Women love opportunistically ; men love idealistically

[xuzaki]

I think that guy would still stay with a woman even though she is not that attractive anymore , or is b1tchy , because guys look at love idealistically

I agree that a guy would be more likely to stay, though I think the reason is largely a mixture of blue-pill conditioning and a scarcity mentality. The question still remains, what does 'idealistically' mean here?

You need to read The Rational Male.

First off, awesome suggestion. Rollo is among my favorite authors of all time. I've read all his books and his blog, and know this relates to Iron Rule #6 as well as his articles Men in Love (2012) and Women in Love (2011). However this remains one (of a VERY small list of things) that I'm not sure I agree with Rollo on.

I think “comparatively” would be a better term for women. It’s you compared to the next guy, is it not?

I'd argue that the comparison effect is not gender specific. Most guys would date a 5 if she was the hottest girl on the planet, or turn down a 9 while swimming in a pool of 10s.

That’s where “hypergamy” is kind of fuzzy.

About the example of a male plumber with a female cardiologist, or a pool boy with a female millionaire, etc, I think it's just an example of the female dual-mating strategy. The plumber obviously isn't triggering her Beta Bucks attraction, but can trigger her Alpha Fvcks side. No paradoxes here. He's a likely choice for infidelity when she's ovulating. She'll still like to date Jeff Bezos, but will find herself having sex with him more at times when she's not fertile.

It is the most boggling, mindblowing thing for me that men aren't selective for anything besides physical attraction.

Robert Trivers puts forth the theory that since males don't need to invest as much in having a child, they evolved to be less discerning in who they will mate with (see The Selfish Gene or The Red Queen).

If she lets herself go and loses her looks then she is no longer the same woman he originally chose to be with - she has removed one of the key qualities he wants and needs which is physical attraction. So she is no longer providing the same thing. Idealistic love doesn't mean emotion only and no physical, or that physical attraction can be present based exclusively on emotional connection. Men just aren't biologically programmed that way, but women CAN be physically attracted to men based mostly on emotional connection.

I agree with what you've written. And if this is what Rollo means, then dropping the terms 'idealistic' and 'opportunistic' would make it less confusing. Because it seems to be saying "both men and women are based on what they get from the other person, but each gender has entirely different qualities/opportunities they seek from the other person".

The part that boggles me is that I'm a guy and I wouldn't say that I love idealistically. Whenever I felt what I think people mean by "idealistic love", it seems to have actually stemmed from (1) blue-pill conditioning, and (2) scarcity mentality. Maybe I'm just abnormal, but if not, then it makes sense to continue ironing out what 'idealistic love' and 'opportunistic love' even mean.

 

[christie]

I agree that a guy would be more likely to stay, though I think the reason is largely a mixture of blue-pill conditioning and a scarcity mentality. The question still remains, what does 'idealistically' mean here?


First off, awesome suggestion. Rollo is among my favorite authors of all time. I've read all his books and his blog, and know this relates to Iron Rule #6 as well as his articles Men in Love (2012) and Women in Love (2011). However this remains one (of a VERY small list of things) that I'm not sure I agree with Rollo on.


I'd argue that the comparison effect is not gender specific. Most guys would date a 5 if she was the hottest girl on the planet, or turn down a 9 while swimming in a pool of 10s.


About the example of a male plumber with a female cardiologist, or a pool boy with a female millionaire, etc, I think it's just an example of the female dual-mating strategy. The plumber obviously isn't triggering her Beta Bucks attraction, but can trigger her Alpha Fvcks side. No paradoxes here. He's a likely choice for infidelity when she's ovulating. She'll still like to date Jeff Bezos, but will find herself having sex with him more at times when she's not fertile.


Robert Trivers puts forth the theory that since males don't need to invest as much in having a child, they evolved to be less discerning in who they will mate with (see The Selfish Gene or The Red Queen).


I agree with what you've written. And if this is what Rollo means, then dropping the terms 'idealistic' and 'opportunistic' would make it less confusing. Because it seems to be saying "both men and women are based on what they get from the other person, but each gender has entirely different qualities/opportunities they seek from the other person".

The part that boggles me is that I'm a guy and I wouldn't say that I love idealistically. Whenever I felt what I think people mean by "idealistic love", it seems to have actually stemmed from (1) blue-pill conditioning, and (2) scarcity mentality. Maybe I'm just abnormal, but if not, then it makes sense to continue ironing out what 'idealistic love' and 'opportunistic love' even mean.

good points, I'll look up Selfish gene and Red Queen is patiently sitting in the stack of books I'm reading through, thanks.

 

[rjc149]

Both men and women love conditionally and opportunistically, but they value different categories of opportunity.

Yes, women (not all, because most cannot) prefer to mate with a higher-status man with good genetics and provisional ability -- preferably all of these qualities. In the absence of that opportunity, their mating strategy will vacillate between "alpha" and "beta" -- or so the theory goes.

Men generally prefer to mate short-term and long-term with the most fertile, physically attractive woman they can get, all other qualities being secondary, even if close seconds. The rare man who is always able to 'upgrade' his girlfriend to a more physically attractive one, usually will. Most men can't, especially after a certain age, unless they've achieved uncommonly high social status. In which case, they usually do upgrade.

A married man with tons of hot young chicks throwing themselves at him will have the same struggle remaining faithful as a really hot married woman constantly being hit on by attractive, high-status men.

Attractive people with a lot of options, regardless of gender, are prone to open hypergamy.

The Rational Male is a good starting point, and contains a lot of truth -- but flirts very heavily with bitterness, sexism and misogyny. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Romanemp22]

I would say it's the opposite. Women are the one who are idealistic, making up some fairytale in their heads thus guys rely on opportunities they make and find themselves in.

 

[lost_blackbird]

I can't even consider intercourse without an emotional connection first, regardless of aesthetic appeal.