"Hypergamy" is WAY overblown on this board

[DEEZEDBRAH]

Ok, 27 year old sage expert (laugh). Not even 30 yet? Got all the answers? Ok.

Move along kid ,nothing for you to see here, move along...

Nearly five years on you son.

Try again. I await wall of text.

Women's motivations and DNA and what they want in a man hasn't changed in 10,000 years (probably longer), despite social media, apps, and all the other BS you blame your failures on. You fail because you do not stoke her attraction--period. She wouldn't need social media if you had the skill set and masculine energy to keep her in the first place.

Quit blaming social media and just get better.

You outed yourself and lack thereof game.

Your real problem is low testosterone.

Step your game up. Log off. Go get baeee.

Drop your theory phaggotry.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

I completely disagree. You sound like a woman who's shaming a man. There are plenty of masculine men who get cheated on and left by women. The real problem is not a lack of men "manning up". It's a feminist environment that is completely out of control (low birth rates, high rates of single parent homes and depression/lack of direction in men) that has produced several generations of women who are about as reliable as dirt to keep a commitment to a man. It's got nothing to do with "manning up". I'm surprised you would post something like this.

+ 1

Opie is retard bragged about being 27. Post reeks of a guy who cannot approach.

Says women haven't changed in ten thousand years.

This retard hasn't heard of sex tapes or social media. The same skanks would be stoned on the other side of the world for slutty pics in the middle east. In America, its female empowerment.


I agree with you on feminism making it hostile.

We cannot change that nor the laws. We just step up our game.


The women with the IG ass pics doesn't get the ring. She gets the **** buddy treatment at best. Attention *****s on social media are **** material. Not play house with.

Since" the game" by Neil Strauss came out, the game has changed, and again with social media as well as online apps.


I need to stop responding to retards, anybody with IQ lower then their shoe size. I intend to bump this thread after Ricky retardo gets cucked by women on social media. Because women haven't changed in ten thousand years.

 

[Dash Riprock]

+ 1

Opie is retard bragged about being 27. Post reeks of a guy who cannot approach.

Says women haven't changed in ten thousand years.

This retard hasn't heard of sex tapes or social media. The same skanks would be stoned on the other side of the world for slutty pics in the middle east. In America, its female empowerment.


I agree with you on feminism making it hostile.

We cannot change that nor the laws. We just step up our game.


The women with the IG ass pics doesn't get the ring. She gets the **** buddy treatment at best. Attention *****s on social media are **** material. Not play house with.

Since" the game" by Neil Strauss came out, the game has changed, and again with social media as well as online apps.


I need to stop responding to retards, anybody with IQ lower then their shoe size. I intend to bump this thread after Ricky retardo gets cucked by women on social media. Because women haven't changed in ten thousand years.

If I'm 22 and have been posting on SS since 2005 as my profile states, that you and everyone else can see, I made my first post at...9??? LOL. Not only do you write like a snot-nosed 1st grader you do math like one too.

Keep blaming social media, hypergamy, your parents for passing you s*hitty DNA, whatever. You started insulting me first millennial trash boy so best you go back to playing Warcraft in your parent's basement and eat a fruit roll up.

Leave this discussion to the adults, please.

 

[Dash Riprock]

I completely disagree. You sound like a woman who's shaming a man. There are plenty of masculine men who get cheated on and left by women. The real problem is not a lack of men "manning up". It's a feminist environment that is completely out of control (low birth rates, high rates of single parent homes and depression/lack of direction in men) that has produced several generations of women who are about as reliable as dirt to keep a commitment to a man. It's got nothing to do with "manning up". I'm surprised you would post something like this.

I get what your saying.

The point I'm making is most "men" these days don't know what it means to be *a man* so the woman per her DNA programming on what she finds attractive and strong, will leave if he's not doing his part.

Remember that women value relationships and connection more so than men do. I think we all agree on that. So they usually don't jump without good reason.

And yes, men are to blame in many instances too because they choose poorly. They get oneitis and don't properly vet their marriage partner, hence many end up with bad choices in marriage. I've seen it many times. That's not hypergamy.

So it's not all "trash women's" fault. Some yes but not all.

*Most* women want a stable home to raise a family with a strong man to lead. If they jump, sure you can blame the woman for breaking up the relationship or family, and some (strong minority) do for foolish reasons, but it's usually the man not doing his part. That's not hypergamy.

Why do I feel this way?

I mainly grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I think most "men" these days are f*ucking entitled whining p*ussies (see any post by "sage" @DEEZEDBRAH) blaming everyone but themselves and deserve to get dumped. And most do.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

Only if the current guy isn't doing his job in being a man. Yes, then she'll jump. That's just the guy being a wuss and not stepping up. She found someone with more masculine qualities because the guy was weak and needy. That's not hypergamy.

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.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hypergamy

This retard is literally making buzzing noises from his desk top while trying to bite his ear.

There's a reason why the armed forces enlistment requires a score at or above the thirty-first percentile. Below is deemed a liability to oneself and others.

 

[RangerMIke]

Is the OP trying to define hypergamy? I think the OP doesn't really understand what hypergamy is... he has his own definition, and according to HIS definition his argument makes sense. Hypergamy is nothing more than a chick's natural urge to trade up when she finds a dude that has more of what she THINKS she wants at any particular emotional moment. If she THINKS she needs money, and you have money, she will be attracted to you... BUT if another dude with MORE money comes along she will be attracted to that new man. It doesn't mean she will automatically act on that attraction because she already has time in, and an emotional attachment to the dude she is with in addition to her social conditioning, but that urge is always there... she's a chick, and she can no more change the way she is then the fact that a man is going to always be attracted to hot women.

In contrast, if a chick thinks she needs a stable middle class guy that loves kids, kittens, nature walks, and yard sales.... WELL that is what she thinks she needs.... now she would be one of a small minority of chicks, but they are out there, if she is also hot.... well, that's a unicorn and they do not exist. But if the chick thinks she needs a 'man' that vomits his feelings, loves kids, kittens, nature walks, and yard sales, and she has a man that does all this silly chick sh!t, and another dude with MONEY comes along.... she will NOT be attracted to the dude with money... because that is NOT what SHE THINKS she NEEDS.

All chicks are attracted to the same three things, Looks, Status, and Money.

LOOKS are nothing more than what a chick finds physically attractive. A majority of women find men with a great physique, masculine features, who dresses well attractive... But if she is a chick with a Santa fetish, she's going to think older fat dudes are attractive.

STATUS is nothing more than his position in any particular micro-culture, and a man's ability to add value in that micro-culture. So if a chick is a band groupie, she will always be looking for the most popular musician. If a chick is religious.... she'll be interested more in the Pastor of a church than the Deacon. It all depends on what micro-culture the chick is interested in.

MONEY is really the only thing that is universal, but it is important to understand that even this is based on a chick's needs. At some point having more money doesn't really help you that much. If you have sufficient resources to meet her needs, and another dude comes along with more money than she thinks she needs, it will have a lessor effect on her level of attraction, and other the other factors, status and looks will be more of a factor. If she wants a millionaire, and you have $10 million, another dude with $15 million isn't going to trigger her hypergamous instincts.

Here is the confusing part of all this as you try to understand women... what she is attracted to will CHANGE based on where her emotions are in any given moment. This is why LTRs end in most cases. When she says "We grew apart, and it's not you it's me." Well that is the true, but reading between the lines what she really means is this "You are no longer meeting my emotional needs because what I think I need has changed, and regrettably you are no longer meeting those needs, and since my SMV is changing quickly, I have an opportunity to trade up while I still have something to trade."

The bottom line is if you want to make a relationship work with a chick, you have to fvcking pay attention to her changing needs and take steps to match her new wants and needs without becoming a simp... which is not easy, but the fact that there are about 20% marriages are relatively happy, it can be done. You will increase your chances of pulling this off if you do a good job of screening out chicks that want what you don't have, and are willing to compromise and just accept a chick that is just attractive enough to turn you on.

 

[AJ84]

Being unhappy with one’s self and blaming the other person is not a behaviour limited to women. Men are just as likely to do this.
When people give the responsibility of their happiness to another person, which is common in relationships, the end result is often blaming the other person for not making them happy.

 

[HankHill]

Which may be true for a minority of women.

But the majority would not trade "solid emotional connection" for $.

Main components:

Confidence + (self) Control + (being a) Challenge + Abundance Mindset + IDGAF Attitude = DJ Mindset

I'm truly confused by these two posts. How can you have a solid emotional connection with a woman if you have the Abundance and IDGAF attitude? The latter two directly contradict having a solid emotional connection.

Hypergamy or not, the problem, based on my 9+yr failed marriage, 6+yr LTR and another 4+yr LTR that when things became routine on a day to day basis (which I like, because I have hobbies, work, ambition) they sought excitement, butterflies, drama somewhere else. It wasn't about me not being a man it was about about them seeking happiness from another person and when that wasn't me (in a daily routine) they jumped ship.

 

[AJ84]

This retard is literally making buzzing noises from his desk top while trying to bite his ear.

There's a reason why the armed forces enlistment requires a score at or above the thirty-first percentile. Below is deemed a liability to oneself and others.

This guy in the pic was born like that. What’s your excuse?

All you do is spew forth the same crap in different grammatically incorrect ways and add

I'm truly confused by these two posts. How can you have a solid emotional connection with a woman if you have the Abundance and IDGAF attitude? The latter two directly contradict having a solid emotional connection.

Hypergamy or not, the problem, based on my 9+yr failed marriage, 6+yr LTR and another 4+yr LTR that when things became routine on a day to day basis (which I like, because I have hobbies, work, ambition) they sought excitement, butterflies, drama somewhere else. It wasn't about me not being a man it was about about them seeking happiness from another person and when that wasn't me (in a daily routine) they jumped ship.[/QUOTE
My take of the abundance mindset as a female with experience dating men who had options is those guys simply had just that, options. It was clear by how women responded to them. They didn’t have to try to show me that they could get other girls, it was obvious that they could. The mindset was them being content, chill, positive and confident nice to women because they had nothing to be insecure about when it came to women. They didn’t put them on pedestals or get sucked into their frames but they also aren’t aholes to women, running pathetic dread games or other crap that most women can see right through.
It wasn’t an IDGAF attitude so much as it was ‘I’m not going to let petty bs from women or anyone else get to me I’m going to walk and let that crap roll off my back or laugh it off without being a d**k about it or trying to put someone down and one up them.’
Guys who are insecure and don’t really know how to read women or date long term successfully try to apply the abundance mindset in a way that screams, ‘look at me! I can get any woman! hey you’re not looking! You can be nexted you know, get with my program! I don’t give a f**k! Hey you listening to me or what!”
Guys who let crap go and have options (based on their terms and standards, these guys don’t let other guys tell them what they should find attractive) simply move the f**k on, they don’t look back.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

Is the OP trying to define hypergamy? I think the OP doesn't really understand what hypergamy is... he has his own definition, and according to HIS definition his argument makes sense. Hypergamy is nothing more than a chick's natural urge to trade up when she finds a dude that has more of what she THINKS she wants at any particular emotional moment. If she THINKS she needs money, and you have money, she will be attracted to you... BUT if another dude with MORE money comes along she will be attracted to that new man. It doesn't mean she will automatically act on that attraction because she already has time in, and an emotional attachment to the dude she is with in addition to her social conditioning, but that urge is always there... she's a chick, and she can no more change the way she is then the fact that a man is going to always be attracted to hot women.

+1

As I previously mentioned, after a RMG #26, I was blown away by Rollo drawing a connection to feminism push for abortions and hypergamy. I know female nature and 99% of her behavior is acting on that behalf. For whatever reason, I never made this connection.

Rollo is a wizard. While I agree, guys blame hypergamy a but too much, it likely isn't enough. Opie clearly doesn't get it.

In contrast, if a chick thinks she needs a stable middle class guy that loves kids, kittens, nature walks, and yard sales.... WELL that is what she thinks she needs.... now she would be one of a small minority of chicks, but they are out there, if she is also hot.... well, that's a unicorn and they do not exist. But if the chick thinks she needs a 'man' that vomits his feelings, loves kids, kittens, nature walks, and yard sales, and she has a man that does all this silly chick sh!t, and another dude with MONEY comes along.... she will NOT be attracted to the dude with money... because that is NOT what SHE THINKS she NEEDS.

I know women who are middle class earners by themselves. They hit the wall. During their youth, they bagged a high earner whale.

It would sicken you to hear the puts beta male shaming they do. The waybthry poison drop him. Of course, it's all women who save the day and run the household. #delusional

]All chicks are attracted to the same three things, Looks, Status, and Money.

Agreed. There is no arguing otherwise.

I don't believe in monogamy.

If one is to believe and seek marriage, he should pursue a woman who is of course on top form SMV but even better, she has seeker srof knowledge is exploring consciousness having gone beyond her hamster wheel brain pursuit of hypergamy.

There is no alternative but,even then, I wouldn't marry.

LOOKS are nothing more than what a chick finds physically attractive. A majority of women find men with a great physique, masculine features, who dresses well attractive... But if she is a chick with a Santa fetish, she's going to think older fat dudes are attractive.

STATUS is nothing more than his position in any particular micro-culture, and a man's ability to add value in that micro-culture. So if a chick is a band groupie, she will always be looking for the most popular musician. If a chick is religious.... she'll be interested more in the Pastor of a church than the Deacon. It all depends on what micro-culture the chick is interested in.

MONEY is really the only thing that is universal, but it is important to understand that even this is based on a chick's needs. At some point having more money doesn't really help you that much. If you have sufficient resources to meet her needs, and another dude comes along with more money than she thinks she needs, it will have a lessor effect on her level of attraction, and other the other factors, status and looks will be more of a factor. If she wants a millionaire, and you have $10 million, another dude with $15 million isn't going to trigger her hypergamous instincts.

What have you of the wives that divorce star athletes? Movie stars? IMHO its hypergamy and free parade of male resources.

I saw a a TFM vid where he pointed out that a judge throughout prenups in Australia. It sets precedence in future. UK is next.

Here is the confusing part of all this as you try to understand women... what she is attracted to will CHANGE based on where her emotions are in any given moment. This is why LTRs end in most cases. When she says "We grew apart, and it's not you it's me." Well that is the true, but reading between the lines what she really means is this "You are no longer meeting my emotional needs because what I think I need has changed, and regrettably you are no longer meeting those needs, and since my SMV is changing quickly, I have an opportunity to trade up while I still have something to trade."

RooshV came at trade thots like Lauren Southern. IMHO she is fraudin but is 99% better then what's out there. Its all a game and cucks eat it up. Even mgtow will send her and others money. The worst was that skank rooshV called out on a collaboration debate podcast. That **** I'd the worst. Southern being the best of that genre given her msg @ women and trading up.

Even with decades + of game, rooshV cannot acquire what he seeks. Rollo has (I guess). The pannel of RMG haven't or few have?

The bottom line is if you want to make a relationship work with a chick, you have to fvcking pay attention to her changing needs and take steps to match her new wants and needs without becoming a simp... which is not easy, but the fact that there are about 20% marriages are relatively happy, it can be done. You will increase your chances of pulling this off if you do a good job of screening out chicks that want what you don't have, and are willing to compromise and just accept a chick that is just attractive enough to turn you on.

I disagree. I think operating in a alpha manner, TRP, red pill lens, etc act accordingly.

With women, I won't placate nor pander to her. Loss of interest, I don't care. I don't fix what's broken.

#nextSet!

Its why marriage is so foolish. There's no mitigation for women not in the mood or being a tyrant.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

I'm truly confused by these two posts. How can you have a solid emotional connection with a woman if you have the Abundance and IDGAF attitude? The latter two directly contradict having a solid emotional connection.

Being willing to walk is key.

Hypergamy or not, the problem, based on my 9+yr failed marriage, 6+yr LTR and another 4+yr LTR that when things became routine on a day to day basis (which I like, because I have hobbies, work, ambition) they sought excitement, butterflies, drama somewhere else. It wasn't about me not being a man it was about about them seeking happiness from another person and when that wasn't me (in a daily routine) they jumped ship.

So be it.

A evolved man won't marry. True red pill awareness knows, its not your girl. It's just your turn.

There's value in black pill even knowing its not the movies nor happily ever after.

If game has shown me anything, its that nothing sweeter then acquiring top form SMV and running into women from my past.

These girls are then fat as ****kkk, single moms, and train wrecks.

Sit back with that smug look on your face and enjoy the ride.

 

[HankHill]

My take of the abundance mindset as a female with experience dating men who had options is those guys simply had just that, options. It was clear by how women responded to them. They didn’t have to try to show me that they could get other girls, it was obvious that they could. The mindset was them being content, chill, positive and confident nice to women because they had nothing to be insecure about when it came to women. They didn’t put them on pedestals or get sucked into their frames but they also aren’t aholes to women, running pathetic dread games or other crap that most women can see right through.
It wasn’t an IDGAF attitude so much as it was ‘I’m not going to let petty bs from women or anyone else get to me I’m going to walk and let that crap roll off my back or laugh it off without being a d**k about it or trying to put someone down and one up them.’
Guys who are insecure and don’t really know how to read women or date long term successfully try to apply the abundance mindset in a way that screams, ‘look at me! I can get any woman! hey you’re not looking! You can be nexted you know, get with my program! I don’t give a f**k! Hey you listening to me or what!”
Guys who let crap go and have options (based on their terms and standards, these guys don’t let other guys tell them what they should find attractive) simply move the f**k on, they don’t look back.

I'm with you...there's all that too and obviously you can't keep a woman for 4+yrs if you didn't have those things in the first place. However, how do you explain the aftermath of them jumping ship anyway? They all wanted to come back and one time I really tried because I truly loved f*cking her and could do it for the rest of my life but each time I tried to take her back (without losing my frame) she would jump again, almost like a cat/mouse game 'oh he wants me back...so let me focus on what I can't have' then as soon as I dropped her 'she'd come back just to even get laid' it went on for 3yrs.

In your case, what happened with these guys you said you dated? did they jump ship or you did?

 

[HankHill]

Being willing to walk is key.



So be it.

A evolved man won't marry. True red pill awareness knows, its not your girl. It's just your turn.

There's value in black pill even knowing its not the movies nor happily ever after.

If game has shown me anything, its that nothing sweeter then acquiring top form SMV and running into women from my past.

These girls are then fat as ****kkk, single moms, and train wrecks.

Sit back with that smug look on your face and enjoy the ride.

Sure, your idea works great when you're in your 20s and 30. May be even 40s and 50s but where do you see yourself when you're in your 60s+ or 70s? unmarried guy, single dad or childless, living in an apartment alone or a senior community?

 

[Dash Riprock]

All chicks are attracted to the same three things, Looks, Status, and Money.

I agree with you, Mike.

Women are initially attracted to men with these (LMS) qualities. But, said man with LMS, can be a real zero in the personality and/or social skills department too. It's more the later, personality and connection, which will keep a woman. Once this dissipates, yes, the woman may look elsewhere for another LMS male and start the process all over again. The dumped males sits there and cannot understand what went wrong when unknowingly they probably got, soft, needy, unmotivated, feminine, etc.--real turnoff's for any woman. The man blames "hyerpgamy" as some sort of blanket reason women leave. Now, if said man kept his masculine core throughout the relationship, SOLID chance she wouldn't leave. She would have no reason to.

Hypergamy defined as "marrying up" of someone of greater class or status." Or, from the top Google result:

hy·per·ga·my
hīˈpərɡəmē/
noun

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

Generally, this can be interpreted as someone with more material net worth.

My entire point with this thread is "hypergamy" is blamed for many of SS posters dating ills, which IMO, is just not true and way overplayed. The real reason is their DJ skills are lacking and need to be developed further. Kind of like the minor league baseball player who gets promoted to the big leagues and can't hit MLB pitching, but blames all the MLB pitchers for throwing "spitters" when in reality, the guy need to become a better MLB hitter. You do this through learning and practice, not by blaming or complaining. Same thing in the dating world..

 

[Dash Riprock]

Being willing to walk is key.

Yes, my buddy here hit it on the head.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

I agree with you, Mike.

Women are initially attracted to men with these (LMS) qualities. But, said man with LMS, can be a real zero in the personality and/or social skills department too. It's more the later, personality and connection, which will keep a woman. Once this dissipates, yes, the woman may look elsewhere for another LMS male and start the process all over again. The dumped males sits there and cannot understand what went wrong when unknowingly they probably got, soft, needy, unmotivated, feminine, etc.--real turnoff's for any woman. The man blames "hyerpgamy" as some sort of blanket reason women leave. Now, if said man kept his masculine core throughout the relationship, SOLID chance she wouldn't leave. She would have no reason to.

Hypergamy defined as "marrying up" of someone of greater class or status." Or, from the top Google result:

hy·per·ga·my
hīˈpərɡəmē/
noun

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

Generally, this can be interpreted as someone with more material net worth.

My entire point with this thread is "hypergamy" is blamed for many of SS posters dating ills, which IMO, is just not true and way overplayed. The real reason is their DJ skills are lacking and need to be developed further. Kind of like the minor league baseball player who gets promoted to the big leagues and can't hit MLB pitching, but blames all the MLB pitchers for throwing "spitters" when in reality, the guy need to become a better MLB hitter. You do this through learning and practice, not by blaming or complaining. Same thing in the dating world..

Do you think becoming superior at dating makes a better long term relationship person? Our girlfriend and wives shouldn't be better at disengagement, throwing knuckle balls, curve balls etc to keep us off balance... I dunno.

 

[Dash Riprock]

I'm truly confused by these two posts. How can you have a solid emotional connection with a woman if you have the Abundance and IDGAF attitude? The latter two directly contradict having a solid emotional connection.

Hypergamy or not, the problem, based on my 9+yr failed marriage, 6+yr LTR and another 4+yr LTR that when things became routine on a day to day basis (which I like, because I have hobbies, work, ambition) they sought excitement, butterflies, drama somewhere else. It wasn't about me not being a man it was about about them seeking happiness from another person and when that wasn't me (in a daily routine) they jumped ship.

Hank,

You can have a solid emotional connection with a woman along with anIDGAF attitude. They do not conflict.

Let me explain:

Solid Emotional Connection (as defined by Dash): A relationship, usually LTR or marriage, built on and defined by TRUST, COMMUNICATION, and RESPECT. If any one of of these three are missing, the relationship will not survive long term.

IDGAF Attitude and Abundance Mentality:

In dating: Ability to walk immediately at initial signs of disrespect, or if you as the man are not feeling a connection. You walk confidentially away from the relationship knowing more, and better, women are waiting for you.

In relationships: You always keep your masculine core. You abide by the BIG 3 above, T-C-R. If your female partner wants to leave or the relationship gets to the point of you being unhappy, you can try to fix if you desire, always keeping your masculine core. You NEVER act weak, needy, soft, or negotiate for her love or feelings. If she wants out, GREAT! You're done as quickly as possible and move on with your one and only shot at life. You don't look back. You simply Don't Give a F*uck. You are future-focused and willing to walk away and start a new.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Do you think becoming superior at dating makes a better long term relationship person? Our girlfriend and wives shouldn't be better at disengagement, throwing knuckle balls, curve balls etc to keep us off balance... I dunno.

Yes, it will. The woman will ALWAYS throw tests at you, and frankly be way over emotional sometimes. Heck, they're women after all and no one is perfect. BUT, the key is staying in your masculine core which does take practice. And she will respect you more for it.

 

[sosousage]

I completely disagree. You sound like a woman who's shaming a man. There are plenty of masculine men who get cheated on and left by women. The real problem is not a lack of men "manning up". It's a feminist environment that is completely out of control (low birth rates, high rates of single parent homes and depression/lack of direction in men) that has produced several generations of women who are about as reliable as dirt to keep a commitment to a man. It's got nothing to do with "manning up". I'm surprised you would post something like this.

yeah i dont like that logic "she cheated on you, therefore its your fault you pusy as bich weak beta wimp, MAN UP"


sure if you had better inner or outer game then maybe this wouldnt happen but saying that is wrong.

its putting way too much weight on men shoulders while nothing on women

sure it works - but its fair from fair.


good luck in never ending self improvement loop just to score some half-smart, average looking whorish chicks who agreed to fck you just because you are better (look,behavior,money) than 100s - 1000s of her previous matches.


but dont you leave your watch because one day she will cheat on you if you lose too much of your outstanding quality lol #dreamlife



all that self improvement is adaptation to fuked up by social media and online dating female's world - you further validate them this way. and yeah it works but also requires a lot from you









And I dont think hypergamy gets thrown too much here, its very interesting to know how things work. whether some people limit hypergamy to status,money and education or whether they expand it to also body language,mind, confidence,inner game

 

[AJ84]

I'm with you...there's all that too and obviously you can't keep a woman for 4+yrs if you didn't have those things in the first place. However, how do you explain the aftermath of them jumping ship anyway? They all wanted to come back and one time I really tried because I truly loved f*cking her and could do it for the rest of my life but each time I tried to take her back (without losing my frame) she would jump again, almost like a cat/mouse game 'oh he wants me back...so let me focus on what I can't have' then as soon as I dropped her 'she'd come back just to even get laid' it went on for 3yrs.

In your case, what happened with these guys you said you dated? did they jump ship or you did?

Without knowing the details of your situation with her, all I can say is that if you kept taking her back after she bounced then perhaps she saw you as her back up plan/safety net/ ego booster. You said you liked the sex a lot, some women will use sex to not only get what they want from men but to get away with crappy behaviour. This is because men, I’m sorry to say and I’m being frank here, consistently put up with crap from women because of the sex. It’s a tale as old as time.

And sometimes, even you are doing everything right they still leave. Sometimes it’s a simple as they are not in a place to be in the relationship anymore or despite everything going well, there was no real chemistry. It’s frustrating when you get dumped and you don’t know what the hell happened because it all seemed to be going so well. I’ve been there as I’m sure many others on site have as well.

Sometimes, we when we are really into someone, we fail to see them as who they really are, even when they show us who they are. Love really is blind at times. I think people show us who they really are at some point in the relationship and we at times fail to see it because of rose coloured glasses, then are blindsided when they leave.

As for those guys I dated, I was dumped by one, no idea why lol but likely missed some red flag because I was so into him. I ended it with the second one because he was moving to another province for school and I just couldn’t do the long distance thing, the third I totally sabotaged with my insecurity and he dumped me (rightfully so lol), and the fourth one I married last year.