IndeedRollo Tomassi said:. 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.
.
But in WHAT OTHER BUSINESS VENTURE IS THIS ALLOWED?
marriage is a contract between two parties, officiated by the state (99% on behalf of the woman).
BUT WHY ARE WOMEN NOT HELD TO THE CONTRACT....i sign a lease, a better real estate deal comes along, I'm not just allowed to jump out of my previous lease without penalty..THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
so then understanding that women feel no sense of equity when a better offer comes along WHY IS AN ANTIQUE MARRIAGE CONTRACT STILL ALLOWED.
seems like fraud on a huge scale, a woman can follow the dictates of her hypergamy and the state backs her up with no fault divorce taking the mans assets adding insult and penury to injury...DOES THIS NOT SEEM PRETTY FVCKING INSANE TO ALL OF YOU?!
i mean what does it matter negotiated or real desire...a CONTRACT IS A FVCKING CONTRACT....i could care less if a woman loves me for real or not..just like if you rent my house and i don't care IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT AFTER THE FACT YOU SIGNED THE LEASE...so if you marry me...just suck my d1ck, swallow...then fry me a steak and on my end i'll keep you in furs and a compact mercedes..everyones happy