we the only commonality?

No one stated you can control a person. My statement was, "You can control (and keep) your happiness and volition in spite of the market."

If I wanted marriage, got married, and chose divorce (to a specific woman), then I would get married again. My volition (and end result) is unchanged, just different prospects meeting that role.

How can you NOT see that we are operating in a WILD WILD WEST in terms of the American dating market......where tradition is out of the window and everybody is just doing whatever the hell they want to do?

For you this applies, hence why you are heavily invested in your position as you need me to validate your belief that it is fine to surrender your volition to the marketplace.

Well BAD NEWS for you bud; it is not fine to surrender your volition to any marketplace. Work around it and find a way, but don't surrender yourself (your will and volition) to the whims of the market.

 

[sazc]

Let's consider the wealthy married woman who decides to have an affair with the pool boy. She's risking resources to get a need met (sexual, emotional, both?) She's trading down.

By definition, this is not hypergamy. This is sometime who is married to someone that has the resources yet he is actually not providing for sone need(s).

 

[exhausted]

Let's consider the wealthy married woman who decides to have an affair with the pool boy. She's risking resources to get a need met (sexual, emotional, both?) She's trading down.

By definition, this is not hypergamy. This is sometime who is married to someone that has the resources yet he is actually not providing for sone need(s).

Or she is just insatiable and unable to be fulfilled no matter what.
And yes there are many women like this. I have a sister like this. Divorced 3x and this is why. No idea why she is so selfish

 

[sazc]

Not biologically.



Not by your incorrect definition that (ironically) doesn't meet my needs, or the needs of a set.

If hypergamy doesn't exist, neither do orbiters, the friendzone, beta bucks, r-selection, a woman's sexual cycle, mate-guarding, social value, sadomasochism, monkey branching, attention wh0ring, provisioning, biological clocks ticking...

Neither does science, history, contemporary politics, personal experience, or even just basic common sense.

Game doesn't exist.

Okay, fine. Now don't expect other people to be the guinea pigs for your a-priori musings. Go and have a number of girlfriends (at least 5), whilst going into these relationships innocent as a lamb, with every best intention of meeting every possible need.

Come back and tell me how that goes. You will have reached the same mental-development that I was at age 19. After catching your breath from b1tches running you ragged, you will say, "you were right deesade. I am very sorry that I tried to gaslight you"

I will respond, "that's fine. You didn't know any better". Because i'm really very good like that.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

That's all fine and well but I never said hypergamy didn't exist. I said it was being thrown around here incorrectly, misused as per it's definition.

Talk about Overkill, sheesh

 

[sazc]

It's a game term. You choose to favour the Collin's English dictionary definition.

"Fvck the dj bible, read the Collin's English dictionary", she says.

"Weakest attempt at a reframe ever", I retort.

Lol, not quite, but okay

 

[guru1000]

As there are no further counters, in closing:

The push/pull, the takeaway/walkaway, boundaries, your unwillingness to accede to some requests, your backbone, your self-respect, among other Manosphere workings are often are part of her needs.

Her requests for dinner, a necklace, a weekend getaway, a trip most often are wants.

Meet her needs. Need not meet her wants.

Hypergamy Theory is subsumed within Needs Theory for most (not all) women. This means part of most women's needs is securing a mate of highest status/resources. Looks are also a need for most women. Hypergamy Theory alone fails to address her other needs, hence why guys like Brad Pitt who maximized status/money (hypergamy) as well as looks was served with divorce papers.

Identify her needs and you will incite loyalty. The only exception to the Needs Theory is when one of her needs cannot be met by one man alone. I have always subscribed to the Needs Theory and have had nothing but loyal troopers all my life. Take it or leave it; it's your life.

 

[guru1000]

Gentlemen, don’t get mad. Half the things you go on about I brought into the Manosphere. You’re the new kids on the block.

As inducted now, will be the Needs Theory.

Cognitive dissonance before acceptance.

 

[ubercat]

Maybe I don't understand this as well as I thought. I don't see how Sazac s example is not hypergamy. She's already got the beta provider locked into marriage. Those resources are secured. Since she always wants more now it's pool boy time.

I just think of hypergamy as insatiable greed and opportunism Is it more than that?

 

[exhausted]

As there are no further counters, in closing:

The push/pull, the takeaway/walkaway, boundaries, your unwillingness to accede to some requests, your backbone, your self-respect, among other Manosphere workings are often are part of her needs.

Her requests for dinner, a necklace, a weekend getaway, a trip most often are wants.

Meet her needs. Need not meet her wants.

Hypergamy Theory is subsumed within Needs Theory for most (not all) women. This means part of most women's needs is securing a mate of highest status/resources. Looks are also a need for most women. Hypergamy Theory alone fails to address her other needs, hence why guys like Brad Pitt who maximized status/money (hypergamy) as well as looks was served with divorce papers.

Identify her needs and you will incite loyalty. The only exception to the Needs Theory is when one of her needs cannot be met by one man alone. I have always subscribed to the Needs Theory and have had nothing but loyal troopers all my life. Take it or leave it; it's your life.

This works with healthy women.
What about the unhealthy women (which is most) who thinks and believes their needs are actually wants? Ie dinner, gifts, trips, being treated like a gosh damn princess.

 

[cityboy989]

I met this girl thru Bumble a year ago. We never went out mainly due to distance reasons. I only talked to her on occasion, but we text a few times a month. On occasion she would send me semi-nudes. I checked out her faKebook and see she is in Mexico laying on the beach with some dude and has been "in a relationship" with him for several months. I'm thinking that's hilarious because a few weeks ago I was still getting semi-nude pics texted to me with out me even asking.

The amount of validation these girls crave is an epidemic and social media is their crack cocaine. Forget the drug problem we have, lets address the validation problem women have.

Some chicks really do want validation, but I draw a line between wanting validation (and being a ho) vs having HPD

 

[cityboy989]

They are not even close to being exclusive at 3 months into nominal fake exclusivity. Ive found at like 1 year in they stop actively maintaining their options(and start getting somewhat irritable towards you because they are not happy they have to depend on you solely for validation now). I know this being on both sides of the fence. I found out a chick I was sexing had an exclusive boyfriend for 3 full months before she cut me off...I had predated him and their exclusivity by about 3 months.

Lmao was the chick you were talking to Randall's chick?? Didn't she do the same exact thing to him? Hid her relationship status for 3 months, added and flirted with random local men, then 3 months in when they had an up-cycle in their relationship she went and deleted those randoms and made their status public? (Meanwhile she still hoes around on IG lmfao.)

 

[sazc]

Maybe I don't understand this as well as I thought. I don't see how Sazac s example is not hypergamy. She's already got the beta provider locked into marriage. Those resources are secured. Since she always wants more now it's pool boy time.

I just think of hypergamy as insatiable greed and opportunism Is it more than that?

I checked yesterday and there's a ton of definitions of hypergamy. From what I could tell the origins are Indian and have to do with marrying up in the Indian caste system, specifically with the intent of securing more resources (defined as money/wealth, power) Most of the general 'dictionary' type websites, refer to resources defined as defined as money/wealth, power, not emotions, not needs.

Then I read one site, I believe it was reddit, and was a red pill forum, where one blogger decided to 'expand' the definition of the word 'resources' to include emotions and needs. He did a good job explaining everything but he cited no sources. It was as if he felt that he simply had the 'right' to redefine a word. Of course every other poster chimed in and was supportive (b/c there's an agenda there/here) There were a few other MGTOW sites that defined the term but my work browser forbid me from reading them.

It would be very interesting to determine the root origin/definition of the word Hypergamy. What did it mean when it was coined. It appears that modern society has put a new spin on the definition.

In any case, I do think what @guru1000 is saying is important. Even if it's 'just game' with you, if you develop the ability to listen to her and identify her needs, you're going to me more successful in attracting her, and keeping her loyal

loyal, another very heavy word, with a very large definition.

In closing, I'll never project that I am the be all and end all of anything. Contrary to popular belief, I dont have any agenda to push anything on anyone. If y'all want to buy hardcore into red pill be my guest - it doesnt affect me. I'm just participating in a discussion. @guru1000 brought up needs theory, which I think is part of the puzzle, as I stated above.

Have a great day!

 

[sazc]

This works with healthy women.
What about the unhealthy women (which is most) who thinks and believes their needs are actually wants? Ie dinner, gifts, trips, being treated like a gosh damn princess.

@guru1000 this is a really good question and point, and one I think a lot of men on these boards need to start identifying in the females they see, and need coaching on how to handle it. This is part of what screening, standards and boundaries are about.

Di you have a one stop shop answer for/to the female that is pissy because she feels you are falling short of meeting her needs - yet they are really wants...?

 

[exhausted]

@guru1000 this is a really good question and point, and one I think a lot of men on these boards need to start identifying in the females they see, and need coaching on how to handle it. This is part of what screening, standards and boundaries are about.

Di you have a one stop shop answer for/to the female that is pissy because she feels you are falling short of meeting her needs - yet they are really wants...?

They are coded to either be healthy or unhealthy as there is NO changing or growing by them.
The boundaries only identfiy an unhealthy female to RID yourself of. There is no teaching or learning.

 

[guru1000]

LOL@ Midnight, now you are quoting others, and still can't answer the most rudimentary of questions:

Why do some women trade "down"?

Why do some women divorce their rich, high-level exec husbands to marry a low-level, average-looking man?

Why did Brad Pitt get served with divorce papers?

Your retort is hypergamy includes "meeting her needs." It does not. Meeting her needs includes meeting her needs. Hypergamy is just one facet subsumed within her needs for most women.

 

[guru1000]

because like i ALREADY stated, what you deem as "trading down" is not trading down in a womans mind. if you arent meeting a NEED in a woman and she seeks it out in another man, that man has MORE VALUE than you in that regard regardless of how valuable you perceive yourself or actually are on a SUPERFICIAL level. so in essence she is NOT "trading down" maybe in your mind she is but NOT IN HERS. that IS how hypergamy works. its a woman moving onto what she perceives is the BETTER DEAL at any givin moment dictated by HER NEEDS. which can be either provisional, emotional or biological

this isnt complicated. you just refuse to see things for what they are

This is among the worst logic I have ever seen LOL.

Hypergamy deals with trading up. The textbook definition of "up" is status. As more exceptions were found, Manosphere stretched the word to money, status, looks (biological).

As further exceptions were found, Escoffier above stretches it to interpersonal behavior.

As more exceptions are found, now YOU stretch it to "meeting her needs."

Hilarious.

I got a brilliant idea. Why don't we just coin "meeting her needs" as "meeting her needs."

 

[guru1000]

so wheres your blog and following guru? surely a guy as right as you would have a legion of guys nodding their heads in agreement. especially with your claim that you introduced most of this stuff?

I'm a VC, not a blogger. Sorry, but no money in the Manosphere business, nor are my contributions here business for me.

But I will call a spade a spade as I see it.

 

[guru1000]

still after all the time youve been here and posting you woulda have had the respect and admiration of more than a few members. other guys have posted MUCH less and have had a much bigger impact. so there goes the argument of having to be a dedicated blogger or chasing money for you to matter.

Wrong again.

When the SoSuave system of likes changed in Aug/Sep 2015, Guru had:

3023 Posts
144 Likes

Today, Guru has

4053 Posts
2243 Likes

Like Increase: 2099
Post Increase: 1030

Ratio of Likes/Posts after System Change: 203.7%

This is the greatest ratio of Likes/Post among members.

To be clear, I am not stating this to brag as NEILing likes to do, but rather to address your point directly. Further, my motivation here is not for likes, but for (1) entertainment; (2) assisting those who need it which includes crushing fallacious Dogma as I did toward yours.

 

[bigneil]

Wrong again.

When the SoSuave system of likes changed in Aug/Sep 2015, Guru had:

3023 Posts
144 Likes

Today, Guru has

4053 Posts
2243 Likes

Like Increase: 2099
Post Increase: 1030

Ratio of Likes/Posts after System Change: 203.7%

This is the greatest ratio of Likes/Post among members.

To be clear, I am not stating this to brag as NEILing likes to do, but rather to address your point directly. Further, my motivation here is not for likes, but for (1) entertainment; (2) assisting those who need it; (3) crushing Dogma as I did toward yours.

So glad guru1000men wants to talk about Likes!

When the system changed in 2015 I had 5500 posts, 200 likes. Since then, 3000 posts, 2500 likes.

If I hadn't been banned for (in part, along with offending guru's boytoy Double and his mother @sazc) reminding @guru1000 his Vaseline was running low I would still be #1. Give me a couple months assuming the SJW's don't demand a Safe Space with she-males approval.

SS has spoken. Heteosexual > metrosexual.

 

[guru1000]

So glad guru1000men wants to talk about Likes!

When the system changed in 2015 I had 5500 posts, 200 likes. Since then, 3000 posts, 2500 likes.

If I hadn't been banned for (in part, along with offending guru's boytoy Double and his mother @sazc) reminding @guru1000 his Vaseline was running low I would still be #1. Give me a couple months assuming the SJW's don't demand a Safe Space with she-males approval.

SS has spoken. Heteosexual > metrosexual.

Haha, so you acknowledge you are lesser man to Guru in EVERY way (financial, looks, status, women, social acuity, and even likes lol) except you're taller?

Before you state you can take Guru in a fist fight, allow me to interject: you can't. Your lifts are akin to a 12-year old girl's. One punch on your chin button by Guru, and you're out.