How some women “commit” in an LTR

[The Duke]

But @BeExcellent what is advocated on these boards is sandwich making, d1ck sucking submission.

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.

'

What the hell is wrong with suhking dihk and making sandwiches? It's so hot when you say it like that.

Should I kick you to the curb when you gain 10lbs, your tits start to sag, and you start growing bat wings?

Afterall men are seen as success(ambition) symbols, women are seen as sex symbols.

 

[sazc]

What the hell is wrong with suhking dihk and making sandwiches? It's so hot when you say it like that.

Should I kick you to the curb when you gain 10lbs, your tits start to sag, and you start growing bat wings?

Afterall men are seen as success(ambition) symbols, women are seen as sex symbols.

Lol, yea the mental visual is funny on that.

Honestly, 10lbs ain't nothing, it's 30 or more you gotta watch out for.

Idk.... I haven't quite been able to figure out the answer to the "naturally occurring" aging question. Is the answer to the " battling age" question to screen for ppl who are normally fit minded, and will seem to make their health, and their looks, a priority?

Then I wonder, if I meet someone that I really click with, will that physical stuff really matter? Lifestyle will always matter to me. I have disdain for victims and sloths. I screen for that.

Right now I have questions but no answers. What do you think?

 

[user43770]

Just a question as i am confused obviously but if hypergamy drives a woman then how come so many women lower themselves to be with chitty beta men?

It seems the attentionwhoring takes precident over natural programming these days.

There are certain boxes that need to be checked in order to get a woman on your side. We all agree on this.

What isn't being agreed upon, is that these boxes keep expanding. So what was good for her yesterday, might not be good tomorrow.

Make your best effort to meet women, which is the natural order of things, and enjoy your time with them while it lasts. After it's over, do your best to not hold any hard feelings.

That's pretty much it.

 

[user43770]

Just a question as i am confused obviously but if hypergamy drives a woman then how come so many women lower themselves to be with chitty beta men?

It seems the attentionwhoring takes precident over natural programming these days.

My bad, stream of thought.

Social media is another beast. You aren't just trying to fulfill her wants anymore. These days, you're trying to fulfill the wants of all of her friends, too. "Susie went to so and so. I want to go to so and so."

You can be the baddest dude out there, but eventually, familiarity will be a competitor. And it's hard to compete against the numerous possibilities in a person's mind.

 

[guru1000]

Good, some logic here:

funny, the disregard for all the relationships where the men actually did meet all the womans "needs" in regards to being a good husband and provider, only to go svck and fvck their coworker at a motel after telling their husband they'll be working late that night. or the women who get bored and drag their husbands through hell before finally initiating a divorce. you know, all the relationships that got us (society) here in the first place?

A man is a good husband and provider.

Wife cheats on him with a coworker at a motel.

Thus, it's concluded that because the husband met the wife's needs and she still cheated, the Needs Theory is fallacious. However, the wife cheated for any of these reasons:

1) She no longer was attracted to the husband. Here a need was not met.
2) She had a bad sex life. Here a need was not met.
3) She no longer respected her husband. Here a need was not met.
4) Her needs cannot be met by only one man. Here is the exclusion of the Needs Theory, where there is a subset of women who need more than one man to satisfy their needs.

i'll repeat this one more time. the only time a woman "only has eyes for you" unequivocally, is during the pair bonding period. you know, after sex (evolutionarily, around the time shes pregnant) to foster the parental instincts for both in order to give the offspring the best chance to be born.

after that, hypergamy is still very much present

This fails as:

1) Woman sometimes branch-swing to men of "lower value";

2) Hypergamy defined deals with only "money" and "status." Women have other needs, and can disqualify a man of greater money and status if he cannot meet her other baseline needs (e.g. her physical type/chemistry, desire to feel loved, 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, inter alia).

Reconcile that.

If you can't, Hypergamy Theory is dead.

 

[guru1000]

You just debunked hypergamy. Let me show you:

understand this for what it is. its not a contradiction. if a need is not met, hypergamy will rear its head in some way.

Here you agree the Needs Theory is the superseding impetus governing women in relations, as "if a need is not met [first], hypergamy will rear it's ugly head."

whether its to a man of "lower value" or not. because what you, personally, may perceive as lower value, might not be to a woman. you could be good looking and rich, but also be an uncaring unnafection jerk. enough to the point that a woman will fall for a less atrractive man with less money or "status" in that scenario, that man, regardless of what you think of him, has MORE VALUE THAN YOU. because that is what is more attractive to her needs at that moment.

Again, hypergamy defined:

Hypergamy defined:
hy·per·ga·my
hīˈpərɡəmē/
noun
noun: hypergamy

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

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.

If a woman fall for a man with less money and status, then it is no longer Hypergamy Theory, it is Needs Theory.

You just supported the Needs Theory and debunked Hypergamy.

 

[sazc]

if a man is cheated on despite being a good provider and husband, it reinforces the idea of hypergamy and debunks the social conditioning myth that women are satisfied if you are a "good" husband and provider and that they value and understand loyalty the way men do. a mans idea of loyalty is not the same as a womans.

understand this for what it is. its not a contradiction. if a need is not met, hypergamy will rear its head in some way. whether its to a man of "lower value" or not. because what you, personally, may perceive as lower value, might not be to a woman. you could be good looking and rich, but also be an uncaring unnafection jerk. enough to the point that a woman will fall for a less atrractive man with less money or "status" in that scenario, that man, regardless of what you think of him, has MORE VALUE THAN YOU. because that is what is more attractive to her needs at that moment.

that is hypergamy

Hypergamy defined had nothing to do with emotional needs. It has everything to do with a woman obtaining resources for her offspring by finding a (new) male to provide the resources to her offspring that she feels are lacking in her current male. The tendency for women to decide men and leech money and resources off of them.

Resources, not emotional needs.

Dunt confuse hypergamy with some distant idea of a polyamourous relationship and/or cheating because the emotional needs aren't met.

We've recently seen members post about giving money to chicks and, a day later, once the check has cleared, he chick turns around and says she's not interested in dating anymore. THAT is hypergamy

 

[guru1000]

And to collapse the last simmering wave, I'll conclude with:

hypergamy itself is rooted in needs. sexual and/or provisional.

Hypergamy deals with provisional via status and caste/class.

with status being subjective in regard to the specific need/s as i pointed out above

Now "status" defined:

sta·tus
ˈstādəs,ˈstadəs/
noun
noun: status; plural noun: statuses
1.
the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something.

Status, as the relative standing of someone to something, is not subject to, nor holds any relevance, to others' needs.

I'm sorry I had to do this Midnight, but Hypergamy theory had to go.

 

[sazc]

If the ONLY place you obtain your definition of hypergamy is from mogtow/red pill sites then you are participating in heavy confirmation bias.

Be smarter than that

 

[Tenacity]

no you just lost the argument.

hypergamy itself is rooted in needs. sexual and/or provisional. with status being subjective in regard to the specific need/s as i pointed out above

if anything, your predictable, cliche etymological approach defeats your own argument

what you are doing is called reaching

@guru1000 is actually right, this was actually a debate I had months ago with Guru's sidekick @BeTheChange.

You guys aren't going to get on this forum and tell me that Black Women for example, practice Hypergamy. Hypergamy is specifically related to marrying or being with someone of a higher CLASS, Money, and Wealth status.

Black women with PhDs and Master's Degrees, fvcking Ray Ray and Pookie, is not the practice of Hypergamy. My theory is that Hypergamy is dead and the majority of American Women do not practice this anymore at all. If they did, there's no way the "convicted bum/criminal" would be sleeping on her couch.

 

[user43770]

And to collapse the last simmering wave, I'll conclude with

I didn't even know there was a definition for hypergamy. Thanks for googling, bro.

Hypergamy is the better deal at any given time, which changes over time, which I've been saying throughout the last page or so.

"Steadfast loyalty" is what you said. Meet her "needs" and you will have a lifelong partner, is what you said.

You're in a dream is what I say.

 

[sazc]

And to collapse the last simmering wave, I'll conclude with:

Hypergamy deals with provisional via status and caste/class.


Now "status" defined:

Status, as the relative standing of someone to something, is not subject to, nor holds any relevance, to others' needs.

I'm sorry I had to do this Midnight, but Hypergamy theory had to go.

Hypergamy is a valid theory, it's just being mis used on these boards.

Branch swinging would be a better phrase for describing the idea of changing partners due to emotional needs being un met. "Branch Swinging" send to have a much looser 'definition'. In fact, I can't find a hard and fast definition for this phrase. Just articles taking about it.

 

[Tenacity]

Hypergamy is the better deal at any given time, which changes over time, which I've been saying throughout the last page or so.

No Sir, Hypergamy is specifically associated with a woman marrying or dating UP, based specifically on Money, Wealth, and Class. Anything else is not Hypergamy.

 

[The Duke]

Here is why I say women have no clue what "loyalty" means.

A woman stops putting out, the man gets blamed because he isn't doing it right. He isn't connecting with her emotions. He doesn't spend enough time on foreplay. Blah blah blah. Its all his fault, yet he is expected to stay loyal to her and does so many times.

A Woman gets fat, cuts her hair off and turns into a nag. The man is expected to remain loyal to her.

A woman doesn't get her "needs" met and she cheats or demands a divorce.

Yet men stay committed when their nagging wives don't put out. You see the difference? That's why I say you women have no clue what loyalty means.

Loyalty is marrying a woman and staying with her long after her looks faded and she has nothing to offer him.

Loyalty is unconditional love. The only time a woman shows unconditional love is for her children. Both of you women dumped your husbands for things that were "conditional". So should a man dump you when you don't meet his conditions regarding beauty?

I wouldn't marry either of you after hearing the trivial reasons you gave for divorcing your husbands. Sounds like you could have hired a nanny or a maid to alleviate some of the stress?

If a guy listed those reasons you two gave for why he divorced his wife he would be ridiculed.

 

[exhausted]

The main reason why hypergamy theory doesn't hold in most committed relations is hypergamy fails to consider all the woman's needs. Most women don't have the need to be with billionaires or with senators. 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.

Diametrically, you could have all the resources/status in the world, but if you are not meeting her needs in a committed relation, she will look elsewhere.

It's all about her needs and your meeting them ... not hypergamy.

This is true. Lots of girls date down looks and finance wise as long as they can control and run everything.

 

[user43770]

No Sir, Hypergamy is specifically associated with a woman marrying or dating UP, based specifically on Money, Wealth, and Class. Anything else is not Hypergamy.

I've been around since before you could google a definition for it.

Hypergamy is marrying up, which could mean any number of things to any number of women.

After you've been married for 5 or 10 years, UP seems to change for women.

It isn't all about money. It's about a better perceived deal.

 

[Tenacity]

I've been around since before you could google a definition for it.

Hypergamy is marrying up, which could mean any number of things to any number of women.

After you've been married for 5 or 10 years, UP seems to change for women.

It isn't all about money. It's about a better perceived deal.

My question to you is this then.......why does every definition of Hypergamy say that the theory is based specifically on marrying UP based on money/wealth?

 

[sazc]

and you know me well enough to make this claim?

Don't go getting all emotional on me, I was making a general comment

 

[guru1000]

This is true. Lots of girls date down looks and finance wise as long as they can control and run everything.

I'm not trying to be an azzhole, but I bring this Needs Theory, as I do believe it's an important staple in DJ's understanding of women, and what type of women to (not) deal with.

As you mention, lots of girls will forego looks and finance as long as they can control everything. The Needs Theory will direct that such a girl has an inherent need to control, hence, you must unequivocally avoid such a girl, else be controlled or she'll leave. Such a woman has had previous trauma which now manifests as a need to control.

Identify her needs first, and you will clearly see what you have in store.

 

[sazc]

hypergamy as defined by the red pill INCLUDES emotional needs. not just financial

Confirmation bias