Women love opportunistically ; men love idealistically

[xuzaki]

"Women love opportunistically ; men love idealistically". I see this all over the place. But don't both men and women love opportunistically?

Here's where I'm coming from:
- women are attracted to males with certain qualities (good genes, status, protection, providing, etc) and can ditch a guy who loses those
- men are attracted to females with certain qualities (youth, cooking, good behavior, hot body, etc) and can ditch a girl who loses those

This is basically what Roissy writes in his post called Love: "A man loves a woman until she gains 50 pounds. A woman loves a man until he loses his job and goes unemployed for months on end."

What does 'idealistic love' even mean? My gut tells me that either there's a fundamental truth I haven't yet understood, or this is men self-analyzing as a bit more morally virtuous than we are.

 

[darksprezzatura]

I recall a time that my straightforward honesty and showing my cards right off the bat was the core of my integrity.

I used to date with a raw, honest yet naive passion, unknown of the dangers of the heart.

Now I know better, keep my cards close, guard up and omit truths.


I think the next stage would be a raw, honest and wise sort of passion, someone willing to be vulnerable knowing there's danger.

I doubt women go through such stages.

 

[Bigpapa]

Yes they do.

I think that guy would still stay with a woman even though she is not that attractive anymore , or is b1tchy , because guys look at love idealistically

also a woman would stay with a guy if he is going through a rough patch , but only because she is not having better suitors , thus women have an opportunistic way of approaching love

sure you will have also some vice versa people , guys leaving women because they are now fat , or women who will stay with guys hitting a rough patch , but this is not really the normal

as a summary , it is more likely that a woman to leave if the guy is not doing well , than a guy to leave a woman because she is not doing well

 

[CoandaEffect]

You need to read The Rational Male. Rollo explains it best and there’s no point trying to explain it in detail here.

But basically women do not date down, they need to see an opportunity to improve themselves by getting with a man. He has to be of higher status, better job, larger salary than her. That way, on average, she will be getting a boost from him.

Put simply a male cardiologist would think nothing of getting with a checkout girl from the grocery store as long as he fell in love with her (idealistic love). But no female cardiologist is going to date a plumber (no opportunity for her to improve her standing in life)

Hope I summed it up. Like I say, read TRM.

 

[Mike32ct]

I think the point is that romantic love is largely a male construct. It’s not really a female thing.

Or put another way, for the most part, only some men can be blue pill. Women are generally hardwired somewhere on the red to black pill spectrum.

Why do none of us preach/recommend romantic stuff on here while interacting with women? Because we all know the chick would cringe. I rest my case.

 

[DSterlen]

I think “comparatively” would be a better term for women. It’s you compared to the next guy, is it not?

 

[oldmanofthesea]

Put simply a male cardiologist would think nothing of getting with a checkout girl from the grocery store as long as he fell in love with her (idealistic love). But no female cardiologist is going to date a plumber (no opportunity for her to improve her standing in life)

I agree with your summary but disagree with the example. If the plumber was really attractive and a bad-boy and she thought having him on her arm would make her look good in her social circle, he would improve her standing in life so she would go for him. But I am still really just proving your point that women are looking for that opportunity to improve her standing - it's just that standing is not limited to financials. It could be social standing. So she could date a starving artist, or a poor but popular local musician, or a poor male model, or a poor MMA fighter. Whereas a man develops feelings for a woman who he is attracted to and enjoys spending time with and gets along with, which is his idea of love. He wants the sex and companionship and (usually) the female validation. That's it. He isn't looking for her to improve his standing in life - only provide the companionship experience which is idealistic, not opportunistic.

Where people get this wrong is saying that because a man might break up with a woman for getting fat and letting herself go, then he too is opportunistic. No, he is idealistic and part of that idealism is to be with a woman he is physically attracted to and emotionally connected to. If she lets herself go and loses her looks then she is no longer the same woman he originally chose to be with - she has removed one of the key qualities he wants and needs which is physical attraction. So she is no longer providing the same thing. Idealistic love doesn't mean emotion only and no physical, or that physical attraction can be present based exclusively on emotional connection. Men just aren't biologically programmed that way, but women CAN be physically attracted to men based mostly on emotional connection.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

I agree with your summary but disagree with the example. If the plumber was really attractive and a bad-boy and she thought having him on her arm would make her look good in her social circle, he would improve her standing in life so she would go for him. But I am still really just proving your point that women are looking for that opportunity to improve her standing - it's just that standing is not limited to financials. It could be social standing. So she could date a starving artist, or a poor but popular local musician, or a poor male model, or a poor MMA fighter. Whereas a man develops feelings for a woman who he is attracted to and enjoys spending time with and gets along with, which is his idea of love. He wants the sex and companionship and (usually) the female validation. That's it. He isn't looking for her to improve his standing in life - only provide the companionship experience which is idealistic, not opportunistic.

Where people get this wrong is saying that because a man might break up with a woman for getting fat and letting herself go, then he too is opportunistic. No, he is idealistic and part of that idealism is to be with a woman he is physically attracted to and emotionally connected to. If she lets herself go and loses her looks then she is no longer the same woman he originally chose to be with - she has removed one of the key qualities he wants and needs which is physical attraction. So she is no longer providing the same thing. Idealistic love doesn't mean emotion only and no physical, or that physical attraction can be present based exclusively on emotional connection. Men just aren't biologically programmed that way, but women CAN be physically attracted to men based mostly on emotional connection.

In this case of bad boy plumber it wouldn't raise a female cardiologist social status because she values doctors, lawyers and business men.

 

[oldmanofthesea]

In this case of bad boy plumber it wouldn't raise a female cardiologist social status because she values doctors, lawyers and business men.

Then why did Britney Spears get with Kevin Federline? She was a massive star, worth millions. He was a no-name backup dancer, and near as I can tell, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[Bigpapa]

In this case of bad boy plumber it wouldn't raise a female cardiologist social status because she values doctors, lawyers and business men.

If he gives her something that she does not have , like the feeling of being alive , she would date him , till he will not make her feel alive

 

[mrgoodstuff]

If he gives her something that she does not have , like the feeling of being alive , she would date him , till he will not make her feel alive

She would fvck him and enjoy it. She just wouldn't be able to use him as a status symbol in her circles.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Then why did Britney Spears get with Kevin Federline? She was a massive star, worth millions. He was a no-name backup dancer, and near as I can tell, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Women get hooked on hoes too.

 

[Mike32ct]

That’s where “hypergamy” is kind of fuzzy.

Sometimes the guy is lower on the money and status totem pole than the chick. His aesthetic looks might even be questionable relative to hers. But somehow his look TYPE really turns her on e.g. a bad boy look.

Is he truly “higher value” or “superior” to her in that case? Rhetorical question.

I would say not necessarily. But if she’s attracted, it’s a moot point.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

That’s where “hypergamy” is kind of fuzzy.

Sometimes the guy is lower on the money and status totem pole than the chick. His aesthetic looks might even be questionable relative to hers. But somehow his look TYPE really turns her on e.g. a bad boy look.

Is he truly “higher value” or “superior” to her in that case? Rhetorical question.

I would say not necessarily. But if she’s attracted, it’s a moot point.

If he turns her on he turns her on. Its that simple.

 

[Mike32ct]

If he turns her on he turns her on. Its that simple.

Exactly.

 

[christie]

I agree with your summary but disagree with the example. If the plumber was really attractive and a bad-boy and she thought having him on her arm would make her look good in her social circle, he would improve her standing in life so she would go for him. But I am still really just proving your point that women are looking for that opportunity to improve her standing - it's just that standing is not limited to financials. It could be social standing. So she could date a starving artist, or a poor but popular local musician, or a poor male model, or a poor MMA fighter. Whereas a man develops feelings for a woman who he is attracted to and enjoys spending time with and gets along with, which is his idea of love. He wants the sex and companionship and (usually) the female validation. That's it. He isn't looking for her to improve his standing in life - only provide the companionship experience which is idealistic, not opportunistic.

Where people get this wrong is saying that because a man might break up with a woman for getting fat and letting herself go, then he too is opportunistic. No, he is idealistic and part of that idealism is to be with a woman he is physically attracted to and emotionally connected to. If she lets herself go and loses her looks then she is no longer the same woman he originally chose to be with - she has removed one of the key qualities he wants and needs which is physical attraction. So she is no longer providing the same thing. Idealistic love doesn't mean emotion only and no physical, or that physical attraction can be present based exclusively on emotional connection. Men just aren't biologically programmed that way, but women CAN be physically attracted to men based mostly on emotional connection.

I believe it to be true that physical attraction cannot be present based exclusively on emotional connection for men. Which is why a man physically cheating is not necessarily emotionally cheating or attached to the other woman.

Sex choice for men is not idealistic, only love is.

 

[Bigpapa]

Then why did Britney Spears get with Kevin Federline? She was a massive star, worth millions. He was a no-name backup dancer, and near as I can tell, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Kevin Federline was a very good looking guy with a bad boy attitude

Britney Spears was a girl that here parents were very strict and did not enjoy childhood properly

she just liked the dush attitude

 

[christie]

I believe it to be true that physical attraction cannot be present based exclusively on emotional connection for men. Which is why a man physically cheating is not necessarily emotionally cheating or attached to the other woman.

Sex choice for men is not idealistic, only love is.

its weird too, that men aren't idealistic about sex because a choice to combine sperm with egg should be so carefully screened and studied and well thought out but its like there's no thought given to what type of combined human is about to be conceived.
It is the most boggling, mindblowing thing for me that men aren't selective for anything besides physical attraction. Physical attractiveness doesn't mean jack for mental and emotional intelligence in the female's genes. Seems careless. Desperate.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

You need to read The Rational Male. Rollo explains it best and there’s no point trying to explain it in detail here.

But basically women do not date down, they need to see an opportunity to improve themselves by getting with a man. He has to be of higher status, better job, larger salary than her. That way, on average, she will be getting a boost from him.

Put simply a male cardiologist would think nothing of getting with a checkout girl from the grocery store as long as he fell in love with her (idealistic love). But no female cardiologist is going to date a plumber (no opportunity for her to improve her standing in life)

Hope I summed it up. Like I say, read TRM.

One of the most forgot about things with women is they want a guy that makes them feel awesome when they are with him. If you can make a woman feel like that there are very few guys you are competing with.

 

[xuzaki]

I think that guy would still stay with a woman even though she is not that attractive anymore , or is b1tchy , because guys look at love idealistically

I agree that a guy would be more likely to stay, though I think the reason is largely a mixture of blue-pill conditioning and a scarcity mentality. The question still remains, what does 'idealistically' mean here?

You need to read The Rational Male.

First off, awesome suggestion. Rollo is among my favorite authors of all time. I've read all his books and his blog, and know this relates to Iron Rule #6 as well as his articles Men in Love (2012) and Women in Love (2011). However this remains one (of a VERY small list of things) that I'm not sure I agree with Rollo on.

I think “comparatively” would be a better term for women. It’s you compared to the next guy, is it not?

I'd argue that the comparison effect is not gender specific. Most guys would date a 5 if she was the hottest girl on the planet, or turn down a 9 while swimming in a pool of 10s.

That’s where “hypergamy” is kind of fuzzy.

About the example of a male plumber with a female cardiologist, or a pool boy with a female millionaire, etc, I think it's just an example of the female dual-mating strategy. The plumber obviously isn't triggering her Beta Bucks attraction, but can trigger her Alpha Fvcks side. No paradoxes here. He's a likely choice for infidelity when she's ovulating. She'll still like to date Jeff Bezos, but will find herself having sex with him more at times when she's not fertile.

It is the most boggling, mindblowing thing for me that men aren't selective for anything besides physical attraction.

Robert Trivers puts forth the theory that since males don't need to invest as much in having a child, they evolved to be less discerning in who they will mate with (see The Selfish Gene or The Red Queen).

If she lets herself go and loses her looks then she is no longer the same woman he originally chose to be with - she has removed one of the key qualities he wants and needs which is physical attraction. So she is no longer providing the same thing. Idealistic love doesn't mean emotion only and no physical, or that physical attraction can be present based exclusively on emotional connection. Men just aren't biologically programmed that way, but women CAN be physically attracted to men based mostly on emotional connection.

I agree with what you've written. And if this is what Rollo means, then dropping the terms 'idealistic' and 'opportunistic' would make it less confusing. Because it seems to be saying "both men and women are based on what they get from the other person, but each gender has entirely different qualities/opportunities they seek from the other person".

The part that boggles me is that I'm a guy and I wouldn't say that I love idealistically. Whenever I felt what I think people mean by "idealistic love", it seems to have actually stemmed from (1) blue-pill conditioning, and (2) scarcity mentality. Maybe I'm just abnormal, but if not, then it makes sense to continue ironing out what 'idealistic love' and 'opportunistic love' even mean.