Post: #1

Im still new to the forum, I told my story on other post and received advice and a coule of useful links that seem to be working.
Anyway I was speaking with a couple of friends about their relationships, current and past and suddenly an idea came to my head.
Do always women have to be in a worst position than men for a relationship to work?

I heard the same history over and over again, I dont know if its only in latin america or all around the world, let me give you an example:

Guy meets a woman and help her to overcome her limitations,(financial,job,Move with him to a better country,education etc) maybe because the guy is a blue collar worker or something like that, then once she is in a similar position or even better than her man she becomes bossy,angry, dominant etc. Its like they dont know how to handle to grow and improve, or her man has to be better than her always, better looking, have a better job, do better than her financially, have a better education, be smarter than her, we cant be "equals"you know what I mean.

what are your experiences and thoughts?

Post: #2

Don't think of it as "worse" because submission or subordination isn't a "worse" position it's just a position. And as it happens; for women to be happy with their relationships with men they need to be in a subordinate position. Sometimes it can be symbolic and that can be tricky, although it's usually better if their man is tangibly better than them and she is aware of it

Post: #3

High sex drive - are all men like that?


Biology, evolution and they way you are built.

Think of it this way, if a woman didn't select the best genes to get fertilised by, her offspring would have a lower chance of making it adulthood to make their own choices to mate with.
So the women that picked weak, poor providers aren't hear to meet you today.

Post: #4

This whole idea of "equals" is a fantasy. Man and woman are not the same. A man does man things. A woman does woman things. Expecting a woman to do man things or a man to do woman things is asking for problems.

Quote:Guy meets a woman and help her to overcome her limitations

This is where problems begin. A man looking at a woman and seeing man problems. He is trying to solve man problems. Expecting a woman to "grow" into a man. Expecting her to behave like a man and do man things.

Post: #5

(10-21-2018 11:35 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  Don't think of it as "worse" because submission or subordination isn't a "worse" position it's just a position. And as it happens; for women to be happy with their relationships with men they need to be in a subordinate position. Sometimes it can be symbolic and that can be tricky, although it's usually better if their man is tangibly better than them and she is aware of it

I think this is a good "rewording". The woman (regardless of what she says) wants to be subordinate to the man in the relationship. Every relationship I have ever had or observed as functioned great when the man is the leader, but it is a SAD SAD sight when the man is subordinate to the woman.

Post: #6

Think of it in a business sense. If you were at a decent job with decent pay, decent hours, decent benefits! Let’s say every single day you get offers from other companies offering you way better pay, way better hours, way better benefits etc. Would you stay? Consider you want kids one day would that change your choice?

That’s what most women go through every day. But sometimes they’ll settle for less pay or less hours for more benefits or any combination of the 3.

The problem is men are taught through general society and especially the media that the underdog can get the woman. That women have this sense of loyalty, or that warmth or better yet “love” can keep that woman around. Women aren’t shamed and exiled for “being open to or choosing new jobs”

Also think of it like this, women are pretty much bred since caveman days to pursue the hunters in time of need (when the crops are low or dead) but to keep an eye on the farmer at all times.

The problem now is social media has caused the 80/20 split to drop to something closer to 90/10. Women expect more now and are pursued 24/7.

Post: #7

Posts saying 90/10 rule and hypergamy always bother me because this garbage only applies to sexual selection via online dating.

Most attractive (7/8+) women I see in relationships are not with Chads/Tyrones who are 6’4” ex-NFL linebacker CEOs with 12” cocks.

They’re with completely average to below average dudes. I see this all the time living in downtown Chicago.

I think a lot of forum dwelling dudes are simply delusional and make excuses for not getting laid or getting quality women by pushing bs like 90/10. Its a complete lie/excuse.

This is especially directed to the guy above me. Fuking delusional. Attraction isn’t a fuking checklist of items that women go through before deciding to be with a guy, their attraction switches are based off emotion and subtelties that you can’t base off a checklist. Too many dudes think “oh i don’t have this or that, that’s why I can’t get her” when in reality, the girl probably doesn’t give a fuk about any of that.

Delusional guys tend to lump all women into one category in terms of what they want and apply that as a blanket requirement for everything. Dumb as fuk.

Just LOL @ comparing business to a woman.

My younger cousin is getting married to a guy who’s ugly as fuk and when I told her she could walk into a bar and have a way better looking guy with better everything that would be willing to provide for her, she said no, she likes the guy she’s with. I asked her what about him she likes, and she couldn’t give me an answer beyond “ummm I don’t know.. i just like him”. And my cousin is an educated person with a masters in computer science. So fuk all this checklist theory bullshit, its garbage.

Post: #8

There are exceptions.

Hypergamy does not explain everything. If it applied at all times Howard Hughes could have had anybody. He could not have Ava Gardner.

Post: #9

Listen to some Patreice O'Neal (RIP). That dude says it like it is.

Post: #10

U have a horrible understanding, many average guys can get women. The 90/10 rule applies to guys who can have almost any girl they want.....The “Chads” as you say are the ones who the girls WANT, the others are the guys they settle for......Ofcourse there are exceptions to the rule but generally it’s true. Also I didn't compare women to a business

Post: #11

^ So if girls are settling then it means the 90/10 rule doesn't exist. It's not really any different to men. We all want top tier women, but most usually end up settling for a 7 that's a decent person and convenient.

Post: #12

Hypergamy is an empirically demonstrable fact and you can find scientific literature on the interwebs aplenty.

However, I think that the confusion is, some of you gents treat it in binary terms. Either a female is or is not hypergamous. I think it is a complex system with both biological and cultural parameters. Rather, hypergamous behaviour is a function that changes its value as a female ages (probably one of the biggest factors), how economically independent she is, how attractive she is both objectively and subjectively, what men available in the dating market, cultural conventions and so on. As a heuristic, I think, we can look at it as a continuum, whereby a statistical woman, the older she gets, the more hypergamous behaviours become observable due to the biological drive to find a male of as high bio-socio-economic status as possible to ensure successful survival of her offsprings.

Post: #13

That’s pretty much what I’m saying. Maybe it is contradictory. I don’t have the knowledge to fully explain what I’m saying so I apologize.

The business analogy still explains hypergamy to me.

Post: #14

This was hard for me to grasp, but yes, they are all into hypergamy. Don't let the looks of a dude tell you he doesn't have higher value than the girl he's with, regardless if she's a 7/8. They care a about a myriad of things besides looks.

I read from a forum member a phrase that struck me: 'There is no love, only hypergamy'. That means you have to either be taller, stronger, better looking, smarter, wealthier, talented, more famous, more popular, older, exotic, more experienced and etc in order to be found attractive by a woman. You don't have to be all those things at the same time but depending on the girl you want and the location you are in you have to gather more and more of those traits in order to compete. Girl A would be attracted with guy who is wealthier/exotic and girl B would drool for guy who is Taller/more popular.

An average blonde and blue-eyed westerner complains about women in his own country and goes to south america to find out he gets looks everywhere and all out of sudden women are eye-fucking him, he gets laid with ease and wants to come back. Another dude (6ft tall,white, and decently looking) in the same country starts to think there's something wrong with the women in his country and finds a guy called roosh and a community from whom he learns the truth.

Quote:. I asked her what about him she likes, and she couldn’t give me an answer beyond “ummm I don’t know.. i just like him”.

I believe Game is the ultimate hacking strategy to the hypergamy switch in women. You create illusions and trigger those subtleties you mention by being confident, aloof, asshole, among other things. I have to use negs and be an asshole to girls in my country in order to compete, while my fellow rooshvfers just have to say Hi and smile.

I was a blue-pilled and lame beta with one of my ex-girlfriends and she still 'loved' me for a while. She 'loved' me because I was more talented, taller, and better looking than her. We had chemistry, but chemistry is not common.

Hypergamy is everywhere, you just have to see it for yourself. And it's not always about looks. exceptions do exist but they are the few and far in between, and often, don't last much. Cheers.

Post: #15

Thanks dudes, I was about to say: I know men and women have different problems, but im not trying to put mens prolems into women, more like they them selves are getting into male issues trying to define themselves as succesful...let me explain myself better:
We were taling about how as a society we reached this point, or if it ever was like that, sure, women used to get atttracted to the better warriors and hunters, of old, but shit got out of control lately
Probably after WWII when in most war devasted countries(that became later the firs world) women had to do acraft since most husbands and fathers died on the war so now they learned a craft and began earning money which gave them freedom of some sorts, they didnt became aware of what this freedom mean until 60s-70s.

But thing is that I remember when I was a kid there was an old fella living across the street, he born poor but learned how to repair certain heavy machines, whic wasnt common at that day, that made him wealthy and he was wise for business so at that time he had a big ass house, 3 luxury cars, a boat,2 or 3 apartments that he rented, and a beach house and of course his business with cars and employees.

He got divorced from an unfaithful wife, on a fishing trip he meet a young girl from a small rural town, take her to his home , made her go to nightschool so she can finish at least high school, and gave her a car.

Guess what she start treatng him like shit and got a lover...

The other day I was in a cab and the cab driver start talking, more or less the same history, he has his cab and another car, guy was doing well financially(for his standards) has his own house etc, meet a girl, paid her college, bought her a car, once she found a carrer related job, she break up with him, I know not all women are like that, but I hear the same history often, over and over again, so what should we, men so? dont help them to grow and develop careers? etc, its crazy, dont you think?

Post: #16

(10-23-2018 12:33 PM)Rubenc16 Wrote:  Thanks dudes, I was about to say: I know men and women have different problems, but im not trying to put mens prolems into women, more like they them selves are getting into male issues trying to define themselves as succesful...let me explain myself better:
We were taling about how as a society we reached this point, or if it ever was like that, sure, women used to get atttracted to the better warriors and hunters, of old, but shit got out of control lately
Probably after WWII when in most war devasted countries(that became later the firs world) women had to do acraft since most husbands and fathers died on the war so now they learned a craft and began earning money which gave them freedom of some sorts, they didnt became aware of what this freedom mean until 60s-70s.

But thing is that I remember when I was a kid there was an old fella living across the street, he born poor but learned how to repair certain heavy machines, whic wasnt common at that day, that made him wealthy and he was wise for business so at that time he had a big ass house, 3 luxury cars, a boat,2 or 3 apartments that he rented, and a beach house and of course his business with cars and employees.

He got divorced from an unfaithful wife, on a fishing trip he meet a young girl from a small rural town, take her to his home , made her go to nightschool so she can finish at least high school, and gave her a car.

Guess what she start treatng him like shit and got a lover...

The other day I was in a cab and the cab driver start talking, more or less the same history, he has his cab and another car, guy was doing well financially(for his standards) has his own house etc, meet a girl, paid her college, bought her a car, once she found a carrer related job, she break up with him, I know not all women are like that, but I hear the same history often, over and over again, so what should we, men so? dont help them to grow and develop careers? etc, its crazy, dont you think?

It's been said above, I think. Will you stay loyal until your death to your employer, if another, potential employer will, all other things being equal, tempt you with twice as big a salary? A rhetorical question, that is.

It's a man's, empirically unsound, assumption (partially influenced by the state and the media to have men believe that hard work will be adequately rewarded so they maximise their economic output filling state coffers). The reality is no - that's not how it works, and a just world fallacy corroborates it. There's nothing in the natural world out there which guarantees justice as fairness among humans. It's just a human concept we want to believe, to a degree approximated by a social contract of mutuality but not a law of nature.

Then you ask, what should men do. I don't know how exactly it works in U.S., but in Europe you've already paid for someone's education with your tax contribution. There's no reason to finance a girl's education if she can get it for free or borrow from the state. This aside, a man just shouldn't invest financially in some woman. It, ironically, creates a wrong message - "He does all these things just to keep me, he doesn't really like me". But isn't it true? Most men are thinking what they think women want. Women crave emotional roller-coster, not nice things (no wonder they love watching soap operas and romance novels are at the top of all books sold). It's nice to have comfort but it doesn't satiate women's need for emotions and talking. Women would rather have a man to listen to them, then buy her a car. Just because a man thinks a car has value X, it doesn't follow that a women will attribute value X to the car.

In short, as a man, never invest serious resources (time or money or skills) in bettering some girls' life (especially in this age where more women than men have higher education in a developed world). Buy her a coffee, maybe a meal or a symbolic gift. That's it. I have never ever lavished women with resources except once (I helped her to get into postgraduate school) - and guess what, she was very soon gone. It just sends a wrong message - "I'll sacrifice myself to have you like me with money and expensive gifts because I'm not worthy to be liked by you just for who I am". Well, isn't it actually the case? Luring a woman into your den no on the basis of who you are but what you have? An excellent exercise is to read romance novels written by women for women to understand their psyche. It's got little to nothing with things but almost everything with emotions. The investment of real resources ought to happen only after you get married and kids are on the horizon. Only then. The sooner you'll bestow your resources and gifts upon a girl, the quicker she'll be gone.

Post: #17

Your post above is highly contradictory. On the one hand you are saying someone would always be tempted away by a higher salary. So one the one hand we always value money, but on the other hand you are suggesting that a woman would not like a man for his money. It doesn't really make sense.

(10-23-2018 08:18 AM)ksbms Wrote:  Hypergamy is an empirically demonstrable fact and you can find scientific literature on the interwebs aplenty.

However, I think that the confusion is, some of you gents treat it in binary terms. Either a female is or is not hypergamous. I think it is a complex system with both biological and cultural parameters. Rather, hypergamous behaviour is a function that changes its value as a female ages (probably one of the biggest factors), how economically independent she is, how attractive she is both objectively and subjectively, what men available in the dating market, cultural conventions and so on. As a heuristic, I think, we can look at it as a continuum, whereby a statistical woman, the older she gets, the more hypergamous behaviours become observable due to the biological drive to find a male of as high bio-socio-economic status as possible to ensure successful survival of her offsprings.

The problem with hperygamy is precisely that is is NOT a scientific fact. It is a sociological theory that can not be proven. You can not disprove hypergamy. Because as you say there are all these exceptions, what if a woman is wealthy herself, etc.

If you ever studied what science is, Karl Popper would be useful, you would know that a theory that can not be disproven is not science.

Sociology is not science. Like religion its theories can not be disproven. It is not a real science.

It may be true. But it's not science. And there are way too many exceptions.

If hypergamy were true, why could Howard Hughes not have Ava Gardner?

Post: #18

If she thinks she can get it, then yes, but most women know their limits. They know what they can't get, and settle accordingly.

There is also a thing called loyalty, which is a similar phenomenon to stubbornness, in that you just stop thinking about the ups and downs, and just stick to your choice.

I don't know why men here whine about hypergamy, when we ourselves choose the most attractive women, and ignore the inferior ones. It's the way of the world, and rightfully so--couples that last are ones where there is equal exchange of value going on.

Post: #19

Raw and feral hypergamy is obvious in sexually liberal enivironments such as online dating. Not only does it see female demand rise to the top 20%, it creates some female voluntary celibacy out of a sense of superiority over most of the men.

In the more restricted MMP, hypergamy is not as feral but still present. Chad can’t marry more than one woman nor could he likely afford multiple women so the socially more superior man whom a woman would use marriage to become equal with is still:

*richer
* taller
*smarter
*stronger
*faster

90% of the time despite huge resources by the western states to equalise men and women before marriage.

Even then, married men who learnt game have found that they still need to stimulate feral hypergamy in their wives as women’s marriage vows mean nothing in front of the law in an era of serial monogamy.

Post: #20

(10-28-2018 11:20 PM)Flux Wrote:  If she thinks she can get it, then yes, but most women know their limits. They know what they can't get, and settle accordingly.

There is also a thing called loyalty, which is a similar phenomenon to stubbornness, in that you just stop thinking about the ups and downs, and just stick to your choice.

I don't know why men here whine about hypergamy, when we ourselves choose the most attractive women, and ignore the inferior ones. It's the way of the world, and rightfully so--couples that last are ones where there is equal exchange of value going on.

although that might be true, most men I know personally and a bunch of the ones on this site tends to not leave their spouse or main girl for a hotter girl. but Rather stay loyal to their main girl and have a harem on the side (loyal as in treat her the same and love her as equal as before)

From what I've seen with women, however, they might have a food guy, a listener, etc all these guys but if they find a guy better than their main guy then they'll lay all the cards on the table and choose the new guy over the main guy. anedocte evidence at it's best but I know multiple women who subconsciously treat their boyfriends alot worse (as if they're trying to get the guy to break up with them)once they find a newer better guy.

I could be wrong ofcourse but this is my opinion on the subject.

Post: #21

(10-28-2018 11:20 PM)Flux Wrote:  I don't know why men here whine about hypergamy, when we ourselves choose the most attractive women, and ignore the inferior ones. It's the way of the world, and rightfully so--couples that last are ones where there is equal exchange of value going on.

QFT. I promise all the guys on here imagining a "traditional relationship" certainly aren't thinking about this relationship with a below-average woman.

Understand the game, then play to win the game as it is, not how you hope it to be.