Women are more Loyal than Men - Challenging Hypergamy

[Ranger]

finds out she’s riding the **** train! Not only that but bad mouthing him to the other 2 dudes she’s screwing.

This “bad mouthing” is her fabricated justification. It’s mostly or completely made up.

Taking care of a woman is a death trap. There has to be a vision built in her head. There has to be a game or the game will be getting you and not in a good way.
Anything she gets that she didn’t work for or contribute to will eventually be resented. Trust me on this one. The “good, responsible, provider”, is hammered dog$hit. There is no bigger lie In This world. You put the challenge on her to produce and earn it.

 

[Spaz]

It’s a man’s job to set the future. He creates the future. In many ways, this is the leadership she’s looking for. Where are you going to take it? Does she even have a future when she sees you?
YOU have to build it in her mind. She doesn’t know how. It’s not part of her biology. She can go be a doctor but there’s that missing element. Vision. Does anyone really think her vision is about being a cat lady or a dog lady?
She’s looking for a man to build a vision in her mind. If a man wants a wife he better make a game for her to see and help you go towards it.

Great post here.

Yes, it has always been about effective leadership.

@LARaiders85 this is what you're lacking, you're a smart fellow, those BPD women will soon dissipate and turn into the women you desire.

Create that world for yourself, if it's good you'll prosper with women wanting to live in it and if it's not or you're unable to materialise it then she'll turn BPD after perhaps a year maybe even less.

 

[Ranger]

Here’s what I see when I look out into the world. This was before I came here.

Women have become idolized and completely backed up by society and the state.
Many of them cook hotdogs for their kids but have a closet full of shoes and a couple of hundred dollars or more worth of makeup near the bathroom sink.

Their game, because there are no men to build one in her head and because the state keeps them from utter failure, they can still get fat on crap food.

So where is the game for her? Where is she being threatened from a dangerous environment? Hell she can beat up her boyfriend and he won’t even raise a hand to defend himself out of fear of going to jail and ruining his life.

Women can’t build a future in their mind. They go buy something to feel better but in a couple of days, she’s right back where she was before.
She can be an executive and still be miserable. There’s no creative vision. That’s where the man comes in. When you really don’t have a vision and she finds out? You are going to get one psycho wench on your hands. You’re the enemy!

 

[Ranger]

Even the nicest, sweetest girls will cheat on their boyfriend if you portray yourself as the "lover" in her life. It adds drama to her life and makes it exciting. Trust me.

Oh that’s a good way to put it brother. This.
That’s what I do. Lol nice.

That secret exciting lover that makes it all better. Someone she can go meet with to have her frustrations fukked out of her. I also make sure she knows that I will never jeopardize her situation. That I would rather walk away than trash her family. This actually seals the deal.

She lives out that secret, lust driven drama. She can’t resist it. Best of both worlds.

 

[Spaz]

Here’s what I see when I look out into the world. This was before I came here.

Women have become idolized and completely backed up by society and the state.
Many of them cook hotdogs for their kids but have a closet full of shoes and a couple of hundred dollars or more worth of makeup near the bathroom sink.

Their game, because there are no men to build one in her head and because the state keeps them from utter failure, they can still get fat on crap food.

So where is the game for her? Where is she being threatened from a dangerous environment? Hell she can beat up her boyfriend and he won’t even raise a hand to defend himself out of fear of going to jail and ruining his life.

Women can’t build a future in their mind. They go buy something to feel better but in a couple of days, she’s right back where she was before.
She can be an executive and still be miserable. There’s no creative vision. That’s where the man comes in. When you really don’t have a vision and she finds out? You are going to get one psycho wench on your hands. You’re the enemy!

Some men will think all those PUA tricks is sustainable in the long run.

Dressing up beautifully ? Best facials ? Best pick up lines ? Best muscle tone ? Best manicure and best pedicures? Best OLD profiles ? Best hair cut ? - behaviours that's tied to femininity.

Just create the best world according to ur worldview - ur version that pulls people in, that's ur sphere of influence. That's how you win women. If women admires it they will learn to mold themselves to fit in with ur leadership - when that's done, respect is there - when that's done then "love" is there - it's then ur version of love not just the basic love that's rooted in women's survival.

This is hard to do but that's what men are built for. Use it. And be greater then before.

 

[Reyaj]

Hypergamy consist of many factor not only position and money.

Doctor overall will often have an advantage but many other factor to take into consideration.

A good example is the Prince Harry thread
https://www.sosuave.net/forum/threa...ow-a-complete-beta.255384/page-3#post-2602944

Well the general idea is that a woman will go for someone with higher status right? There's certainly many cases of this but also many cases of the hot girl going for the dirt bag loser, druggy, or convict. But regardless of either scenario I have found most girls won't stray from a guy they are into for a higher value man. This is actually where I think Des's High Score Theory actually has the most merit in it's description of women's behavior.

A girl that is into an ex convict working at a factory won't just leave him if a good looking doctor becomes interested in her. This is the prime example of what I'm saying.

@Reyaj, you could be right...you could be wrong, as John Lydon once sang.

If by "loyal" you mean a woman is less likely to ride a random c0ck just because the opportunity randomly presented itself, maybe that's true. A lot of men would probably cheat if they knew they'd get away with it, or if the opportunity were thrown at him. Women get c0ck thrown at them 24/7.

But always consider the power of slvt shaming, which when not a deterrent for women is at least a silencer. I've been with women with boyfriends who wouldn't even breathe a word of the fling to their supposed BFFs.

I also believe there is an infidelity spectrum and some girls just reside on the wrong end of it. Yes AWALT but some women are more prone to cheat. My ex cheated with me on her then-BF. I don't doubt she did the same on me. Then again, I wasn't that into her and didn't show much "loyalty."

What was your ex's upbringing like? Are her parents divorced or was she raised by a single parent? Was she a big partier, drinker? Any idea when she lost her virginity or how many guys she's been with? Don't get me wrong there's definitely a lot of women do cheat but from my own experiences it seems like most of the ones brought up in a stable household don't seem to as much.

Cheating aside, it's well known that most divorces are initiated by women. That suggests that women are not as loyal, and that they do not take their commitments as seriously.

It could be that they are simply responding to bad behavior by their men, but that's hardly living up to the "for better or for worse, til death do we part" business, is it?

Most women I've known who are divorced initiated it because of the husband cheating on them, or the husband flat out leaving them for another woman. For what its worth I do agree that a woman should forgive a man for this. This is our natural biology.

Almost every girl I have hooked up with had a boyfriend. Girls would rather stay with a loser boyfriend then be single.

You're 23, not far from college years, partying, etc... You're sample pool is probably much different.

Yes, women cheat more. Typically men invest way more than women into a relationship overall. That sets a different mindset where the man is too invested to cheat.

As well, I’ve been with two women who don’t think kissing and blow jobs count as cheating.

I think you're right as far as the man investing more than the women in scenarios where the woman does cheat. I don't think overall women cheat more than men do though and I don't even think its close!

Men and women are only as faithful as there options, most guys who don't cheat don't have the opportunity to cheat, it's not like they have coochie getting thrown at them 24/7 lol.

For Men I'd agree with this 100% but a lot of women won't entertain the thought of cheating if they are in a stable content relationship regardless of if her suitor is of higher social value so to speak.

It depends on the girl. If a girl is a 7+, between the ages of 18-25, on social media, on dating apps, and goes to clubs and bars.....best believe she is a cheater. You are naive if you think otherwise. I lived in Las Vegas and I have seen girls cheat a week or two before their wedding! Hot chicks with a lot of options will most likely cheat. She is just not cheating with you.

An average chicks with only mediocre options is pretty faithful. So Reyaj I agree with you if the chick is not that hot.

I think Vegas hot girls fall into a completely different category. But throughout just normal areas in the country I think attractive girls with good upbringings don't do this as often as people make it sound. Even girls that aren't that attractive but are above average get plenty of attention...

Attention-seeking and impulsive behaviors, substance use, low self esteem, and troubled childhood. I would imagine those four things would predict quite well whether they'll cheat. Any additions?

A skimpily clothed girl who smokes, likes to get drunk and/or high, is active on social media, has no positive father figure and hungers for validation? the odds are probably higher. On the other hand one of my ex plates didn't really have any of those things except a mild tendency to drink wine and being adopted I suppose, and she told me she'd cheated before, so again you can never draw a hardline. Didn't get to know her very well either though, so can't say if she was hiding things.

One of the most accurate replies, thank you.

 

[zekko]

Or perhaps they have greater incentives in a divorce than what most men have.

Well, women definitely have more incentive divorce, cash and prizes and all that. They are also usually guaranteed to receive more emotional support from friends and family afterwards than a man can look forward to.

I'm not sure that alone explains women's tendency to be less loyal. But the divorce rate is certainly higher now than it was when there were more incentives to stay married (stigma against divorce, fewer career opportunities for women, etc). Which reminds me:

I was watching the Beatles movie A Hard Day's Night the other day. A lyric from the song caught my attention:

"You know I work all day to get you money to buy you things
And it's worth it just to hear you say you're going to give me everything"

I thought wow, SoSuave would definitely say that is beta. But was it really? At the time, there was more balance between the sexes. Women provided children, sexuality, and comfort, while men provided strength, protection, and financial security. That's just the way things worked in those days (and throughout most of history, in fact), men traded material for sex. It wasn't really beta, it was just the way things were.

 

[Spaz]

Well, women definitely have more incentive divorce, cash and prizes and all that. They are also usually guaranteed to receive more emotional support from friends and family afterwards than a man can look forward to.

I'm not sure that alone explains women's tendency to be less loyal. But the divorce rate is certainly higher now than it was when there were more incentives to stay married (stigma against divorce, fewer career opportunities for women, etc). Which reminds me:

I was watching the Beatles movie A Hard Day's Night the other day. A lyric from the song caught my attention:

"You know I work all day to get you money to buy you things
And it's worth it just to hear you say you're going to give me everything"

I thought wow, SoSuave would definitely say that is beta. But was it really? At the time, there was more balance between the sexes. Women provided children, sexuality, and comfort, while men provided strength, protection, and financial security. That's just the way things worked in those days (and throughout most of history, in fact), men traded material for sex. It wasn't really beta, it was just the way things were.

Back in those days it's considered basic, as in one having the basic necessities to survive.

It's not balance as you pointed out per se but more towards lack of options/social restrictions that led towards choosing a partner.

 

[zekko]

It's not balance as you pointed out per se but more towards lack of options/social restrictions that led towards choosing a partner.

I think it was balance, although I suppose some women of the era might disagree with me. Notice today how many men complain about how women have all the options and advantages in the dating game. All the Black Pill, MGTOW stuff, even the basic PUA movement. Women today want to have everything the male has, and with careers open to them they don't really need men in the same way anymore. So they can earn the finances and have the sex appeal inherent in the female.

Women can have a career and make good money, but a man is never going to look good in a bikini.

 

[Spaz]

I think it was balance, although I suppose some women of the era might disagree with me. Notice today how many men complain about how women have all the options and advantages in the dating game. All the Black Pill, MGTOW stuff, even the basic PUA movement. Women today want to have everything the male has, and with careers open to them they don't really need men in the same way anymore. So they can earn the finances and have the sex appeal inherent in the female.

Women can have a career and make good money, but a man is never going to look good in a bikini.

Well we have feminism that's driving tons of women into being single mom's and being old spinsters

 

[guru1000]

Well, women definitely have more incentive divorce, cash and prizes and all that. They are also usually guaranteed to receive more emotional support from friends and family afterwards than a man can look forward to.

I'm not sure that alone explains women's tendency to be less loyal.

Let’s define “less loyal.”

If cheating, women are solicited with more options, so less loyalty accordingly.

If staying in a marriage, most women have greater incentives in a divorce, so less loyalty accordingly.

If staying in a non-marital relation, women are solicited with more options, so less loyalty accordingly.

Yet, there are men whom despite the above weighted disadvantages of less options and less incentives, repeatedly gain the loyalty of women in their relations. Why do you suppose?

Men, Let’s stop pointing outward for a minute and give some thought to this question to best serve YOU.

 

[zekko]

Well we have feminism that's driving tons of women into being single mom's and being old spinsters

Yes, and I would say this is being done partly by driving men out of the marriage game, which is partly because the male/female dynamic has become imbalanced.

Yet, there are men whom despite the above weighted disadvantages of less options and less incentives, repeatedly gain the loyalty of women in their relations. Why do you suppose?

I was speaking generally. You can't really make sweeping statements about an entire gender without speaking in general terms. Obviously higher value men will command more loyalty from women (in general) because there are fewer higher branches to swing to. And obviously some women will tend to be more loyal than others. Some men will be more discerning at finding those "more loyal" women, some men will make it a priority to find those "more loyal" women, and some men will not.

 

[guru1000]

I was speaking generally. You can't really make sweeping statements about an entire gender without speaking in general terms. Obviously higher value men will command more loyalty from women (in general) because there are fewer higher branches to swing to. And obviously some women will tend to be more loyal than others. Some men will be more discerning at finding those "more loyal" women, some men will make it a priority to find those "more loyal" women, and some men will not.

The answer to my question goes beyond his value and screening, and deals more with frame.

How can a man’s frame shape a women to such a degree that Hypergamy (for her) is dead?

 

[zekko]

How can a man’s frame shape a women to such a degree that Hypergamy (for her) is dead?

I'd say you need both frame and value to maximize your results. It's more difficult to manipulate a man who knows his self worth, and such a man will be more respected.

But I am well on record here as believing there is no way to completely guarantee loyalty from a woman, I don't care how "alpha" you are, how high your SMV, or how solid your frame. Like I said, you can maximize your results.

 

[BeTheChange]

Btw for the record, never cheated on a girl where exclusivity had been agreed on.

But it’s not in most girls’ best interest to be exclusive with me, the “asking price” to such a surrender is very high.

Can you elaborate on this guru?

I'm in a delicate situation where I've been seeing a girl for three months now. It's likely she'll press for exclusivity at some point. Although she's fine for plate status (solid HB7/7.5), she isn't quite hot enough for the girlfriend title (HB8+). She's already explicitly stated she would "leave" if I were dating other women, meaning I've had to revert to covertly pursuing other options.

If we continue as we have been with no explicit conversation then it's likely she will still assume monogamy by this point.

 

[Ranger]

Well, women definitely have more incentive divorce, cash and prizes and all that. They are also usually guaranteed to receive more emotional support from friends and family afterwards than a man can look forward to.

I'm not sure that alone explains women's tendency to be less loyal. But the divorce rate is certainly higher now than it was when there were more incentives to stay married (stigma against divorce, fewer career opportunities for women, etc). Which reminds me:

I was watching the Beatles movie A Hard Day's Night the other day. A lyric from the song caught my attention:

"You know I work all day to get you money to buy you things
And it's worth it just to hear you say you're going to give me everything"

I thought wow, SoSuave would definitely say that is beta. But was it really? At the time, there was more balance between the sexes. Women provided children, sexuality, and comfort, while men provided strength, protection, and financial security. That's just the way things worked in those days (and throughout most of history, in fact), men traded material for sex. It wasn't really beta, it was just the way things were.

Have you read about the divorces of the Beatles?

 

[guru1000]

Can you elaborate on this guru?

I'm in a delicate situation where I've been seeing a girl for three months now. It's likely she'll press for exclusivity at some point. Although she's fine for plate status (solid HB7/7.5), she isn't quite hot enough for the girlfriend title (HB8+). She's already explicitly stated she would "leave" if I were dating other women, meaning I've had to revert to covertly pursuing other options.

If we continue as we have been with no explicit conversation then it's likely she will still assume monogamy by this point.

Exclusivity is a great sacrifice that must be discussed and agreed on by both parties,not freely given or assumed to be.

Greater question: what’s your motive to keep her around? If you’re unsure to the extent that there is a possibility that she might grow on you, that’s perfectly fine. But if you keeping her as a placeholder with no intent for exclusivity (given that’s what she thinks or desires), dismiss her. In the latter, you’re not a needy guy grasping at straws to assuage such a neediness. The irony is the act of dismissal is powerful, and can lengthen non exclusivity relations further, but this is not why you dismiss.

I recently had a similar scenario where the girl attempted to hold sex in abeyance unless I agreed to exclusivity. I dismissed her. Now the terms have magically changed.

 

[guru1000]

I'd say you need both frame and value to maximize your results.

One of the same. I created a thread a while back called FRAME, where it was discussed that establishing “the” (as opposed to “your”) frame at its most fundamental and underlying level, is demonstrating an unequivocal perceived higher value than her own.

But I am well on record here as believing there is no way to completely guarantee loyalty from a woman, I don't care how "alpha" you are, how high your SMV, or how solid your frame. Like I said, you can maximize your results.

The man who seeks perfection (guarantees) in fallibility (human behavior) is a fool.

 

[zekko]

Have you read about the divorces of the Beatles?

I know quite a bit about the Beatles. I'm assuming you have some point to make? Are you trying to say the Beatles were all Betas because of their divorces? Even if that were true, it doesn't refute the point I made about those lyrics.

I'm really not all that interested in labeling people, but John Lennon left his first wife to be with Yoko Ono, and she received a paltry settlement, so I don't see what's so "beta" about that. There's also a well known story about Lennon being at a party and banging a girl in the bedroom while his wife was forced to listen to the sounds along with the rest of the party. This led to the temporary split between them, with Yoko assigning her secretary to act as his concubine basically, until they got back together. Japanese culture is different than ours, clearly.

Paul McCartney's first marriage sounded like it was about as good a marriage as there can be, and it only ended because of her death from breast cancer. Unfortunately, I think because of that successful marriage, he thought his future efforts in that area were going to be as successful. And his second wife, Heather Mills, got a huge settlement from him in the divorce. However, it was less than 1/16th of his fortune. If you check out this link, you will see that the judge settled more closely with what he wanted than with what she wanted:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ey-divorce-settlement-with-Heather-Mills.html

Maybe you're referring to George Harrison's first wife, Patty? George's close friend Eric Clapton fell in love with her. From what I've read on the subject, which included Patty's autobiography, George was banging other women and when Eric said he loved his wife, George just sort of "gave" her to him (how's that for a friend lol). She was reportedly angry that he didn't fight for her. So it sounds like it's far from simply a cuckold situation.

Ringo Starr and his first wife Maureen divorced after 10 years of marriage, he said it was because of his alcoholism and domestic abuse. He's been married to his second wife Barbara Bach for over 35 years.

 

[Ranger]

I know quite a bit about the Beatles. I'm assuming you have some point to make? Are you trying to say the Beatles were all Betas because of their divorces? Even if that were true, it doesn't refute the point I made about those lyrics.

I'm really not all that interested in labeling people, but John Lennon left his first wife to be with Yoko Ono, and she received a paltry settlement, so I don't see what's so "beta" about that. There's also a well known story about Lennon being at a party and banging a girl in the bedroom while his wife was forced to listen to the sounds along with the rest of the party. This led to the temporary split between them, with Yoko assigning her secretary to act as his concubine basically, until they got back together. Japanese culture is different than ours, clearly.

Paul McCartney's first marriage sounded like it was about as good a marriage as there can be, and it only ended because of her death from breast cancer. Unfortunately, I think because of that successful marriage, he thought his future efforts in that area were going to be as successful. And his second wife, Heather Mills, got a huge settlement from him in the divorce. However, it was less than 1/16th of his fortune. If you check out this link, you will see that the judge settled more closely with what he wanted than with what she wanted:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...ey-divorce-settlement-with-Heather-Mills.html

Maybe you're referring to George Harrison's first wife, Patty? George's close friend Eric Clapton fell in love with her. From what I've read on the subject, which included Patty's autobiography, George was banging other women and when Eric said he loved his wife, George just sort of "gave" her to him (how's that for a friend lol). She was reportedly angry that he didn't fight for her. So it sounds like it's far from simply a cuckold situation.

Ringo Starr and his first wife Maureen divorced after 10 years of marriage, he said it was because of his alcoholism and domestic abuse. He's been married to his second wife Barbara Bach for over 35 years.

Well that was silly. I’m not saying they are betas or anything else. The point was the women. One even moved up to Eric Clapton when the fame faded.