Women squimring out of boundarys

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Here is my current perception.

I think women are far, far more intuitive than men give them credit for. Like I said before, guy's egos get in the way.

Women pick up on what they can get away with. If I am forced to tell her direct, I know that I'm in a very bad place in the set. It's a massive red-flag.

I have literally had one of the biggest slvts that I've ever met try to turn in to an angel within a week to try and get me into a relationship, when I was just 19. It changed my whole perception of how women behave. That was far before any "red-pill" stuff. And I perceived it over and over and over, ever since.

Interest level is literally everything. A woman can become the so-called "quality woman" when she wants a man enough. Women are chameleons. I suggest men embrace their own 'chameleon' aspect, and have fun with it too.

Fact: Most guys are chumps.

Women have been beta-conditioned to believe much behavior is socially acceptable.

In Example One I cited above, the girl and her gfs felt it perfectly acceptable to vacation without their bfs. I don't. I don't expect her to know how I feel about the subject, because such behavior is socially accepted for the most part, because society is filled with beta chumps with no gonads who are afraid to speak their mind or lay down the law.

Example Two: Most women have male friends. I don't find this acceptable in exclusivity. One way or another, if she wanted exclusivity and I was open to exclusivity, she would have to know that I don't dated women exclusively who have male friends. In arguendo, we could argue to go find a girl who has no male friends, but then I would counter with (a) Good luck with that; (b) Most women are fine dropping their male friends as a compromise to enter exclusive relations with a high-value male.

Accordingly, despite the girl's IL, she is simply unaware of some of your deal breakers.

Here is an example of a real boundary upon my gf before we became exclusive:

Her: So where is this going?

Me: What do you mean?

Her: What are we?

Me: Dating

Her: So you are dating other women?

Me: Of course.

Her: What>! I am not.

Me: Well that's your choice. I don't date women exclusively who have male friends.

We left the convo there. A few weeks later, she broached the subject again, and asked if I would consider exclusivity if she dropped her male buddies. Couple weeks following, I agreed.

Do you find anything wrong with the above?

If I were OP, it would be over when she wanted to see her ex. And now that she is hanging around with a different crowd, I would probably fade out on that situation.

I agree. No need for boundaries in such a scenario. Seeing an ex merits a NEXT. But, in OP's defense, he may have given her the impression that he is a chump, so such behavior could go without consequence.

Like I say, that doesn't lead to long LTR's or whatever. But I don't see why everything should, because I have no need for it.

Boundaries are more for the LTR. Plate-spinning is supposed to be fun, untangled, with no restriction; thus boundaries are unnecessary in such context.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

I completely disagree.

All women know how to market themselves as a relationship catch. Desire is the problem.

I have had 3 women fall very deeply in love with me this year. All of them played the same sort of game.

Hiding orbiters away. And then using them to try and make me jealous whilst I dragged out the non-exclusive stage.

Women act according to interest.

A woman hanging around with her male friends often, just isn't interested.

Not orbiters, male friends. There is a distinction, no? Or do you just group all men as orbiters to the girl.

How about hanging with her male friends does not happen often. How about once in a while or never at all. How about an occasional text or phone call. How about she never hangs out with male friends, but gets a phone call every year, every month, or every week. Where do you draw the line??

My line is: no male friends, period. To each, that line drawn will differ. And hence, the boundary.

 

[SkrooU]

My line is: no male friends, period. To each, that line drawn will differ. And hence, the boundary.

This is one of the boundaries that are just so strict that it's difficult to enforce. For instance, how do you define friend? If she has Facebook then do you tell her that no males other than family members can be on her friends list? Can she not talk to men in the break room at work? Or are you talking about spending time with them outside of work and home? This is basically what the OP had originally asked, I think. She is squirming out of boundaries by taking advantage of this gray area. I'm just saying that if you take this so far as to quash every appearance of inappropriate male attention then you end up putting her in a burka.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

I don't draw lines. I don't give a flying fvck. That actually makes them behave far more.

IDGAF works great in plate game. LTR game is entirely different. In LTR game, you have to show that you care, or least, put forth the guise that you care. Entirely different animal. Accordingly, to have boundary discussions with a perpetual plate spinner is useless.

This is one of the boundaries that are just so strict that it's difficult to enforce. For instance, how do you define friend? If she has Facebook then do you tell her that no males other than family members can be on her friends list? Can she not talk to men in the break room at work? Or are you talking about spending time with them outside of work and home? This is basically what the OP had originally asked, I think. She is squirming out of boundaries by taking advantage of this gray area. I'm just saying that if you take this so far as to quash every appearance of inappropriate male attention then you end up putting her in a burka.

I just say no male friends, period. I leave it broad, and give her enough rope to hang herself.

Example:

I laid the no male friend boundary to my gf. One day thereafter, a male coworker texted her. No questions asked, I dumped her.

Now she could have had a reasonable excuse, right? It could have been work related, etc. Didn't matter. I used it as an excuse to get away for a month. She called every week trying to explain herself. After a month, I reconciled with her. Truth was, I needed a break, and used it as an excuse. But you can bet your azz that cell phone will never vibrate (text) again.

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

Or she will text during the day... Ir she will blow the janitor in her lunchbreak...or talk to him when she is picking up groceries...or give her mechanic a handjob...or masturbate to images of her boss....or think of her ex when you are pounding her. Or are you going to control her fantasies too.
"if you think of Ryan Reynolds when we f-ck that's it" "well, did you think of him? " "I want to watch porn with you but only if you don't find the guys attractive. "
As the OP has said where do you draw the line.
Maybe it works for him but I would be willing to bet his relationships don't last that long. I know it would be over if my GF said that to me.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

This is one of the boundaries that are just so strict that it's difficult to enforce. For instance, how do you define friend? If she has Facebook then do you tell her that no males other than family members can be on her friends list? Can she not talk to men in the break room at work? Or are you talking about spending time with them outside of work and home? This is basically what the OP had originally asked, I think. She is squirming out of boundaries by taking advantage of this gray area. I'm just saying that if you take this so far as to quash every appearance of inappropriate male attention then you end up putting her in a burka.

Well no dude needs to be texting or facebooking her at nite

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Daddymonsterpoodle, I take it based on your post that you were never in an LTR where you held high value and called the shots. The possibilities that you purport do not happen to high value men and show you do not grasp the fundamental point of boundaries.

The point of boundaries is not to stop her from cheating but rather to inform and have a respectful level of behavior in accordance with what YOU deem respectful.

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

Respectfully that is bull****. "These things do not happen to high value men. " Brad Pitt seems pretty high value. Seems like these things happen to him. Read a magazine and tell me it doesn't happen.

In my marriage I was AFC. I am not AFC anymore. In my current relationship I am in control and my GF knows it. I don't ned to be super-macho dominant guy to express that.
What she values is that I am not controlling. What that really means is that I am not OVERTLY controlling. We both know that I could find someone else quickly enough. She wants to be with me so she works hard to make me happy.

It seems to me that a high value man doesn't need to say anything because he knows that his woman won't find better. If she knows his value then she won't do anything to jeopardise that.

My GF shares custody of their dogs with her ex. Am I supposed to say "no, you can't pick up your dogs. " what a douche move.
She works with men. Her boss is a man. Sometimes he texts to ask her to work extra hours because someone is sick. Again what am I meant to say "your boss is a man. If you answer that we are through. " Really? Should she be looking for women only workplaces with no male cistomers as well?

Tell me how you are different in view from ultra-conservative moslems.

I know you have said this isn't mate guarding or insecurity but if it looks like chocolate sauce, and tastes like chocolate sauce...

You say this behaviour isn't controlling and that she is free to make her choices but it does seem like an ultimatum. "if you do x then y will happen. "

As previously stated I have boundaries and values. Because I believe that I am high value and in charge of the relationship and because I believe that women are smart enough to know the implicit rules in an exclusive relationship I don't need to spell it out.
You usually don't need to tell an adult if they put their hand on the barbecue they'll get burnt and they would probably look at you like you were an idiot for pointing it out.

If I had low self esteem and insecurity or trust issues then I would need to state it because I would be nervous that she could find someone better than me or she would do something because she didn't value the relationship enough. IMVHO.

If women want to be with you then they usually won't mess it up whether there are boundaries or not.

If they don't want to be with you then boundaries aren't going to make a difference. Possibly when the boundaries are too strict they will be more inclined to leave... Maybe.

I respect your opinion and your values. I just don't think they work for me. It just doesn't sem like a healthy model of a relationship to me.

Peace. I wish you continued success and happiness in your relationships.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

My GF shares custody of their dogs with her ex. Am I supposed to say "no, you can't pick up your dogs. " what a douche move.

Ah, this explains your contrarian position. You are knee-deep in the relationship and the rules of play are improper.

Look DMP, you seem like a good guy, so I'll offer this: Between your gf's continued communications with her ex (under the guise of "shared custody of dog"), and your hanging out with other girls and sleeping on their couches (and I assume your gf is doing the same), your relationship is not healthy.

My recommendation, dump her. You are better than this.

Because now she's deep cover with it because you showed your cards

Maybe. Maybe she is deep cover in cheating as well. I could never know, right? There are laws and there are criminals who break the laws. Although criminals are the minorities of the populace, laws can be broken right under your nose. But, just like cheating, when you do find out, you will have cause to eject. Whereas if she were never informed, as an example, that vacations with her gfs alone are improper (although in most relationships, deemed appropriate), and her gfs beg her to come to Vegas with her to celebrate XYZ and she acquiesces, do you truly have cause to eject instantly?

Let me ask you a question: When your gf does any act (no matter how seemly minor) upon you that she is not unaware is disrespectful or not to your preference, do you let her continue such act as she is habituated to or unaware of it or do you bring such act to her attention so that she becomes aware?

Let us say that you bought an expensive ornament situated in your living room. One day, you walk in and notice her touching it, would you not say, " Hon, please don't touch the ornament, it is extremely delicate"? So what would be the difference between this type of boundary and other boundaries? Explain.

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

Um no.. I am not going to dump her because she talks to her ex about their dogs. She is not going to eject me because I have to talk to my ex about my children sometimes.

She is loving, attentive, supportive and sexy, and understanding. We have a great time together. So what if she has to talk to an ex. There is a reason he is her ex.

I don't know what age bracket you are but in the 40+ category finding someone who hasn't been married or in an LTR that requires occasional contact children/dogs/legal proceedings/shared property) really is finding a unicorn or an enormous ted flag.

Sure, I could try and date 20 somethings but I just don't want to. There is no shared frame of reference.

Yeah-when she is unknowingly being disrespectful or unaware of my boundaries I point it out then.

Your analogy with the delicate ornament is slightly flawed.

There is a difference between "honey, be careful with that ornament" and "before we get into a relationship ypu ned to know that I am very protective of ornaments. If you ever dare touch one we are through. If I can tell you are even thinking about touching one we are through. if I find you are going to another house and they have ornaments we are through. If you like anyones ornaments more than mine we are through. "

I do respect that you have a strong sense of your own value and that yeah it does remove any grey areas before you start a ltr but it seems pretty hard to enforce and there have to be better things for you to focus your energy on It must be exhausting having to be so vigilant and resolute all the time.

Your way seems like too much hard work and not much fun. I acknowledge however that I am only an expert in what works for me. We both screen for women that fit in with our values and beliefs.

Peace and goodwill to all men

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

The difference is that she is not going to go deep cover and start rubbing the ornament behind your back lol.

Interesting point. I remember when I was at school (or even today) and somebody said "no, you can't do that!" Sonetimes just being forbidden to do something made me want to do it.

A real life example. I work with children. Where I work they implemented a "no gun play" policy (against my opinion). Did it stop gun play? Hell no. All it meant was that childten started to lie when we asked them what they were making or playing.
"are you making a gun? "
After about 20 seconds of looking guilty "um.. er...no? It's a...um... (looking around desperately for ideas) ...it's a... It's a bubble blower"
You have just made this child into a liar.

I am not saying there shouldn't be rules and boundaries. I don't tolerate being mean and I would never let a child use firearms or powertools without intense supervision.

Just saying.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

I don't know what age bracket you are but in the 40+ category finding someone who hasn't been married or in an LTR that requires occasional contact children/dogs/legal proceedings/shared property) really is finding a unicorn or an enormous ted flag. Sure, I could try and date 20 somethings but I just don't want to. There is no shared frame of ref

My man, this sounds like rationalization. Take a deeper look here.

There is a clear difference between a legal order for child custody and sharing a dog with an ex. By your admittance, you hang out with other girls and sleep on their couch (likewise, your ex could follow your lead and do the same thing). This relationship does not sound healthy.

I wish the best for you brother and I am not trying to rain on your parade. Sometimes it takes an outsider looking in to bring your awareness to these facts.

Your analogy with the delicate ornament is slightly flawed.

There is a difference between "honey, be careful with that ornament" and "before we get into a relationship ypu ned to know that I am very protective of ornaments. If you ever dare touch one we are through. If I can tell you are even thinking about touching one we are through. if I find you are going to another house and they have ornaments we are through. If you like anyones ornaments more than mine we are through. "

Nowhere in this boundary discussion was it suggested or stated that you should express your boundaries without deference to your partner.

 

[SkrooU]

Fact: Most guys are chumps.

Women have been beta-conditioned to believe much behavior is socially acceptable.

Seeing an ex merits a NEXT. But, in OP's defense, he may have given her the impression that he is a chump, so such behavior could go without consequence.

Boundaries are more for the LTR. Plate-spinning is supposed to be fun, untangled, with no restriction; thus boundaries are unnecessary in such context.

This is an interesting comment that got me thinking today. I spent last night at my main plate's house. This morning she tells me she hopes we get to fall in love with each other. I had already eliminated her as LTR potential the first night we met when she told me she broke up with her ex boyfriend because he started talking to other women on the internet after she went out-of-state for several nights to visit her best "friend" who is someone she had slept with multiple times. She has endless stories about boyfriends and ex husband being jealous of anyone with a penis. She said she can cross her legs when necessary and will not be controlled.

Now, since she is a 9, I decided to not discuss how disrespectful this behavior was just so I could get between her legs. I simply listened and evaded the topic. I have been sleeping with her for 3 months and it is absolutely the best sex I've ever had. And she is a really cool chick. But! No fvcking way could I ever commit to this woman if she actually believes this is acceptable.

So this morning she tells me about hoping to fall in love with me. And I'm really seriously trying not to laugh. I just said, "sometimes dreams are what make life worth living". Then during breakfast she tells me about her plans to go skiing with her other "friend" who used to be a fwb several years ago. And next week she is going to a lodge with her male friend and his crew to go skiing, and this guy kisses her on the lips when he sees her and she is grossed out by it, but she's made it clear she is not sexually interested in him.

So I asked her if she would be bothered if, supposing we were in an exclusive relationship, she came by my house and found one of my prior fwb girls there and that it was obvious that she had spent the night. She said "no, absolutely not".

I really feel bad for this lady because she is introducing me to her family now and to some other people as her boyfriend. I mean I really don't think she understands how ridiculous this is. And I feel bad that I'm leading her on by not telling her I will never commit to her because of her ridiculous boundaries. But what really got me thinking was whether I was beta-conditioning her by enabling this behavior. This is a very common tactic I use to bed women and then dump them. As you said L_I_M_I_T_E_D, by giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

Now would I ever commit if she did dump her male fwbs for me? Yes I actually would. I like her that much. But I am not going to disuss it with her. I shouldn't have to. Since she's introduced me to some family members now, I'm realizing I'm going to have to cut her loose. It would be chicken sh1t to flip my position and say you must drop your male friendships of an inappropriate nature.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

she told me she broke up with her ex boyfriend because he started talking to other women on the internet after she went out-of-state for several nights to visit her best "friend" who is someone she had slept with multiple times. She has endless stories about boyfriends and ex husband being jealous of anyone with a penis.

Then during breakfast she tells me about her plans to go skiing with her other "friend" who used to be a fwb several years ago. And next week she is going to a lodge with her male friend and his crew to go skiing, and this guy kisses her on the lips when he sees her and she is grossed out by it, but she's made it clear she is not sexually interested in him.

Yup. Plate only, garbage quality.

So I asked her if she would be bothered if, supposing we were in an exclusive relationship, she came by my house and found one of my prior fwb girls there and that it was obvious that she had spent the night. She said "no, absolutely not".

And a bad liar too.

I really feel bad for this lady because she is introducing me to her family now and to some other people as her boyfriend. I mean I really don't think she understands how ridiculous this is. And I feel bad that I'm leading her on by not telling her I will never commit to her because of her ridiculous boundaries.

Let her do whatever she wants. It's her tree; she's sitting on it. And I would just play along with zero guilt. And believe me, she played many chumps before you. Many. No empathy required here.

But what really got me thinking was whether I was beta-conditioning her by enabling this behavior. This is a very common tactic I use to bed women and then dump them. As you said L_I_M_I_T_E_D, by giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

Ya, good point. I don't discuss boundaries in the vetting phase, as that would only give her knowledge in how to play me. I only communicate boundaries after I have thoroughly vetted a girl, and decided to proceed to exclusivity.

In your case, keeping your mouth shut and letting her speak was your best action. Now you know what she is all about.

Since she's introduced me to some family members now, I'm realizing I'm going to have to cut her loose. It would be chicken sh1t to flip my position and say you must drop your male friendships of an inappropriate nature.

You don't impose boundaries on garbage women who don't merit your exclusivity. Have your fun shamelessly and apologetically with this one--and continue spinning plates.

 

[backbreaker]

I have an 8 year old. I am a neat freak. I like a clean house including his room. Every day when he gets up and his room is clean there is a 10 dollar bill on the kitchen counter with his name on it. No explanations, no thank you, just 10 dollars for Joe,spend however you wish. When he gets up and goes in front of the TV and leaves his bed unmade there is no 10 dollar bill on the counter. Joe is smart and has put two and two together and keeps his room spotless, even cleans his snake cage without me having to tell tell him to. I've simply created a stimulus in which he likes receiving that I provide to him once certain conditions are met.


Women are the same way. The day you verbally tell a woman what she has to do is the beginning of the end, you've handed over control already. Its now up to her own disgression rather she wants to make you happy or not. Women know good and damn well what to do and what not to do.


Its like breaking in a horse. You use the carrot And the stick. When rmy wife would do something I didn't care for when we first net I'd take a few days off from her and spin other plates. When she was a good girl I'd spend more time with her. And I am a high enough value male to where that means something. Sh was beating out other girls for me. Sh got the picture. Even now if she goes out with friends and a male pops up out of the blue She will call and let me know or in some cases flat out come home.


**** I'm the one she has to out up with pushing boundaries, female bst friends, me letting my 27 year old assistant spend the nightna few months ago to get away from her abusive boyfriend until she got her own place, girls in na going to coffee with me, and I love her cause she knows thy are no competition to her

 

[Desdinova]

My GF shares custody of their dogs with her ex. Am I supposed to say "no, you can't pick up your dogs. " what a douche move.

What in the fvck is it with women and their goddam "fur babies"? Seriously. The better situation is to cut the goddam ex out of her life and get her own dogs.

I can completely understand mourning the loss of a family pet, but having custody of them? Am I the only person who finds that completely absurd? IT'S A GODDAM DOG. You can adopt another one. You can give them away if you can't handle them. Am I completely out of my mind to suggest that a pet should have a lower significance than children?

A woman having contact with her ex in order to see 'their' dogs would be an immediate NEXT.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

https://therationalmale.com/2014/11/17/boundaries/

The purpose and approach men have with regard to mate guarding usually comes down to two positions.

The first being a moral high-ground idea that women do in fact have a moral or rational agency and thus have an obligation to keep their own Hypergamy in check. This may be from a religious perspective, but more often it’s based upon men’s idealistic equalist hopes that a woman can rationally be expected to parse her own investment in what men think should be Relational Equity.

Or in other words, women should know better, and be expected to cooperate with a male imperative by self-regulating their Hypergamous impulses as a matter of personal and social responsibility.

On a limbic level Hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity and openly appealing to a woman’s reason, rationality or sense of responsibility a man believes she should be beholden to is counterproductive in influencing her genuine desires. However, this is usually a self-guided hope that women will recognize and regulate those behaviors at the risk of being socially ostracized in an already feminine-primary social environment.

Again, this can be couched in a religious expectation, but in a secular-equalist sense it amounts to putting the burden of mate guarding on women by presuming their ‘equal rationality’ will result in women mate guarding themselves by policing their own Hypergamy in men’s best interests. Anything less either makes them convictionless or the nebulous “low quality woman” who wont play by the old-order rules and expectations.

The second approach is a proactive mate guarding based on the presumption that mate guarding is a ‘defense’ against mate poaching by other, presumably (but not necessarily) more Alpha men than the one doing the guarding.

Within that context it’s understandable why men would want to protect their personal investment in a woman. What woman wouldn’t be aroused by the prospect of being fought over by two men she perceives as Alpha rivals? It’s a strong affirmation of her desirability and SMV.

Where it turns into a Beta Tell is when a man’s lifestyle revolves around ‘keeping’ her in a possessive sensefor fear of losing her because she’s his only viable option for sending his genetic material into the future. That kind of mate guarding is the kind inspired by a scarcity mentality, but it’s also due to long evolved, subconscious sensitivities to her behavioral inconsistencies at or around her time of ovulation.

This is what Dr. Hasselton was getting into in her studies – ovulatory shift in mate preferences created an evolved sensitivity of them in men which in turn produced contingency behaviors (mate guarding) to ensure he wasn’t wasting his parental investment efforts with a child that wasn’t his own.

An evolved mate guarding sensitivity and contingent strategy was basically insurance against men’s cuckoldry risks.

I would argue that a contingent mate guarding strategy evolved not as a direct response to Alpha (or even Beta) competition stresses, but rather due to women’s innate Hypergamy, their sexual pluralism and the potential for parental investment deception when women were left with their Hypergamy unchecked.

If a woman’s predominant perception of you is Alpha, if her mental point of origin is one in which she recognizes her own SMV as being subordinate to your own, she wont be asking your “permission” to go to Vegas with her girlfriends for a weekend because her desire for her Alpha will be stronger than her peers influence on her during her ovulation week.

In theory, no woman who sees you as her perceived Alpha and Hypergamous best interest will want to ‘cheat’ on you – so the idea wont even occur to her. I realize this sounds simplistic until you consider the readiness with which most men will similarly isolate themselves socially, putting off friends and family in preference to spending his time with what he believes is a high-value woman.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Rollo, good post, but you overlook social conditioning. Myriad women are beta-conditioned so the "rules of play" are blurred (e.g. many taken women with male friends, many taken women with GNOs, etc.) Boundaries simply bifurcates YOUR standards of propriety from YOUR unacceptable, not with the motivation to mate guard, but to delineate how YOU operate. Certainly, your standards differ from mine, as we operate differently.

Implicit here is a deeper argument of biology vs. social conditioning. Naturally, you, the social scientist, will err to the side of biology in any theory, but boundaries have little to do with the biological imperative and much to do with social conditioning. Now we could argue that social propriety is ubiquitously understood, but among beta-, social-, religious-, cultural-, and leftist- conditioning, the lines of propriety are certainly obscured.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Implicit here is a deeper argument of biology vs. social conditioning. Naturally, you, the social scientist, will err to the side of biology in any theory, but boundaries have little to do with the biological imperative and much to do with social conditioning. Now we could argue that social propriety is ubiquitously understood, but among beta-, social-, religious-, cultural-, and leftist- conditioning, the lines of propriety are certainly obscured.

Hypergamy doesn't care about social propriety:

Mate Guarding

At their most fertile period, these women are less likely to feel close to their mates and more likely to find fault with them than women mated to more sexually desirable men, the research shows.

“A woman evaluates her relationship differently at different times in her cycle, and her evaluation seems to be colored by how sexually attractive she perceives her partner to be,” said Martie Haselton, a professor of psychology and communication studies at UCLA and senior author of the study.

Through a series of high-profile studies, Haselton’s lab has revealed telling changes that take place in women’s behavior during ovulation. Possibly to increase the odds of attracting suitable mating partners, these behaviors include a tendency to dress up and to speak in a higher-pitched, more feminine voice and — in a potential inbreeding-avoidance mechanism — to refrain from contact with male kin. In addition, the lab has found that women whose mates are less sexy and masculine tend to be more attracted to other men during the few fertile days leading up to ovulation.

The researchers found that women mated to the less sexually attractive men were significantly more likely to find fault with their partners and, again, feel less close to their partners during the high-fertility period than the low-fertility period. Women who rated their mates as more sexually attractive, meanwhile, did not exhibit these changes and instead reported being more satisfied with their relationship at high fertility than at low fertility. [emphasis mine]

Most of this I elaborated on in Your Friend Menstruation, however Heartiste then gave me some food for thought here right after this research finding:

When a man’s woman is being bitchy, the problem is him, but not in the way most men would think. Most men will promptly resort to DEFCUNT Level 1 Beta Supplication Mode to appease their harridans, thinking, wrongly, that their women are bitchy because they haven’t gotten enough signs of commitment and support from their partners. And who could blame these men for thinking this? When nagging, inconsolable women lob heat-of-the-moment accusations at their men, the accusations usually take the form of scattershot wails about one-size-fits-all conventional relationship issues that come straight from therapists’ hackneyed textbooks.

“You don’t care about me.” “You never listen.” “You don’t support this marriage like I do.” “You forgot to go food shopping AGAIN. How many times do I have to remind you?!”

So these beta men, quite reasonably, care harder, listen longer, support stronger, and buy enough groceries to fill a fat housewife’s appetizer plate. He reasons, “This is what she claims she wants, so this is what I’ll give her. And that should make her be nice to me like she was last week.”

In the meantime, the alpha male is now on his fifth year of forgetting to go food shopping, and his lover hasn’t bitched once about it

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Hypergamy doesn't care about social propriety:

Mate Guarding

Social propriety supersedes hypergamy. In exclusive relations, I still feel the desire to bang countless hot women. But as social constructs will direct, my acting on this impulse would be socially construed as "cheating," and could likely dissolve the relation (or bring drama into it), so I choose to stay loyal.

The weakness in taking the position that hypergamy is the superlative driver of all female behavior is that you remove "agency" and "culpability" out of the equation. Under your theory, it is implied that a woman will be a woman, and thus cannot be faulted for her abrogations.

While it is true that hypergamy might be the governing force in the animal kingdom, the distinction here, is WE are not animals by virtue of having have "conscious choice" is spite of "instinct." Although we have biological urges, we also have the capacity to defer gratification of a desire when circumstantial reality demonstrates the pyrrhic immediate pleasure comes with a greater cost.

We empower men two ways: 1) With the understanding of the biological imperative (which you do); and 2) Holding women accountable for their actions (Which you don't do).