If you aren't going forward, you are giong backwards

[Atom Smasher]

Your theories here apply to a subset of women who have a propensity toward a hypergamous paradigm, whether by cultural infuence or breeding.

If men caved to their instictual drives the world would be even more chaotic than it already is. Most men understand that to actualize oneself he must make decisions that are contrary to those drives. He must beat his own instinct into submission, so-to-speak.

There was a time not too long ago when the same (although on a different scale) was expected of women. And by-and-large they were capable of a much higher sense of values back then. We value the rule of law because we are moral agents, unlike animals and inanimate objects.

What I'm saying in a nutshell is: "Instincts, my ass." Instincts are a prompt, not a compulsion.

If I am called, as a man, to rise above my base instincts to acheive a higher purpose in society, the same is to be expected of women. What we are witnessing in Western society is not so much caving in to instinctual compulsion as it is the result of media brainwashing. The powers that be know this, and they have used the media to great effect. A direct attempt to dismantle society by attacking the man is fraught with difficulties and the promise of vigorous resistance. To destroy the man, you destroy the woman, the weaker one who is prone to deception.

 

[zekko]

When women get to be 25-29 there is a limbic, subliminal understanding that her window of hypergamic opportunity is closing. A woman's hindbrain knows on an animalistic level that her period of maximally optimizing her hypergamy is closing, thus the motivation to pair off monogamously with the best provisioning male begins to take priority over ƒucking the best genetic (most sexually arousing) males she was happy to pair off with in her prime (22-24).

Right, but PUAs tend to characterize this provisioning male as some sort of beta type, as she leaves the alphas behind. Or more commonly (according to PUA myth) she continues to bang the alphas while she is married to the provider guy.

I don't see any suggestion in Backbreaker's original tale that the restaurant guy was an alpha type, or a best genetic material type, or that the new guy is any less alpha or good looking than the first guy. In fact, the way it is presented, the new guy sounds like a better deal all around.

So I definitely don't see this as a case of her "settling" because of her advancing age. It sounds to me like she is legitimately more turned on by this new guy, and became bored with her old relationship.

 

[Findog]

I think hypergamy is a spectrum, and this girl was at one extreme end of it. If all women are "like that" then no man can ever feel like his relationship is on firm and steady footing, no matter how well things seem to be going on the surface. In response to that, it logically makes relationships probably an effort not worth undertaking. Or if you are to enter into a relationship, you have to take an "expect the worst, hope for the best" attitude, and make arrangements should the worst come to fruition.

If I were the new guy with the condo and BMW, this girl is nothing more than a casual plate to me considering her behavior.

I just think that, yes, women have this hypergamous instinct but it varies woman to woman how they will handle things. I bet some girls would have stuck with the guy. I have a buddy, he's a real indie music hipster snob, met his now-wife on a message board for a band they both like. They met up at ACL after getting to know each other online. They have pretty much been an item ever since. Problem is, he was living in Texas, she was living in Toronto. They did long-distance for a couple of years until he finally was able to acquire a work visa to move to Canada to be with her. After he was unable to find a job his first few months, they got married so he could stay. He's been there a year and still hasn't found a job and is basically a house husband. I think he's taken some CCA classes, but still unemployed, still a house husband. Given the dynamic I've observed between them, she's probably not dumping him anytime soon. And she's a solid 6-7 on the looks scale. He's not bad looking himself but he's no Clooney either.

 

[Burroughs]

The reason Men are generally more well behaved than women is due to the responsibility we were not allowed to shed alongside women's tearing up of their side of the social contract. Men are held accountable via family court, women are not.

They can deny sex, emotionally or mentally abuse men at will, only to finally divorce and walk away with cash and prizes.

Now, as a result, we have a situation where hypergamy runs amuck without any checks and balances.

In short, women have all of the power and men have all of the responsbilities.

Until men wise up, stop shaming the MRA, and actually get involved and push for true equality and not feminist propoganda, such things will never stop. The gender relation war will keep escalating until balance is forced by either too many men joining the ranks of the cads and a high tax oppressive state results in order to feed all of the illegitimate children, or women come to heel on their own.

Which direction are we currently headed and as a result, which do you think will happen first?

Right on the money as usual danger

@rollo hypergamy is an important element that undoubtably shaped culture but you forget one important fact all major civilizations since the dawn of time from sumer, to egypt, to rome treated 99% of women (excepting royalty) as property to be ruled by men

this essentially wiped away the power of female hypergamy...of course women still cheated but the penalty was severe..not because of morality but because you sleeping with my woman is like you stealing my car and crashing it....and now the car...err women is garbage.

women are forever mentally children and must be owned by first the father the the husband, without this society unravels

this is a fact few men truly comprehend they see how women act hypergamously to continuously better their position and they fail to see this is why women were placed under the yoke of men, so that men could build the engine of society unhindered by female conceit and inefficiencies thus limiting hypergamy and its sway.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Your theories here apply to a subset of women who have a propensity toward a hypergamous paradigm, whether by cultural infuence or breeding.

Step away from the pulpit for a minute. The very fact that you're even aware of some imbalance, moral or otherwise, in the 'natural order of things' only proves that ALL women are hypergamous. It's not a subset of women who've reengineered our social norms towards a hypergamous agenda for the past century. All women are hardwired for hypergamy, the context may change between the slut and the virgin, but trust, they all run the same subroutine.

You may believe that your virgin bride chose you from the masses of 'lesser men' because she had some intrinsic, ephemeral appreciation for your virtuousness, but the truth is she chose you because you best fit her definition of her ideal of hypergamy. You're were what she thought was the best she could do with her understanding at the time.

Optimizing hypergamy is the underlying, ambient theme behind every social redefinition regarding gender since the sexual revolution. Hypergamy has always been there, only recently has it been given total unrestricted influence in society.

 

[zekko]

I think hypergamy is a spectrum, and this girl was at one extreme end of it. If all women are "like that" then no man can ever feel like his relationship is on firm and steady footing

I actually don't think that any man should ever feel like his relationship is on firm and steady footing. Not in this current culture and climate.

, no matter how well things seem to be going on the surface. In response to that, it logically makes relationships probably an effort not worth undertaking.

I don't agree with that. But I do think that logically, it may make marriage an effort not worth undertaking.

Or if you are to enter into a relationship, you have to take an "expect the worst, hope for the best" attitude, and make arrangements should the worst come to fruition

This is the attitude I try to keep in my LTR, even if it doesn't sound very romantic. Relationships can end at any time.

I still think that at age 23, these two were unlikely to stay together anyway. And the guy is very lucky he didn't marry her or have children, let's give him credit for that. Or he may have found that restaurant wage cut into severely by child support, and possibly alimony.

 

[betheman]

Sooooo...let me get this straight.

as men we have to become CEO's, nobel peace prize winners, gold medal Olympians..but ALpha ones at that, all in the hope that like suicidal followers of Islam, we will reach our sexual heaven? to attract the most hypergamous females out there? isnt this a form of pedestalisation? you pushing yourself to the extreme, supposedly to be the best you can be when in reality its still about getting the pu$$y?

it maybe a simplistic viewpoint and one which is open to challenge but I really dont see it as anymore than that. this going forward/backward sh!t is overrated. bottom line is, if pu$$y wasnt in the offing, men would do jack sh!t.
the paradox is, the pu$$y is rarely worth it

 

[Findog]

I actually don't think that any man should ever feel like his relationship is on firm and steady footing. Not in this current culture and climate.

Let me clarify. I remember I line Rollo used on his blog once about committed relationships, about how once things get to a committed, exclusive stage, there is an implicit understanding your partner isn't going to just bolt one day or despise you one day to the next...just woe to the man who starts to let his foot off the gas and coasts. But I have experienced myself and seen other men get the blindside dumping. Whether they were completely oblivious or took what little clues were there as benign and not malignant, the circumstances vary. I just know as a result of my experiences that it takes away from some of the enjoyment of relationships if you feel like you're walking on a frozen river, and you never know when you might fall in, even if you're taking all necessary precautions.

I don't agree with that. But I do think that logically, it may make marriage an effort not worth undertaking.

If you're not going to have kids, I agree there is no point in getting married.

 

[Burroughs]

Sooooo...let me get this straight.

as men we have to become CEO's, nobel peace prize winners, gold medal Olympians..but ALpha ones at that, all in the hope that like suicidal followers of Islam, we will reach our sexual heaven? to attract the most hypergamous females out there? isnt this a form of pedestalisation? you pushing yourself to the extreme, supposedly to be the best you can be when in reality its still about getting the pu$$y?

it maybe a simplistic viewpoint and one which is open to challenge but I really dont see it as anymore than that. this going forward/backward sh!t is overrated. bottom line is, if pu$$y wasnt in the offing, men would do jack sh!t.
the paradox is, the pu$$y is rarely worth it

yes exactly

men on a treadmill of 'success' enslaved to poontang

do you honestly think we would have had any societal advancement if women were allowed free access to their hypergamic tendencies?!

of course not

so the puzzy was owned...locked down by men through culture and religion...you married a women you owned her. All advanced societies..India, China, Egypt, Rome the men utterly controlled a women...(if you were a high born woman you had some power but none over a man above you....queens being the rare case)....and guess what?....this system worked.

problem solved

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

all major civilizations since the dawn of time from sumer, to egypt, to rome treated 99% of women (excepting royalty) as property to be ruled by men

Cause or effect?

I would argue that in our cultural past a social normalization of women-as-property evolved as the result of women's natural predilection for hypergamy. Women's dualistic sexual strategy is incompatible with men's pluralistic strategy and incompatible with men's long-term genetic parental investment interests.

Solution? Force women to comply with men's sexual imperative by making them exclusive property. Keep hypergamy in check by force.

Why am I convinced of this? Look no further than the results of the social, cultural & political landscape since men abdicated this control by giving women the exclusive choice of whom she will fullfil her biological imperative with. The world you know today is the result of unrestricted hypergamy.

 

[iqqi]

It's really difficult for me to offer anything here that I haven't already covered many times before in the 9 or so years I've been contributing to SS. IQQI is still using the forum for her own personal catharsis (How's The Wall treating you?) and the debates over women's presumed ethical obligations being superseded by their innate hypergamy still persist. But in the interest of participating lets see if I can add a few things here.'

The OP has nothing to do with my life, I'm different from most women in the fact that I have the instinct that makes it necessary for me to be successful on my own, given to me by my upbringing. Looking back, I have always been more successful that my partners, and also if anything goes to show that men who can "provide for me" is not a motivating goal in my life. Since you wanted to address me and get all personal and stuff.

I was speaking in general about the OP, which I guess is hard to swallow that I can do that? I do know women like the girl in the OP, and I also know women who would never do what the girl in the OP did... to their detriment. I wish to hell my mother would have "traded up", she sure had tons of opportunities thrown her way, lmao! Anyways, my postings have never even addressed the girl, I feel like that would just be another can of worms. My posts have all been about the guy. Did you disagree with anything I said about HIM, or are you bringing my name up, and my name only, because you miss me so bad?

As far as "the wall"....

Keeping it personal here...

It's funny you say that is a woman's issue. Because I know eventually I will be physically old (and I guess that means ugly and unwanted to you), just like all women and men. But it hasn't really ever been a fear of mine. Probably because I can't wait for the day that I finally look like an adult. The number of my age keeps increasing, but I don't really change! I'm sure it will happen though. One day.

Or because I already know I'll be on another level by then and not really concerned with "game", and "getting numbers" and men wanting to have sex with me. I don't think my value to myself will be affected by that. Does your grandmother?

AND finally beat the drum please.

The people, in my own personal little life, since that is what you seem most interested in, whom are most vocal and afraid of aging... are men.

What the hell are they smoking? Don't they know they will be gods at age 50?

I tell you, real life vs forum life is a very, very different place.

But on a less "you are a crazy going senile old man" note, I think aging is something no one is a fan of. Women or men. So lose the hate towards women. It's unbecoming of someone who is aging so handsomely, old man.

 

[iqqi]

Solution? Force women to comply with men's sexual imperative by making them exclusive property. Keep hypergamy in check by force.

Quoted for posterity.

The cuckoo has left the nest.

 

[Burroughs]

Solution? Force women to comply with men's sexual imperative by making them exclusive property. Keep hypergamy in check by force.

Why am I convinced of this? Look no further than the results of the social, cultural & political landscape since men abdicated this control by giving women the exclusive choice of whom she will fullfil her biological imperative with. The world you know today is the result of unrestricted hypergamy.

:yes:

when the banking system (watch Europe's current crisis) collapses and food is very scarce, life will be very hard...women will once more be relegated to the level of property

 

[iqqi]

Do you mean... like a slave?

Should black people still also be the property of white people? I mean that sure would correct the prison overpopulation issue and murder rate of this country.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Heh,..IQQI, you know I was going to refer you to Susan Walsh's site, Hooking Up Smart. My thought was that you'd find her echo chamber of a blog more comforting to your female neuroses there than SoSuave would ever be, but then I realized you'd hate it there.

You'd never get the same rise of indignation you get from stroking your ego amongst the women and manginas who'd agree with you like the good little plug-ins they are. You'd chaffe at the all the carefully edited 'input' from commenters catered to agree with your cherished ego-investments. It'd be too perfect for you, and we all know what perfect is – boring.

 

[iqqi]

Heh,..IQQI, you know I was going to refer you to Susan Walsh's site, Hooking Up Smart. My thought was that you'd find her echo chamber of a blog more comforting to your female neuroses there than SoSuave would ever be, but then I realized you'd hate it there.

You'd never get the same rise of indignation you get from stroking your ego amongst the women and manginas who'd agree with you like the good little plug-ins they are. You'd chaffe at the all the carefully edited 'input' from commenters catered to agree with your cherished ego-investments. It'd be too perfect for you, and we all know what perfect is – boring.

If that is your way of saying that I'd piss women off as much as I do men, then you are right.

That's true.

Both men and women who create sites to b!tch and place blame and generalize the opposite sex are mislead and misinformed.

Is this an even newer direction we are taking this thread? I mean, it went from me saying the dude in the OP and any dude for that matter should be motivated to achieve more than the mediocre, to me being afraid to age because I am a woman, and now to me and what I think about some other women's forum.

Yay, me!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Solution? Force women to comply with men's sexual imperative by making them exclusive property. Keep hypergamy in check by force.

IQQI, stop playing everyone for idiots, we all know you're not this stupid. You know damn well the context of this statement was an observation of how things used to be, not some melodramatic wish for neo-totalitarian-patriarchy. The fact that you'd expect anyone to believe you'd made the slippery slope leap to prospects of slavery only makes everyone reading this see you for the typical attention seeking woman you are,..well, all women are really.

That adrenaline feels good doesn't it?

 

[iqqi]

IQQI, stop playing everyone for idiots, we all know you're not this stupid. You know damn well the context of this statement was an observation of how things used to be, not some melodramatic wish for neo-totalitarian-patriarchy. The fact that you'd expect anyone to believe you'd made the slippery slope leap to prospects of slavery only makes everyone reading this see you for the typical attention seeking woman you are,..well, all women are really.

That adrenaline feels good doesn't it?

Are we now arguing semantics?

You quite clearly said that women should be men's property, did you not?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Clearly reading for comprehension wasn't taught to you before you dropped out of middle school.

Find the word "should" in anything I've written in this thread, otherwise I'm just feeding the same troll who's been hanging on to her catharsis for almost a decade now.

 

[iqqi]

Clearly reading for comprehension wasn't taught to you before you dropped out of middle school.

Find the word "should" in anything I've written in this thread, otherwise I'm just feeding the same troll who's been hanging on to her catharsis for almost a decade now.

OK, you didn't say should, LMAO. Holy sh!t did you take your meds today?

You said "force." And "solution".

You said: Solution? Force women to comply with men's sexual imperative by making them exclusive property.

You said make women exclusive property of men.

Did you not?