Socioeconomic hypergamy relative to the woman - theory -

[The Duke]

I think the unanswered question to why women stayed loyal before 1960: Was it because she was attracted to her man due to him being above her in status, or was it simply because she didn't have any other option than to be with him, regardless of attraction, due to not having a job she could rely on, instead of her man?

In that time period the family had a lot of influence on who their daughter dated/married. They were also shamed for dating around like women do today. The expectation was to find a good man that could provide. Religion also had a big impact. Divorce was not accepted at all. Divorced women were damaged goods as were single women with children. Also communities were smaller and there weren't as many options and every one knew your business so dating and marriage were taken more seriously.

Your theory is right but the solution to rise above women isn't a valid solution. There are only so many top spots available.

My solution is to date younger with 12-20 year age gaps. The significant age gap creates the natural balance where the woman is still learning, climbing the ladder, discovering new experiences in her 20's, and the man has already accomplished all of that.

Its much easier to lead people when you have experience and your followers have little and be seen as the dominant one.

 

[Manure Spherian]

women want the top guy, that's also exclusive to her or gives her drama, whatever, that ticks of her hypergamous box.

Nearly all my friends and I are married with kids. We’re not top tier men. How did we pull this off? Granted, we are late Gen Xers, older men.

 

[Hoodie]

Nearly all my friends and I are married with kids. We’re not top tier men. How did we pull this off? Granted, we are late Gen Xers, older men.

Yeah, it's a whole different ball game, I'm millenial generation, we were teens just when social media came out.
So just when pubery hit, we've been presented with this.
And I hear that it's even worse for the generation under me, gen z.
They've grown up with it.

My parents a generation over you (boomers), have no idea at all that my generation and gen z have these problem at all,
cause it's not something that's discussed on the news, which is where they get their information.

 

[Manure Spherian]

My solution is to date younger with 12-20 year age gaps

This is an option.

The ideal way in a sexually liberated environment is to get in the market EARLY (high school and beyond). What I’m seeing here and in much of the manure sphere and socially and sexually delayed men playing catchup, and that is extremely difficult to deal with. Hence several here many thread on the female attraction code which should’ve been cracked a long freaking time ago, though they’re probably not at fault. A line I use for the sexual market is, “first come, first serve. Everyone else: never served.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Hypergamy is natural and a powerful driving force of evolution.

Without hypergamy, men wouldn't have been driven for hundreds of thousands of years to be the best, so they could get the best ladies.

This put upward pressure on evolution.

Dudes who don't like hypergamy are like communists who want to consume without needing to produce.

Stop blaming female nature for your lack of game.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Regarding your reply, I think the unanswered question to why women stayed loyal before 1960

They didn't.... Reference Bathseba leaving Uriah for David then remaining even after D arranged his murder, Anna Karenina, and Madame Bovary. Just for starters

While I'm all for encouraging folks to keep their word in all areas of life(including when they've agreed to be exclusive with one mate), we're also dealing with the human race here, thus it's wise to keep our expectations humble

 

[plumber]

as men get weaker, women get stronger to balance. women are a mirror of men.

if women are dependent on men, they will naturally submit. if they are not dependent then they will not.

most of our laws are about keeping other men down (crabs in a bucket).

most humans react only to force or threat of force. peace through strength.

when we confused equal with equal value, the end started. look up what Antoinette Brown Blackwell
and others did.

for sure the species does better when male dominance is allowed.

 

[jhonny9546]

The wives of wimpy yet financially loaded yet geeky businessmen run off with tatted up ex-cons, who possess a virile edge, quite frequently

What about financially loaded, wealthy, yet masculine businessmen, who possess a virile edge?

 

[jhonny9546]

Trying to figure out what motivates any woman you might date is harder than self-assessment, but not impossible if you open your eyes and pay attention to her behavior

I think this is one of the most beautiful qualities you can develop, and it would simply help you when meeting anyone, making you ask yourself, "What does this person really want from me?" "What need are they trying to fulfill?"

This kills the romanticism of one-ism, in favor of a pragmatic approach.

That's why I say that when a woman is "comfortable" and doesn't have to satisfy some of her "basic" needs "on her own," then if she's not attracted to your inspiring ways and doesn't admire you, then the relationship is over.

Notice how all rich women (I can speak from my own experience) are either looking for a man who will crush them sexually, even if he's a prisoner, or they're looking for a truly healthy man with whom they can feel good in company and grow emotionally.

As Ranger says... How do you understand this? That's the key!
Ranger, could you say more about this?

most humans react only to force or threat of force.

This is true in relationships too, many women simply submit to a man's arrogance and anger, rather than his emotional self-control

 

[Solomon]

It's not just women; all human beings are subject to Maslow's priority of need. In an uncivilized society, things like self-esteem and self-actualization take a back seat to survival, comfort, and minimal levels of happiness. We are always looking for things that make our life better.... whatever we believe that might be, dictated by our life experiences.

The only thing different between the genders is what generally average sane men, or women, have different needs. But no size fits everyone.

The best way to understand this is to do an honest self-assessment. For me, I am obsessed with my personal wealth... I spend every day tracking the daily value of my investments and property... I take this obsession to the next level by projecting what I believe my wealth and dividend will be two years out. This is a result of the fact that I watched my father struggle with money in his retirement years. My next obsession is my kids, this is mostly because my father struggled with money mostly because I had a dysfunctional brother that always needed his help. Anything that gets in the way of my money and kids takes a back seat. It is these two things that get in the way of any long-term relationship I might pursue.

Many women I date come with a ruck sack full of problems, financial mess... with kids that have a significant amount of emotional baggage. They are looking for a White Knight to save them and need more than I am willing to give.

Trying to figure out what motivates any woman you might date is harder than self-assessment, but not impossible if you open your eyes and pay attention to her behavior... then you have to have the balls to dump her if she demands more than you are willing and able to give.

We live in a society where basic needs are met, so what many look for is self-esteem and self-actualization. If the person you are with have these higher needs that runs in contrast to what you want... well... that isn't going to work long term.

This is spot on, and really don't have much to add except sadly, when you go to the wealth section on here, it's empty. I'm not sure people realize but within 5-10 years, "The Permanant underclass" will be a real thing, if men think hypergamy is bad now just wait it will be a mix of Japan (for men) and Colombia (for women)

 

[BackInTheGame78]

No they didn't...they were just much more discreet in their affairs.

The mistake people make is they see a result and assume what goes into achieving that. The reality is usually far different than the gaps people fill in in their own mind and assume is the truth, however.

 

[BaronOfHair]

What about financially loaded, wealthy, yet masculine businessmen, who possess a virile edge?

Chances of their women not running off so easily are STRONGER than a nebbish man's are. I'm sensing that you're in search of a strategy that'll GUARANTEE a woman never leaves you, @jhonny9546 Those don't exist for us, in the same way chicks have no guarantee that their men won't some day leave them for another gal

 

[plumber]

This is true in relationships too, many women simply submit to a man's arrogance and anger, rather than his emotional self-control

emotional self-control results in calm force being felt by the other. that is precisely why self-control is needed, and is powerful. its not the lack of bluster, its the understanding of decision vs reaction.

laws counter bluster, but do not care about decision and self-control. so use the tool that works and does not do harm.

 

[jhonny9546]

emotional self-control results in calm force being felt by the other.

How can that be perceived as passivity (weakness) or as activity (therefore strength)?
Sometimes silence and a look are enough.

But depending on the person, it could be perceived as weakness or strength.

 

[plumber]

How can that be perceived as passivity (weakness) or as activity (therefore strength)?
Sometimes silence and a look are enough.

But depending on the person, it could be perceived as weakness or strength.

exactly. you have hit on the huge point of this. in our mind we worry that stability and calm and decisive will be seen as weak. and the wise opponent will push that idea onto us. it takes strength to hold the line when ego is attacked.

and your correct. resolve not shame.

 

[jhonny9546]

resolve not shame

This is exactly what I mean. Especially when that thing will be confirmed by others too: "Yes, he was really weak... he didn't react or he remained still when she said those things to him"... "I, on the other hand, would have gotten angry and yelled at him to put her right"... you understand?


Interactions seem to be "won" and "validated as having been won" by men who get angry, who become irascible. There is no other explanation why women stay in relationships with these men, when they have proof that there are other men on the outside who are really "men" in the sense that they remain calm.

 

[plumber]

This is exactly what I mean. Especially when that thing will be confirmed by others too: "Yes, he was really weak... he didn't react or he remained still when she said those things to him"... "I, on the other hand, would have gotten angry and yelled at him to put her right"... you understand?


Interactions seem to be "won" and "validated as having been won" by men who get angry, who become irascible. There is no other explanation why women stay in relationships with these men, when they have proof that there are other men on the outside who are really "men" in the sense that they remain calm.

yes truth vs the truth vs all truth vs not true.

the secret sauce is the calm does not work until they know you have ability and it is restraint. that's your point. its more or less true.

both men and women will decide.

men of distinction live by codes.

men without codes, just stink. but often times they win.

how to resolve that. good men lose and bad men win sometimes. there is nothing new under the sun.

now i know most of that does not make sense... its true women will stay due to fear and will leave due to safety.

remember when you first take the red pill. its part of that, how it is vs how we think it is.

the law of the jungle is the law. it has many disguises, but still is winner take all. but who is the winner.....

 

[RoadKing_Rabbit]

This is exactly what I mean. Especially when that thing will be confirmed by others too: "Yes, he was really weak... he didn't react or he remained still when she said those things to him"... "I, on the other hand, would have gotten angry and yelled at him to put her right"... you understand?


Interactions seem to be "won" and "validated as having been won" by men who get angry, who become irascible. There is no other explanation why women stay in relationships with these men, when they have proof that there are other men on the outside who are really "men" in the sense that they remain calm.

An excellent book on this exact principle is "How to argue and win every time" by Gerry Spence. Highly recommend. This book allowed me to not only check my temper, but to convey not only credibility, but strength and control. It's a lot easier not to take crap from people now as well. His illustrations and points can be practiced immediately!

 

[jhonny9546]

Good men lose and bad men win sometimes.

It reminds me of when they say "he was such a good man" or "he was such a kind person," and usually the ones who say that are women who can't help but praise "irascible/angry" men.

Women will stay due to fear and will leave due to safety.

Exactly that, especially in a long-term relationship.
Here's what my words are referring to: https://www.sosuave.net/forum/threa...ative-to-the-woman-theory.285883/post-3187651

But who is the winner.....

But I still don't understand your point.

 

[plumber]

But I still don't understand your point.

The real goal is to survive and be happy. After all the events and time, he who is satisfied and happy is the winner.