How some women “commit” in an LTR

[Augustus_McCrae]

Let's rehash:




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guru strutting around like a peacock again. I’m so shocked. Shocked I tell you!

And... he flexed his vocabulary bicep while doing it. I’m sure he was shirtless at the time, chest veins displayed in all their glory.

Is there nothing this god like guru of a man can’t do?

-Augustus-

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

women have NEVER been known to bond/mate for life with one guy.

I agreed with most of what you are saying, but this is something that I do disagree with. Think of the idea of a soulmate. Soulmates aren’t for men, it’s for women. Men don’t have soulmates, women do. It just got reveresed the last 20 years or so, so that now men supposedly do. But that in and of itself means that the man is not in the leading position anymore, which is NOT the natural position of the man. This is why only women have soulmates. A lot of times couples who have been married for a long time, one of the spouses pass away. Well shortly after, the other spouse dies too. Someone on here posted a link to a study a while ago that showed that something like 80% - 90% of the time that happened, it was women who died AFTER. I believe it was Desdinova, but I could be mistaken.

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

Then how does one do this? I have my own ideas personally, but I believe that yours are too rigid and absolute which we know to never be the case with women. I believe that the more d!cks a woman has had in her life that the less likely she is to “only have eyes for you”. But what’s your opinion?

As long as you are meeting all her baseline needs in a committed relation, most women are not going to trade up to a guy of greater financial resources/status.

Disagree. Someone who shows interest and meets her baseline needs better (however that ‘better’ is done) will win her over. It’s pretty simple. guru1000 might satisfy Sara completely, so she isn’t even looking at anyone else. But guru2000 comes along, and he’s twice the man that you are; he does everything like you, but just better. He shows interest and grabs her attention. Without meaning to, now she’s hooked onto him. You did nothing wrong. But guru2000 just did what you did BETTER, and showed that he was willing to take her up.

You mean to tell me that if you get with a woman who weighs 115lbs and while she is with you she gains weight to end up weighing 300lbs (or whatever threshold you personally find intolerable and grounds for dumping her) you are going to stay with her and love her just the way she is rather than dump her for another woman who values keeping fit? Let's not kid ourselves here.

There was a time where all of the men here WOULD stay with her. If another better woman literally threw herself in our laps, then we’d leave the 300 lb fatty, but otherwise, many would still hold true. BE you may not value this because you are a woman, but LOYALTY is so strongly engrained in men that we will die for a cause more willingly and more often than women will die for even their kids. Nowadays everything has gone to crap so everyone is a snake, but there are still many men out there still like that. You are right about a man with self-respect wanting to leave a woman, but you forget something important. A very important male virtue is loyalty. Any man with strong pride and a lot of dignity will stay true to himself and will continue to uphold his personal integrity. Yes, that means to stay true to your woman because he values loyalty.

Things here are different though. The red pill taught us that not only do women NOT value loyalty like us, but that they are oftentimes abusing us as well. That 300 lb fatass? She didn’t just change her appearance. She changed her attitude and overall likeability. That 115 lb girl we got with originally is not the same as the 300 lb girl she turned into. The red pill taught us that. But if she stayed sweet and caring and even better, many would still overlook what she turned into. Desdinova has a girlfriend who isn’t even that hot by his definition, but because she tried so hard for him and still does, he agreed to be with her and they’ve never had any problems. Talk about loyalty. You do not find this in women. Rather, you get sexual harassment cases and restraining orders. Understand that many men have a strong sense of loyalty that is only undermined by society and what it has done to all of us. Don’t force your own inclinations onto the men on here because as you know, we ARE different.

 

[BeExcellent]

There exist loyal women. And there exist women who will partner with a man for life no matter what.

Some women, like my mother-in-law are so fiercely loyal that even after losing her husband to death in her 30s....she never entertained dating another man after she lost her late husband (to whom she gave her virginity on her wedding night.). No one could ever compete with him in her mind, she had her children & she found meaning mentoring young people for decades after he died.

So this idea that women are incapable of loyalty is untrue. Motherhood is all about love & loyalty.

And yes I do realize that many married men will stay with a woman who goes from 115 to 300 lbs. Lots of women stay in marriages where the man lets himself go as well.

Be that wasn't the subject. The subject is mate selection while dating. Thats different than staying together once you've taken vows. Entirely different.

 

[guru1000]

]Then how does one do this? I have my own ideas personally, but I believe that yours are too rigid and absolute which we know to never be the case with women. I believe that the more d!cks a woman has had in her life that the less likely she is to “only have eyes for you”. But what’s your opinion?

Meeting all her needs = Only eyes for you

Hence, when her needs are met, hypergamy is dead

... irrespective of her mileage.

Disagree. Someone who shows interest and meets her baseline needs better (however that ‘better’ is done) will win her over. It’s pretty simple. guru1000 might satisfy Sara completely, so she isn’t even looking at anyone else. But guru2000 comes along, and he’s twice the man that you are; he does everything like you, but just better. He shows interest and grabs her attention. Without meaning to, now she’s hooked onto him. You did nothing wrong. But guru2000 just did what you did BETTER, and showed that he was willing to take her up.

Meeting her needs = Binary (did/did not), not linear.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Meeting all her needs = Only eyes for you

Hence, when her needs are met, hypergamy is dead

... irrespective of her mileage.


Meeting her needs = Binary (did/did not), not linear.

Then this is where we can agree to disagree.

 

[MatureDJ]

[there is a small moment during pair bonding (aka honeymoonphase) where women only have eyes for you, but hypergamy is never dead.

In an earlier era, women knew that their ability to take advantage of hypergamy dropped drastically after having children. Of course these days, there are enough thirsty betas that will date and even marry single mommies so long as they are decently hot enough, so a lot of women think that they can pick up a husband at whatever stage of life they happen to be at.

 

[MatureDJ]

Hypergamy defined:

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

I don't agree with this definition. The securing of a cuckold dad (whether via stealth or via not dating nerds until after becoming a single mommy) is simply a means to an end in caring for the actual goal of hypergamy: the fertilization of the ovum by an alpha's sp3rm.

 

[The Duke]

@BeExcellent There exist loyal women. And there exist women who will partner with a man for life no matter what.

Some women, like my mother-in-law are so fiercely loyal that even after losing her husband to death in her 30s....she never entertained dating another man after she lost her late husband (to whom she gave her virginity on her wedding night.). No one could ever compete with him in her mind, she had her children & she found meaning mentoring young people for decades after he died. This is 2017, not 1965! This stuff doesn't happen these days like it did years ago.

So this idea that women are incapable of loyalty is untrue. Motherhood is all about love & loyalty. Motherhood might be, but I thought we were talking about "wifehood"!???? When you take away sanctions we used to have in place to keep women in check, they give into their emotions and make bad decisions compromising loyalty and honor more often than not. No doubt there is a very small few that don't, but I have witnessed first hand what the general female population does many times. How many females have you dated? How many times have you had a girl come onto you because she was mad at her boyfriend. I've had two in the past 2months and I wasn't even trying. One I fingered within 2hrs of meeting her, the other I made out with and she tried to get me to go to her apartment. Both of these girls were in committed relationships and ran in the same social circle I was in. I can keep providing examples.

And yes I do realize that many married men will stay with a woman who goes from 115 to 300 lbs. Lots of women stay in marriages where the man lets himself go as well. You left your husband because you deemed him not ambitious enough. He let himself go in the mentally ambitious department and you didn't stay and put your childrens lives in jeopardy. Just reminding you of that. That's not exactly loyal in my book. You could have stayed. It wasn't like you were being abused and didn't have a pot to piss in.

Be that wasn't the subject. The subject is mate selection while dating. Thats different than staying together once you've taken vows. Entirely different.

 

[guru1000]

@BeExcellent No doubt there is a very small few that don't, but I have witnessed first hand what the general female population does many times. How many females have you dated? How many times have you had a girl come onto you because she was mad at her boyfriend. I've had two in the past 2months and I wasn't even trying. One I fingered within 2hrs of meeting her, the other I made out with and she tried to get me to go to her apartment. Both of these girls were in committed relationships and ran in the same social circle I was in. I can keep providing examples.

50-60% of women will cheat/stray. And where do you think the men of these women end up? Here.

This is a real percentage based on my experience. I've met many girls who absolutely adored me, who, while in exclusive relations, would not hang out with me.

Having met a couple that tried to cheat on their bf with you means nothing to the overall percentage of women that will. Simple selection bias.

Red Pill = Truth

There is no truth in much of what many of here parrot.

 

[The Duke]

50-60% of women will cheat/stray. And where do you think the men of these women end up? Here.

This is a real percentage based on my experience. I've met many girls who absolutely adored me, who, while in exclusive relations, would not hang out with me.

Having met a couple that tried to cheat on their bf with you means nothing to the overall percentage of women that will. Simple selection bias.

Red Pill = Truth

There is no truth in much of what many of here parrot.

You can make that claim as you wish. But what have you based your claim on? Sounds exactly like what you accused me of......selection bias!
"I've met many girls who absolutely adored me, who, while in exclusive relations, would not hang out with me.

How do you like the taste of that buddy? Late night maybe? RED PILL = TRUTH
hahahahha

 

[The Duke]

Don't forget women are highly irrational and emotional creatures. You can't predict 100% of their behavior with any of these theories. lol. come on guys.

Its about like trying to predict what the stock market and price of oil will do.

 

[guru1000]

You can make that claim as you wish. But what have you based your claim on? Sounds exactly like what you accused me of......selection bias!
"I've met many girls who absolutely adored me, who, while in exclusive relations, would not hang out with me.

How do you like the taste of that buddy? Late night maybe? RED PILL = TRUTH
hahahahha

Selection bias is looking at a sample selection. My 50-60% is based on the overall: women who did cheat and women who did not.

 

[guru1000]

Don't forget women are highly irrational and emotional creatures. You can't predict 100% of their behavior with any of these theories. lol. come on guys.

Its about like trying to predict what the stock market and price of oil will do.

Yet women are incarcerated for breaking laws in less percentages than men. Women know exactly what they are doing guised under “uncontrollable emotions.”

Don’t succumb to this artful machinational construct of “emotion.” Hold women accountable as they should be held.

 

[BeExcellent]

You left your husband because you deemed him not ambitious enough. He let himself go in the mentally ambitious department and you didn't stay and put your childrens lives in jeopardy. Just reminding you of that. That's not exactly loyal in my book. You could have stayed. It wasn't like you were being abused and didn't have a pot to piss in.

Taking a cheap shot at me has no bearing on the FACT that loyal women do in fact exist here in 2017 Howie. But since you took the cheap shot I shall explain for the reader (who likely hasn't read my story in the other places on SS where it exists.)

Wrong. He let himself go in ALL departments Howie. He became fat, lazy, depressed, failed to open mail (including bills, notices, credit card statements etc. for months), failed to wash dishes, failed to do or fold laundry, failed to clean and failed to pay the household bills which resulted in the utilities being regularly cut off (which then incurred reinstatement fees, got the heat cut off in winter, the AC cut off in summer - and me being on a business trip somewhere dealing with whatever crisis his procrastination and failures had created out of the clear blue. He failed (as one example) to pay a credit card bill of mine for 5 months and then purposely did not tell me it wasn't paid (he knew I would be p*ssed about it). This stunt ruined my credit for 8 years. My mistake was in trusting him to take care of things. He didn't. Thank God I made enough money that nobody ever cared about my credit...but this was going on while I was trying to get my real estate holdings established. Looking back it's incredible what I was able to do while carrying everything on my own without much help beyond the kids being fed and safe.

I found out he hadn't paid the bill when the collections people started calling my cell (they had been calling the house unbeknownst to me for months). I immediately paid it in full, but the damage was already done. Know what? If he had simply done the laundry, opened the mail, paid the bills, and done the dishes and had the household in some semblance of order I would have stayed because I was perfectly capable of carrying the financial load. I did it for years and frankly STILL do it. My children were never in physical danger, don't be ridiculous.

It was stupid because money was never the issue. I made plenty of money. He couldn't organize his way out of a paper bag. All I needed to know was how much money do you need and how much are the bills. Whatever the figure, I cut him a check. I was very generous. If he wanted a grill, I bought it, if he wanted most anything else, I bought it for him. He never knew how much money he needed because he couldn't be bothered to open the bills and read them.

And yes, this was a complete 180 from how he presented himself before the marriage and before his business fell apart. I offered to pay for counseling sessions (he was depressed but in denial about it)...I did everything I could to help him get up. He wouldn't.

All my husband had to do was care for the kids and handle the household to a reasonable degree. Had he simply done this, we would still be married. That was all I asked once the income creation fell to me.

While he was acting like a loser in all ways, he was also starting fights if I said anything at all about the state of the household if I mentioned anything about it being unsatisfactory. He was like "I'm a slob, too bad. The house is a pigsty, too bad. This is how it is...deal with it."

And I was like "Oh HELL no" after a while. I could only be 1/2 of the marriage. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. After years dealing with it I chose to STOP the insanity. Best. Decision. Ever.

In addition to the "ambition" issue you cite, I divorced largely because I was not going to condone his filthy habits (which emerged AFTER I married him) and I did not want my children to think those habits are OK. I was not OK with my son growing up learning from his father (with my implicit agreement - because staying married is CONDONING the behavior) that he should live like a slob and expect a woman to take care of his every need...no need to work, no need to make good grades, just be a loser like dad, and find yourself a woman to mooch off of...Wrong message.

And I did not want my daughters growing up thinking they are supposed to sacrifice everything, give up motherhood (as I largely had to) to support a loser dude. Wrong message.

I divorced on principle. My ex husband refused to participate in the partnership and did the absolute bare minimum (at times less). That is complete disloyalty to the marriage. Meanwhile I never denied him sex or things or money. Why should I remain loyal when he has zero interest in being loyal within the relationship? Loyalty is more than just sex. A marriage is a partnership.

So it was FAR more than ambition Howie. I got to the point where I realized that me doing everything (working in a career that required weekly travel) to fully support the family as the sole breadwinner, and then coming home to a disgusting disaster that I was left to clean, organize and deal with every time I came home (and the sh1tty attitude that went with it) and so I left the marriage after dealing with this for years. I was exhausted and I was tired of killing myself while my ex husband was wallowing in the relative ease and comfort of the marriage.

He can't wallow anymore. He actually has to work, to be responsible in the other aspects of his life. He is still unambitious. But no more do I have to be on the receiving end of the results of all his laziness. And to be honest he's had to improve himself since I split from him. He's lost 40+ lbs, he's in much better physical shape, he's happier and gets out and has friends and so forth. We get along 100x better. He has had to re-engage as an adult. It's been positive for everyone, and my respect level has increased toward him. He agrees the divorce has been a positive thing in his life journey. He didn't like who he had become and wasn't able (in his mind) to change it.

Interestingly my children see the enormous difference between the two of us now. My son is ambitious but does tend toward his father's habit of procrastination (remember this is a habit he grew up around for YEARS). He has gotten unfavorable results (sub-par grades) as a result of poor habits. Fortunately he is young enough that he is seeing how his own poor habits result in failure to accomplish his goals. He got a "C" in a junior level math class his freshman year for one semester. He was smart enough to get into the junior level math class (Good) but he didn't do the homework consistently (Bad) and his grades reflected that. He has already shot his chances of going to Cal Tech or MIT which was where he originally wanted to go to college. I have explained to him repeatedly that only the kids whose grades are TOP FLIGHT get considered for those schools. By failing to perform he knocked himself out of consideration. My son eliminated that opportunity from his reach. This is important for him to learn (and the girls too, but they are not yet in high school where grades have such impact on future opportunities.)

I have said to my kids numerous times that life is about results as well as relationships and that we are all products of the people we associate with and the habits we establish. If I were to espouse those things while still married to my ex husband I would have ZERO credibility with my kids. None whatsoever. They look at what I DO, not at what I say. They see the difference between how I conduct my life and how my ex husband conducts his. I do not need to explain it or say a word. It speaks volumes all by itself.

I know personally plenty of married women who are loyal including most members of my own family. I know women like this in their 20s, their 30s, their 40s, their 50s and on up into the 80s and 90s. So yes these women exist. Even in 2017.

 

[guru1000]

BE, at the end, your ex failed to meet your needs, so he got the boot.

You mentioned in another thread (and I'll paraphrase) that at one time during the marriage, "You had eyes only for him and thus even more affluent men who solicited you could not grab your attention," which I understand to mean ... at that particular time, your ex was meeting your needs and thus you were no longer "available" to the outside, despite the myriad high offers. Fair assessment?

 

[sazc]

Taking a cheap shot at me has no bearing on the FACT that loyal women do in fact exist here in 2017 Howie. But since you took the cheap shot I shall explain for the reader (who likely hasn't read my story in the other places on SS where it exists.)

Wrong. He let himself go in ALL departments Howie. He became fat, lazy, depressed, failed to open mail (including bills, notices, credit card statements etc. for months), failed to wash dishes, failed to do or fold laundry, failed to clean and failed to pay the household bills which resulted in the utilities being regularly cut off (which then incurred reinstatement fees, got the heat cut off in winter, the AC cut off in summer - and me being on a business trip somewhere dealing with whatever crisis his procrastination and failures had created out of the clear blue. He failed (as one example) to pay a credit card bill of mine for 5 months and then purposely did not tell me it wasn't paid (he knew I would be p*ssed about it). This stunt ruined my credit for 8 years. My mistake was in trusting him to take care of things. He didn't. Thank God I made enough money that nobody ever cared about my credit...but this was going on while I was trying to get my real estate holdings established. Looking back it's incredible what I was able to do while carrying everything on my own without much help beyond the kids being fed and safe.

I found out he hadn't paid the bill when the collections people started calling my cell (they had been calling the house unbeknownst to me for months). I immediately paid it in full, but the damage was already done. Know what? If he had simply done the laundry, opened the mail, paid the bills, and done the dishes and had the household in some semblance of order I would have stayed because I was perfectly capable of carrying the financial load. I did it for years and frankly STILL do it. My children were never in physical danger, don't be ridiculous.

It was stupid because money was never the issue. I made plenty of money. He couldn't organize his way out of a paper bag. All I needed to know was how much money do you need and how much are the bills. Whatever the figure, I cut him a check. I was very generous. If he wanted a grill, I bought it, if he wanted most anything else, I bought it for him. He never knew how much money he needed because he couldn't be bothered to open the bills and read them.

And yes, this was a complete 180 from how he presented himself before the marriage and before his business fell apart. I offered to pay for counseling sessions (he was depressed but in denial about it)...I did everything I could to help him get up. He wouldn't.

All my husband had to do was care for the kids and handle the household to a reasonable degree. Had he simply done this, we would still be married. That was all I asked once the income creation fell to me.

While he was acting like a loser in all ways, he was also starting fights if I said anything at all about the state of the household if I mentioned anything about it being unsatisfactory. He was like "I'm a slob, too bad. The house is a pigsty, too bad. This is how it is...deal with it."

And I was like "Oh HELL no" after a while. I could only be 1/2 of the marriage. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. After years dealing with it I chose to STOP the insanity. Best. Decision. Ever.

In addition to the "ambition" issue you cite, I divorced largely because I was not going to condone his filthy habits (which emerged AFTER I married him) and I did not want my children to think those habits are OK. I was not OK with my son growing up learning from his father (with my implicit agreement - because staying married is CONDONING the behavior) that he should live like a slob and expect a woman to take care of his every need...no need to work, no need to make good grades, just be a loser like dad, and find yourself a woman to mooch off of...Wrong message.

And I did not want my daughters growing up thinking they are supposed to sacrifice everything, give up motherhood (as I largely had to) to support a loser dude. Wrong message.

I divorced on principle. My ex husband refused to participate in the partnership and did the absolute bare minimum (at times less). That is complete disloyalty to the marriage. Meanwhile I never denied him sex or things or money. Why should I remain loyal when he has zero interest in being loyal within the relationship? Loyalty is more than just sex. A marriage is a partnership.

So it was FAR more than ambition Howie. I got to the point where I realized that me doing everything (working in a career that required weekly travel) to fully support the family as the sole breadwinner, and then coming home to a disgusting disaster that I was left to clean, organize and deal with every time I came home (and the sh1tty attitude that went with it) and so I left the marriage after dealing with this for years. I was exhausted and I was tired of killing myself while my ex husband was wallowing in the relative ease and comfort of the marriage.

He can't wallow anymore. He actually has to work, to be responsible in the other aspects of his life. He is still unambitious. But no more do I have to be on the receiving end of the results of all his laziness. And to be honest he's had to improve himself since I split from him. He's lost 40+ lbs, he's in much better physical shape, he's happier and gets out and has friends and so forth. We get along 100x better. He has had to re-engage as an adult. It's been positive for everyone, and my respect level has increased toward him. He agrees the divorce has been a positive thing in his life journey. He didn't like who he had become and wasn't able (in his mind) to change it.

Interestingly my children see the enormous difference between the two of us now. My son is ambitious but does tend toward his father's habit of procrastination (remember this is a habit he grew up around for YEARS). He has gotten unfavorable results (sub-par grades) as a result of poor habits. Fortunately he is young enough that he is seeing how his own poor habits result in failure to accomplish his goals. He got a "C" in a junior level math class his freshman year for one semester. He was smart enough to get into the junior level math class (Good) but he didn't do the homework consistently (Bad) and his grades reflected that. He has already shot his chances of going to Cal Tech or MIT which was where he originally wanted to go to college. I have explained to him repeatedly that only the kids whose grades are TOP FLIGHT get considered for those schools. By failing to perform he knocked himself out of consideration. My son eliminated that opportunity from his reach. This is important for him to learn (and the girls too, but they are not yet in high school where grades have such impact on future opportunities.)

I have said to my kids numerous times that life is about results as well as relationships and that we are all products of the people we associate with and the habits we establish. If I were to espouse those things while still married to my ex husband I would have ZERO credibility with my kids. None whatsoever. They look at what I DO, not at what I say. They see the difference between how I conduct my life and how my ex husband conducts his. I do not need to explain it or say a word. It speaks volumes all by itself.

I know personally plenty of married women who are loyal including most members of my own family. I know women like this in their 20s, their 30s, their 40s, their 50s and on up into the 80s and 90s. So yes these women exist. Even in 2017.

I actually had the same situation in my marriage. A husband who let his share of the responsibilities lapse, including the intimacy between us, and said he didn't care to address it. The house was a mess, bills were late, fast food was 'nutritious', the standard was ignoring engaging with me and the kids,, and the relationship model I would have been demonstrating to my kids - both adults work but the woman is the only one who takes care of everything - is not one I wanted them to see as "normal" in a two parent, two income household.

As it stands, now his home is so filthy I worry about germs, pests and bacteria, and he recently got reprimanded for not getting to work on time (because he regularly Burns the midnight oil surfing, watching TV and eating pizza)

He's depressed. Has been. Based on his childhood, I would be too. I tried to do the counseling route, he said no.

But @BeExcellent what is advocated on these boards is sandwich making, d1ck sucking submission. From what I can see, these guys aren't looking for a female to partner with.

It is quite possible that the lack of loyalty/hypergamous nature they complain about has to do with the quality of female they select. Because females who are looking to settle down will be loyal to men who are willing to be a real partner.

As @guru1000 said, if you are meeting her needs, she will be loyal to you. Our men weren't meeting our needs, and those needs were reasonable. As you and I experienced, our men decided they didn't have to carry any party if the load. If I have to do it all, I'm going to do it alone.

From what I see on these boards, meeting her needs are generally subservient to what he desires and/or the idea of what, exactly, her needs are, are extremely ILL defined on these boards. When the subject is expounded on, it is quickly extinguished with shouts of "beta Behavior' and ' white Knighting'

 

[sosousage]

“No man “committing” to a girl raised in 2016 culture is in a monogamous LTR. He’s in a one-sided pLTR (Primary LTR, a primary partner with multiple orbiters/side-poon) but in the GIRL’S favor (aka she keeps her options available while he restricts his own)."

I will just quote myself in response:


Of course this has always been somewhat true(courtship phase, women entertaining multiple options before marriage, no fake intermediate stage of fake exclusivity) but it is more exaggerated today because even the most ruthless player is just breaking even at best with a girl with looks but no seductiveness due to abundance on social media...and in the midst of this we have invented non-marital exclusivity? Supposedly to benefit "non-committal men." You think you're a player....

For some reason this is now controversial here, when it is more apparent than ever? Even my relatives from the third world know this to be true. Every high quality woman I know(even virgins) has admitted this to me. A virgin mocked me for actually believing women stop looking for the bigger better deal in an exclusive relationship(she claims its different when married...im sure in her mind its different). I'm amazed that the male ego can't admit to it.

I enjoy this story, to illustrate my point. It reminds me quite a bit of the highest quality women I know.

very true. women raised with snapchats and other social media arent good for LTR nor marriage.

However they still require emotions from men to be in relationship with them

 

[guru1000]

From what I see on these boards, meeting her needs are generally subservient to what he desires and/or the idea of what, exactly, her needs are extremely ILL defined on these boards. When the subject is expounded on, it is quickly extinguished with shouts of "beta Behavior' and ' white Knighting'

Ya, I'm going to crush this binary ideology on the board. While effective for initial attraction with the right recipient, it will inevitably kill men in LTRs. A seasoned DJ is fluid in accordance with its subjective application.

 

[BeExcellent]

BE, at the end, your ex failed to meet your needs, so he got the boot.

You mentioned in another thread (and I'll paraphrase) that at one time during the marriage, "You had eyes only for him and thus even more affluent men who solicited you could not grab your attention," which I understand to mean ... at that particular time, your ex was meeting your needs and thus you were no longer "available" to the outside, despite the myriad high offers. Fair assessment?

Correct. I will add that I was entirely loyal to him during the entirety of my marriage, even as it deteriorated. I got divorced rather than cheat on him. I never considered cheating, even as I'm sure I could have.

 

[sazc]

Ya, I'm going to crush this binary ideology on the board. While effective for initial attraction with the right recipient, it will inevitably kill men in LTRs. A seasoned DJ is fluid in accordance with its subjective application.

Ignoring the idea that you need to connect with a woman and fulfill her needs works FINE if your plan is to solely spin plates. (But let's not start b1tching about loyalty when your plates start dropping, eh?)

Expecting long term loyalty from a woman where you are either treating her like a plate, or not meeting her needs, and not connecting with her on a deep emotional level causes hypergamy. But this hypergamy had more to do with emotional needs - not great sex, and not money. Great sex and providing financially can exist and, if a woman feels a void emotionally', she may stray. What you hope for, in this situation, is that she will tell you how she is feeling. Don't let your inner alpha ignore it....

It's a LOT to juggle in a relationship and women don't really understand men's needs as well. But if you are going to approach your dating with your pants at your ankles, expecting to eat a sammich while you get your d1ck sucked, pick a woman who has low expectations from men to begin with.