hypergamy is not a caste system

[backbreaker]

After reading rollo's blog today i looked at one of the comments and one of the guys said something to the akin of "it's hard to get mad at guys like me for being bitter"

and my response to that is why? why do men or we or better stated lol you, look at hypergamy that never works in your favor or that can't be changed? what about the girl that had a BF but was all over you and made it be known you could have her if you wanted her? wasn't complaining then were you? What about you getting a raise at work and now you are a manager and now girls that were not giving you attention are flirting with you? or what about you getting a new job and instantly becoming the hot man at work despite there other men there long before you got there?


but more so than that why do people look at this like something that can't be altered? I don't get that. IF you don't like where you fit in on the food chain change it. There will always be someone hotter, smarter, richer than you out there somewhere but the harder you work the less someones there are and defiantly the less someones there will be in a general vicinity.


And even then, hypergamy will only get your foot in the door. In the book the fountainhead, Dominque leaves a well off but quite pathetic AFC for a very wealthy very popular man but **** even after a while his true AFC colors started to show and that wasn't good enough.

Anyway, if you don't like where you are, go grab a ladder and start climbing

 

[Who Dares Win]

Backbreaker I totally agree with what you say and thats exactly what Im doing however some guys simply have no means to do it, to climb the ladder you need arms(health/good genetic) and breath(means to support yourself like a work etc).

Some guys simply are in no condition to climb the ladder except the basic steps, sincerly I cannot be mad at those guys for being bitter or unwilling to have anything to do with modern society, hell I could even justify them if they decided to become criminals in order to get their place in paradise.

You can get a great job through intelligence and hard work, but if you're short,bald and skinny no matter how confident you could be, girls aint getting wet for you, you will get respect from men from your achievement or your balls but women aint gonna get wet.

 

[Love's Orphan]

Ive seen guys who have more game, and/or more looks, and/or money than me go completely AFC in a few weeks because they could not control themselves; and the woman's attractiveness was irrelevant. Hypergamy sure gives some a head start... but thats not enough.

 

[Lexington]

Yup a lot of the b*tching and moaning on these and other forums seems to be coming from guys who just can't hack it in the game today. So they fantasize about going back to the 1950s.

It is what it is. You can either get with the program and adapt to the new circumstances or you can jerk yourself to sleep every night dreaming about those wonderful, subservient housewives from the 50s.

 

[goodfoot]

With my last girlfriend, I honestly felt like any other woman could have walked up and propositioned me and I wouldn't have even entertained it. It is still upsetting to know that whatever girl I'm with will always be looking for the bigger better deal, even if he doesn't show up.

 

[zekko]

You can either get with the program and adapt to the new circumstances or you can jerk yourself to sleep every night dreaming about those wonderful, subservient housewives from the 50s.

The 50s were probably the ideal circumstance for AFCs. That's probably about as close as "every guy is guaranteed a girl" as you're going to get in western culture. But I'm sure a lot of the bottom guys fell through the cracks then too.

I still can't figure out why polygamy is illegal, even though it leaves fewer women for the lowest value males.

With my last girlfriend, I honestly felt like any other woman could have walked up and propositioned me and I wouldn't have even entertained it. It is still upsetting to know that whatever girl I'm with will always be looking for the bigger better deal, even if he doesn't show up.

It's not that bad, really. You just have to make yourself into a good catch. Position yourself on as high a branch as possible. And don't allow yourself to get too attached to any one female, no matter how good an option she is. That way, even is she can find a bigger, better deal and takes it, you're still in a good position to find another female.

It's the nature of men to have to struggle and take what you want, to have to earn it. It's not the easiest way to go, but probably more satisfying in the long run. Some guys are handed everything, but they are fairly rare.

 

[AW1983]

always be looking for the bigger better deal

Nah, you make it sound more nefarious than it really is. They aren't all consciously looking (though surely some are, but who wants them anyway). It's more of a biological subconscious receptiveness instead of a willful pursuit.

For instance, to reverse it - even if you're married, love your wife, she's hot and great in the sack, and you have no complaints...when that HB9.5 walks by and smiles at you, you're still going to do a double-take. Now if your wife/gf is holding up her end of the deal and is 99% awesome, you might find it in your best interest not to pursue HB9.5 and f up a good thing. Same thing with women. If you're Game is on point, your woman can get hit on by tons of dudes, some of them better off than you in whatever area, but she'll refrain. I've had some pretty damn attractive girls in my life and they get hit on constantly. Never been cheated on or been a victim of hypergamy.

The irony of whining about hypergamy is that the best defense against it is not giving a fvck. I've never shown any jealousy or anything when other dudes are complimenting my girl or trying to make moves, I act amused and sometimes even casually agree with their compliments, etc. Or find some way to turn it into a neg, which makes the other dude think he'll look like even more of a hero by persisting with his AFC-supplicating, which makes her love me all the more haha.

EDIT: This actually just happened the other night. Was out with my girl and a friend of a friend who I hadn't met before got quite a bit drunk later in the night and was like "All I know I is you're so incredibly beautiful" to my girl, as we're standing in a group of people (she looks like Sloan from Entourage). I held up my beer and gazed at it affectionately and said something like "yes it's quite a work of art" (right before he blurted this out we had been talking about what we were drinking). Then this clown says something like "No I was talking about her" and I just looked at him with a smirk and let the social awkwardness build to a suffocating level for a few seconds and then continued conversing with the other people in the group, who were feeling kind of sorry for this guy for being such a goon. Later that night she brought it up and said "god that guy was so CREEPY!"

Lol.

 

[backbreaker]

Nah, you make it sound more nefarious than it really is. They aren't all consciously looking (though surely some are, but who wants them anyway). It's more of a biological subconscious receptiveness instead of a willful pursuit.

For instance, to reverse it - even if you're married, love your wife, she's hot and great in the sack, and you have no complaints...when that HB9.5 walks by and smiles at you, you're still going to do a double-take. Now if your wife/gf is holding up her end of the deal and is 99% awesome, you might find it in your best interest not to pursue HB9.5 and f up a good thing. Same thing with women. If you're Game is on point, your woman can get hit on by tons of dudes, some of them better off than you in whatever area, but she'll refrain. I've had some pretty damn attractive girls in my life and they get hit on constantly. Never been cheated on or been a victim of hypergamy.

The irony of whining about hypergamy is that the best defense against it is not giving a fvck. I've never shown any jealousy or anything when other dudes are complimenting my girl or trying to make moves, I act amused and sometimes even casually agree with their compliments, etc. Or find some way to turn it into a neg, which makes the other dude think he'll look like even more of a hero by persisting with his AFC-supplicating, which makes her love me all the more haha.

I explained this or attempted to a few months ago.

the fallacy most guys fall into is equating better = hotter. I used an example of the "Girl behind the counter" at my gym who is what, 23 now, could not possibly sulp a better ass than what she has, if there was a TV show called america's got ass, she would be my betting fav to take the whole thing, she is better looking than my wife and my wife is very attractive. very attractive. but just because she looks better she is not necessarily a better option. she's overly religious.. i know this because of almost 2 years at the same gym we have a rapport with each other. she wears a freaking Chasity ring. xxx wrong answer buddy lol. which is a shame because someone needs to bend that ass over a table even if it's not me, that's a travesty someone is not tapping that. she frowns upon gambling, that's how i basically make my living. she is 23 and still has not graduated college.. i can only imagine how much student debt she has. she has made it known in a passive agressive way she would be interested if i were ever on the market but what does she have that i want? WTF do i look like dating someone who i can't tap.

so yes, while she's better looking she is not a better option. not even close really overall. There aren't too many women that are a better option for me than my wife if there were i would not have married her lol.

women are the same way. my wife gets hit on all the time. by guys that are at least my equal or better looking or more of your all american male type guys. but how many guys does she know that are not only good looking but can provide for her like i can, have no qualms with her going to the race track 2-3 times a week hell i go with her, has no qualms with her being a "hardcore" atheist, and can stand a woman that is not the best cook on earth? and if you get all that in one package, lol they have to have game. so where there are guys there are very few options if that makes sense.

if i slip up i can become vulnerable but i have no worries whatsoever right now.


i will tell you a good barometer to how you sit with your girl. it's not even your girl it's her friends. if her friends have it for you or want to fvck you, you aren't going anywhere. the key to a woman's heart is for her friends to think you are a catch. not "oh he's such a sweet guy" catch but "that ***** better not leave me alone with him" catch. as long as your woman knows if she messes up or slips up her friends will dip in, you are going to be fine.

if you broke up tomorrow and her friends would not have antyhing to do with you exepct to tell you that your ex is on a date with a real man than you might have a problem. mind you i am not saying fvck your girls friends, but they should think you are a catch.

 

[Iceberg]

Yup a lot of the b*tching and moaning on these and other forums seems to be coming from guys who just can't hack it in the game today. So they fantasize about going back to the 1950s.

It is what it is. You can either get with the program and adapt to the new circumstances or you can jerk yourself to sleep every night dreaming about those wonderful, subservient housewives from the 50s.

That's exactly how I feel when I'm reading something from various whiners around the internet. "Women are this." "Women are that." Women are women. When you understand that they are DIFFERENT than us, then you'll stop expecting them to behave like us.

"She was flirty with me but she won't answer my texts. Why are girls like this?"

"She keeps talking to me, but always rejects when I offer a date. Why are girls like this?"

Because they're GIRLS.

You don't get mad at trees for dropping leaves on your lawn. You don't get mad at the sun for being too hot, or the clouds for raining on your picnic. Don't get mad at womankind for acting like women.

Like you said, Lexington, some guys take this stuff as incurable insults and want to go back to the 1950's where women stayed at home, and their only role was to pop out kids. I personally can't think of any worse situation than living with a wife who can only talk to me about how much she saved at the grocery store, and how the babies had diarrhea all day.

Some men simply aren't emotionally fitted to adapt to this world. So their only recourse is to whine. A woman rejects me, or goes cold on my phone calls? I sigh and think "Women..." and move on with my life.

 

[Lexington]

I still can't figure out why polygamy is illegal, even though it leaves fewer women for the lowest value males.

I think therein lies the reason why it's banned. Until the advent of birth control, sexual activity necessarily led to pregnancy. Thus, marriage was an institution to license sexual activity so that it occurs only in "healthy" settings....committed adults. This ensured that children and women would be cared for.

Monogamy evolved because it ensures that there are enough women to go around for most men. Even in most polygamous cultures (e.g. Islam) there is a limit to the number of wives a man can take. Imagine a society in which a substantial proportion of men have no access to sex. Do you think that could lead to some social, civic and economic problems?

 

[Findog]

After reading rollo's blog today i looked at one of the comments and one of the guys said something to the akin of "it's hard to get mad at guys like me for being bitter"

and my response to that is why? why do men or we or better stated lol you, look at hypergamy that never works in your favor or that can't be changed? what about the girl that had a BF but was all over you and made it be known you could have her if you wanted her? wasn't complaining then were you? What about you getting a raise at work and now you are a manager and now girls that were not giving you attention are flirting with you? or what about you getting a new job and instantly becoming the hot man at work despite there other men there long before you got there?


but more so than that why do people look at this like something that can't be altered? I don't get that. IF you don't like where you fit in on the food chain change it. There will always be someone hotter, smarter, richer than you out there somewhere but the harder you work the less someones there are and defiantly the less someones there will be in a general vicinity.


And even then, hypergamy will only get your foot in the door. In the book the fountainhead, Dominque leaves a well off but quite pathetic AFC for a very wealthy very popular man but **** even after a while his true AFC colors started to show and that wasn't good enough.

Anyway, if you don't like where you are, go grab a ladder and start climbing

There's something to be said for not wallowing in self-pity, avoiding the adoption of a victim mentality, and be willing and able to take ownership and responsibility for the role we play in our failures and struggles.

Having said that, I do think that loyalty is not too much to ask if you are doing your very best to keep up your end of the bargain in a serious, committed relationship. If I gain 40 pounds, sit on the couch and drink beer and play video games, don't show any ambition or drive to improve my lot as far as my career goes, I certainly can't do anything but look in the mirror if one day I find myself getting dumped or left behind. There is a lot that game will do for you, but I reject the implicit suggestion that game is the answer to all your problems, and that any failures you encounter are the result of your game not being tight enough.

The fact is, unless you are at the top of the totem pole, and it's subjective criteria that determines who sits at the top of that pole, there's always going to be another guy out there that is better looking than you, that makes more money than you do, that is more skilled than you are at the things you are good at.

BB, I've read your posts. You've successfully built up your own business. You describe yourself as being in shape. I'm sure most women would find you easy on the eyes. You have good social skills. You're ambitious and intelligent. It also sounds like you don't take your wife or your marriage for granted. You're doing your part to hold up your end of the bargain. So that makes you a catch and a man that any woman would be lucky to have.

You really want me to accept the idea that if tomorrow, your wife met a man that was just a smidge better looking, made a bit more money, had a lifestyle that was just a bit more luxurious than yours, was a bit better in his field than you are in yours, if your wife cast aside everything that you've built together and showed no loyalty, played the hypergamy card because on paper this guy is just a bit more of a bigger, better deal, you wouldn't feel any resentment towards your wife about this? Because I can tell you that this man exists. Unless you are Warren Buffett, Jesus Christ, George Clooney and Jason Statham all rolled into one, this man exists. And if your wife just so happens to cross paths with this guy and he decides to make a play for your wife, you wouldn't have any problem with her throwing away what you have together because this guy is just a bit more of a catch than you are? When you are doing your part to keep your game tight and do everything you can to live up to the vows you made to your wife?

I bet your wife is loyal and wouldn't entertain the opportunity to branch swing to a guy who offers her a bit better deal, even if on paper you're a Rolls Royce and another guy might be a Maybach. I don't think it's asking too much for loyalty when you're keeping up your end of the bargain. Of course, as Rollo says, 'hypergamy doesn't care,' but that doesn't mean I have to like it or intellectually respect it. But would you want to be hectored about how your game wasn't tight enough or you were a whiner if your wife did trade in the Rolls for a Maybach?*

*I'm not a car expert, so maybe some guys here would consider a Rolls better than a Maybach, but you get the idea.

 

[sstype]

There's something to be said for not wallowing in self-pity, avoiding the adoption of a victim mentality, and be willing and able to take ownership and responsibility for the role we play in our failures and struggles.

Having said that, I do think that loyalty is not too much to ask if you are doing your very best to keep up your end of the bargain in a serious, committed relationship. If I gain 40 pounds, sit on the couch and drink beer and play video games, don't show any ambition or drive to improve my lot as far as my career goes, I certainly can't do anything but look in the mirror if one day I find myself getting dumped or left behind. There is a lot that game will do for you, but I reject the implicit suggestion that game is the answer to all your problems, and that any failures you encounter are the result of your game not being tight enough.

The fact is, unless you are at the top of the totem pole, and it's subjective criteria that determines who sits at the top of that pole, there's always going to be another guy out there that is better looking than you, that makes more money than you do, that is more skilled than you are at the things you are good at.

BB, I've read your posts. You've successfully built up your own business. You describe yourself as being in shape. I'm sure most women would find you easy on the eyes. You have good social skills. You're ambitious and intelligent. It also sounds like you don't take your wife or your marriage for granted. You're doing your part to hold up your end of the bargain. So that makes you a catch and a man that any woman would be lucky to have.

You really want me to accept the idea that if tomorrow, your wife met a man that was just a smidge better looking, made a bit more money, had a lifestyle that was just a bit more luxurious than yours, was a bit better in his field than you are in yours, if your wife cast aside everything that you've built together and showed no loyalty, played the hypergamy card because on paper this guy is just a bit more of a bigger, better deal, you wouldn't feel any resentment towards your wife about this? Because I can tell you that this man exists. Unless you are Warren Buffett, Jesus Christ, George Clooney and Jason Statham all rolled into one, this man exists. And if your wife just so happens to cross paths with this guy and he decides to make a play for your wife, you wouldn't have any problem with her throwing away what you have together because this guy is just a bit more of a catch than you are? When you are doing your part to keep your game tight and do everything you can to live up to the vows you made to your wife?

I bet your wife is loyal and wouldn't entertain the opportunity to branch swing to a guy who offers her a bit better deal, even if on paper you're a Rolls Royce and another guy might be a Maybach. I don't think it's asking too much for loyalty when you're keeping up your end of the bargain. Of course, as Rollo says, 'hypergamy doesn't care,' but that doesn't mean I have to like it or intellectually respect it. But would you want to be hectored about how your game wasn't tight enough or you were a whiner if your wife did trade in the Rolls for a Maybach?*

*I'm not a car expert, so maybe some guys here would consider a Rolls better than a Maybach, but you get the idea.

I get what you're saying Findog. Just because your wife can trade up to a bigger better deal doesn't mean she should. While I would want my potential long-term mate to have standards, I don't want her to be so Darwinian as to dump me the minute I "slip up" somehow and lose "man points."

Every man will hit inevitably hit slumps in his life, whether it be career, personal, or health-related. A good woman won't bolt at the first sign of trouble or opportunity to "trade-up." No one is perfect, and the mark of someone who truly loves you is when you fall they will be there to help you get back on your feet.
A relationship shouldn't be like working for a Wall Street investment bank, where you get fired for one bad trade, past successes be damned.

Ironically, women who operate with this sort of cold-hearted efficiency will shriek "shallow pigs!" the loudest when their super-high status alpha partners turn the tables on them by trading them for the newer younger models.

 

[Findog]

I get what you're saying Findog. Just because your wife can trade up to a bigger better deal doesn't mean she should. While I would want my potential long-term mate to have standards, I don't want her to be so Darwinian as to dump me the minute I "slip up" somehow and lose "man points."

Every man will hit inevitably hit slumps in his life, whether it be career, personal, or health-related. A good woman won't bolt at the first sign of trouble or opportunity to "trade-up." No one is perfect, and the mark of someone who truly loves you is when you fall they will be there to help you get back on your feet.
A relationship shouldn't be like working for a Wall Street investment bank, where you get fired for one bad trade, past successes be damned.

Ironically, women who operate with this sort of cold-hearted efficiency will shriek "shallow pigs!" the loudest when their super-high status alpha partners turn the tables on them by trading them for the newer younger models.

I went and read the post that BB was referring to and the comments section. I think it's generally a good idea when a relationship ends to examine your side of the street and figure out what was your role in the relationship's demise. I mean, the fact is that if you're with somebody long enough, you will not always say or do the right thing. You're not perfect and you can't meet 100 percent of the other person's needs 100 percent of the time. A LTR has ebbs and flows to it and I like your Wall Street analogy. You shouldn't have to worry about it ending because one fiscal quarter didn't yield the same rate of return as past successes. I think hypergamy is something all women have an innate capacity for, but the quality ones are better at resisting it when their boyfriends/husbands are good guys that are doing what they're supposed to be doing. It's not always like The Office where Pam dumps schlubby Roy that takes her for granted for quality catch Jim.

If I understand correctly, BB is 28 and has only been married a year or two. It's rare that a relationship or marriage ends and one party is completely blameless. That said, it's really not his place to lecture a 42 year old guy that's been married for 10 years, has two kids with his wife, and has done his best to keep up his end of the bargain and live up to his vows that's he's a "bitter whiner" that just needs to get that promotion, lose 15 pounds, and tighten up his game a bit when his wife decides she's "unhappy" and "unfulfilled."

 

[zekko]

I bet your wife is loyal and wouldn't entertain the opportunity to branch swing to a guy who offers her a bit better deal, even if on paper you're a Rolls Royce and another guy might be a Maybach.

Hypergamy definitely exists, but its effects may be a little overstated on this forum. Look at post #9 in this thread, backbreaker has already given a pretty good answer on why women won't necessarily make the leap to a guy who's a supposed better deal.

Also, according to PUA Bro Theory, the most attractive, alpha, better option guy is going to be spinning plates like a mofo and is also going to be very slow to commit. Getting this guy to commit to her is going to take time, and if she's married, where is she getting all this unlimited time to be hitting this guy up? Sometimes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Why leave a sure thing, a guy who's already commited for a guy who isn't?

Rather than hypergamy, a lot of the time a woman will leave her mate because she's bored. She craves some excitement, and the new guy may actually be a lesser option for her, except for the fact that he's new and exciting. And don't forget the incentive of cash and prizes women have to divorce.

 

[Findog]

Hypergamy definitely exists, but its effects may be a little overstated on this forum. Look at post #9 in this thread, backbreaker has already given a pretty good answer on why women won't necessarily make the leap to a guy who's a supposed better deal.

Among my parents, their friends, my aunts and uncles, I've only seen this happen once, where a woman divorced her husband under circumstances that dalrock would consider "frivolous divorce:"

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/is-frivolous-divorce-overstated-in-the-manosphere/

My aunt left my uncle because she was "unhappy" and "unfulfilled." He's a good guy, hard-working family man, they had three kids of middle school age together at the time. She informed him one day that she didn't love him anymore and there was nothing he could do to persuade her to try and work on things.

Rather than hypergamy, a lot of the time a woman will leave her mate because she's bored. She craves some excitement, and the new guy may actually be a lesser option for her, except for the fact that he's new and exciting. And don't forget the incentive of cash and prizes women have to divorce

I think this is generally true. Some women seem to have an unrealistic view of LTRs, like it's supposed to be a fairy-tale Hollywood movie 100 percent of the time. And the way family law is set up now, they are incentivized to cash out instead of trying to work on things. I think if there was no incentive to financially profit from divorce, it would happen less often. A lawyer friend of mine says it makes no sense to do away with no-fault divorce laws, because if you did people would start making up **** about their spouses to get a judge to grant a divorce. But if somebody is not going to profit from a failed marriage, there's less incentive to go through with it, especially with kids involved.

 

[backbreaker]

I get what you're saying Findog. Just because your wife can trade up to a bigger better deal doesn't mean she should.

why not?

Good post.


This brings up a good point. Women will often "slow-cook" their replacement men. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this, or even played a role in it from both sides.

Hell, I am at a conference right now, and this one married girl at our second venue of the night started asking me the "what do you look for in a girl" questions. Now I realize this is not a slow-cooker, but imagine the process where she is seeing a guy like this every day at work. Or every weekend at the bookstore or gym.

Jophil (RIP) used to say "cheating starts long before the zippers come down", and he was absolutely right. The woman will slow-cook the replacement, weighing, testing, playing and escalating. Hell, this is the very definition of branch-swinging. She may hold on to her man for awhile, but she is weight her options and thinking about the new *shinier* version.

I remember a post where someobody asked what to do when his girl wanted to get drinks with co-workers (without inviting him I might add). Most of the board responded with "don't get jealous, let her go", and I can absolutely appreciate that response. Hopefully we have all reached the point in our game where we don't have to worry about the beta's orbiting our women......There is only one problem with this strategy......What do you do when your girl wants to have drinks with an alpha?

people think of cheating like it just happens but in reality it's a lot like an NBA trade. teams talk. teams negotiate contracts, negotiate stipulations, warnings hit the news wires well before the trade happens. the teams deny interest in such player that is under contract for another team until the trade happens and instantly it's what they wanted all along.



the thing about relationships is that men think so logiclaly men think they have to have concreate hard factual evidence to leave a woman. you don't. if a woman was having drinks with her co workers and i did not like the vibe i got i would be gone for no other reason than i don't feel right.

 

[Findog]

why not?

Because she made a commitment. Marriage in theory is supposed to end with one of the partners being widowed, not signing papers in the presence of your lawyers. If she didn't think she could make a lasting commitment, she shouldn't be getting married. If she married the electrician making $70,000 a year, they have a nice but not spectacular home in the suburbs, they take a couple vacations a year, he's a good father to their children, he does his share of household work, she needs to honor that commitment if he's doing his best to live up to his marriage vows. If he does nothing but sit on the couch and drink beer, doesn't manage their finances well, doesn't help out with chores, isn't a good father, or worst-case scenario has substance abuse issues or abuses her, then by all means she should head towards the door. But if the hedge-fund guy making $350,000 a year comes along and decides he wants her, she should show some loyalty to her husband. Some women no doubt would trade up to the "bigger, better deal" but not all of them. As a man, it's my job to screen and pick the latter for marriage over the former. Personally, if I were the hedge-fund guy in this scenario, I wouldn't want a woman for a long-term commitment if she's that coldly Darwinian. She'd be nothing more than a FWB to me.

Marriage is not like being on an NBA team where you jump from the Bucks to the Heat whenever you get the chance.

 

[zekko]

If I gain 40 pounds, sit on the couch and drink beer and play video games, don't show any ambition or drive to improve my lot as far as my career goes, I certainly can't do anything but look in the mirror if one day I find myself getting dumped or left behind. There is a lot that game will do for you, but I reject the implicit suggestion that game is the answer to all your problems, and that any failures you encounter are the result of your game not being tight enough.

It depends on how you define "game". A lot of people include taking care of your body and staying in shape as part of your game, and I'd say rightly so (although that's not the only reason to stay fit). Others would include how you live your lifestyle, hobbies, how far you've advanced in your career, etc. It's not necessarily just peacocking and learning to neg or whatever. Pretty much your whole life could fall under the heading of game if you wanted to define it that way. Instead of calling it game, it might be better to just call it life. In fact, that's pretty much in line with the way I think. It's not a game, it's life.

Jophil (RIP) used to say "cheating starts long before the zippers come down", and he was absolutely right. The woman will slow-cook the replacement

Yes, Jophil is missed. For a woman to slow cook a replacement, it's got to be somebody she's around fairly regularly. A guy at work, church, social circle, a dude on the bowling team. Sometimes it's her husband's best friend. Or her best friend's husband.

This is one reason I take lifestyle into account when choosing a girl for a LTR. If she's the type who heads to the bar every night for a few drinks (a barfly), she's only good for FB status at best. To easy to slow cook a guy under those circumstancs. And alcohol = liquid panty remover.

My aunt left my uncle because she was "unhappy" and "unfulfilled." He's a good guy, hard-working family man, they had three kids of middle school age together at the time.

Translation: She was bored.
Somebody here awhile back suggested that instead of until death, marriage should be reviewed every five years. After each five year period, each spouse decided whether or not they want to sign another five year contract.

They came up with this idea partly because we live longer now, and they were saying it may not be natural to spend THAT long a time with one mate. Whether or not that's true, I thought it was an interesting idea.

why not?

Lol. you already answered this in post #9.

Another point, though. According to PUA Bro Theory, by the time any ten year period has elapsed, a woman has lost significant value. In fact, by the time they're over 30 even, supposedly they've lost so much value that their options have dried up and they're screwed. Why would a woman trade in her husband when her value has diminished so much she's unlikely to find as good a deal? And yet it happens, and it happens a lot.

Like many pickup concepts, I think the idea of an over 30 year old woman being worthless in dating value is overstated. Not every guy, especially when they get older, is going to be looking for a 24 year old club hottie.

 

[backbreaker]

It depends on how you define "game". A lot of people include taking care of your body and staying in shape as part of your game, and I'd say rightly so (although that's not the only reason to stay fit). Others would include how you live your lifestyle, hobbies, how far you've advanced in your career, etc. It's not necessarily just peacocking and learning to neg or whatever. Pretty much your whole life could fall under the heading of game if you wanted to define it that way. Instead of calling it game, it might be better to just call it life. In fact, that's pretty much in line with the way I think. It's not a game, it's life.

correct. game is not the same as spitting game or macking or wearing an attention grabbing outfit.

you have life game, like me just doing what i strive to do and not losing focus of that. not stopping going to the gym because i am "wasting my time since i am already married now".. can't tell you how many guys do this, i still dress just as well as i did when i was single.

the bottom line is that it's easy to fall into the i'm taken trap and stop doing the things that made you desirable in the first place. you had a very nice wardrobe but now your wife dresses you because "that's what wifes do" no it's not. you played the piano but now you don't because youd ont' have enough time, etc. you put on 15 pounds of fat but every man gets bigger when they settle down right? that's all game. for me to be just as desirable as i was the day my wife met me, that takes work.


i leanred this the hard way the very first tiem i put my plate theory into action. right about the time my company started to take off and i got my own place for hte first time i was about 190 pounds and out of shape. i started to finally make some money, i worked my ass off in the gym and 3 months later give or take around my birthday i was about 165 and slim and looking good. women attention followed. mind you this was all new to me then. i had so much fun spinning plates and went out to eat so much and went on so many dates i stopped cooking my own food and ate out just about every night and stopped going to the gym. My birthday is june 17th. by december i was pushing 200 pounds again.

in fact, that is what really to me proved just how solid the plate theory was. not only did i get amber to be committed to me after spinning her as a plate for almost 5 months, i did so while getting bigger and bigger lol. **** by the time we broke up i was damn near 240 pounds.


then you have just dealing with your spouse game. women dont' know any better they will push your buttons. they stop cleaning, do you let them win arguments now just so you can not piss her off and get laid, keeping frame with a woman takes work.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

When I started that post I knew it was going to come off as some unavoidably deterministic rant about the evils of hypergamy.

That post was born out of all the effort I've repeatedly read men relate when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women's lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it's particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn't to say that women don't take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they're single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, but always know that it isn't relationship equity she's rationally considering in that moment of decision.

This dynamic is exactly the reason the surrogate boyfriend, the perfect nice guy orbiter who's invested so much into identifying with his target, gets so enraged when his dream girl opts for the hot ass-hole jerk. She's not making a logical decision based upon his invested relational equity. Quite the opposite; she's empirically proving for him that his equity is worthless by rewarding the hot jerk, who had essentially no equity, with her sex and intimacy. He doesn't understand that hypergamy doesn't care about relational equity.

This is a really tough pill for guys to swallow, because knowing how hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of relational equity with the woman they're committed to. Men's concept of relational equity stems from a mindset that accepts negotiated desire (not genuine desire) as a valid means of relationship security. This is precisely why most couples counseling fails – its operative origin begins from the idea that desire (hypergamy) can be negotiated indefinitely.