# The harsh reality of women that make more $$$



## Kahlil Gibran

This site is a big proponent of the “No more Mr. Nice Guy” approach, which is fine... in theory. But, how does one pull that off if their wife makes more money? Theories are great, but in American reality, money talks and always has. 
Dr. Glover (two failed marriages) likes to throw out the premise that deep down women want to feel like their male counterpart “sets the tone and takes the lead”. Even if you are a 250 lb. wear-the-pants tough guy, good luck with that if the woman brings 3+ times of the money to the table. There is a cliche that women like to marry/date up. If that’s the case, men should stick with going after the waitress at the local diner. They both stand a good chance of being happy.


----------



## wilderness

I agree. The man has to have a higher status than the woman or the marriage will fail 7 times out of 10. Doesn't always translate into higher earnings (but let's face it, is usually does). I don't like this reality any better than the next guy, especially considering I am penniless after fighting the divorce industrial complex for the past few years. But it is what it is.


----------



## naiveonedave

This is where the 80% of women only find 20% attractive. $ counts in attractiveness.....


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I hadn't realized money factored into not being a whiny,passive aggressive MrNiceGuy. I always thought this was something you did for yourself regardless of marital status or money status.


----------



## wilderness

ScarletBegonias said:


> I hadn't realized money factored into not being a whiny,passive aggressive MrNiceGuy. I always thought this was something you did for yourself regardless of marital status or money status.


I hadn't realized that claiming that you don't care about money factored into trying to shame men into not expressing themselves.

http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/20/suck-it-up/


----------



## Maricha75

By the logic posted here, I should just sit back and wait for my marriage to fail... because statistics say it will. Nice.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

wilderness said:


> I hadn't realized that claiming that you don't care about money factored into trying to shame men into not expressing themselves.


I don't understand what you mean by this. Who is shaming men here? 

I am the breadwinner in the home. My husband isnt a "nice guy",he's a good man who has my admiration and respect. 

NMMNG is about improving yourself for yourself.It isn't about money.


----------



## wilderness

ScarletBegonias said:


> I don't understand what you mean by this. Who is shaming men here?
> 
> I am the breadwinner in the home. My husband isnt a "nice guy",he's a good man who has my admiration and respect.
> 
> NMMNG is about improving yourself for yourself.It isn't about money.


I misunderstood what you were trying to say. That's on me. Sorry.

I thought you meant that you see a guy talking about this subject as being whiny.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

wilderness said:


> I misunderstood what you were trying to say. That's on me. Sorry.
> 
> I thought you meant that you see a guy talking about this subject as being whiny.


oh my goodness no! Im sorry I was unclear! that's my fault,completely


----------



## RClawson

I can only speak for my own experiences in this area. My wife lost all of her humility one day and felt it was time to pull the "I make more money than you card". I cannot remember exactly when or why it happened but I just remember how low it made me feel. I did not think I could feel worse about myself until she she did it again, and again and then more whenever she felt she needed that trump card.

I eventually called her on it and let her know I would not tolerate it being mentioned ever again and that if I left she could count on me taking a good portion of her salary (I would never do this actually). 

This caught her attention and she knows better now because she believes me. If I had known this would have happened I never would have left my career to start a business. I had always admired her success and supported her every step on her professional journey. She is amazing at what she does. Sadly it sucked the humility right out of her in my eyes which was one of the qualities that attracted me to her all those years ago.

This experience has changed my professional perspective completely. It has been a long road back to the career I am in now. That road included me working at Wal * Mart part time to pay down debt and taking the first part time sales job I could get so I could prove myself. 

For almost two years now I have been working full time. I love what I do and the product I sell. I am respected by my colleagues and trusted by management. If I have a good a year as I believe I am going to I will make about 15K less than I did at my professional peak in 2003. 

Not to long ago my wife implied that that was not good enough. I suggested she find someone who will meet her standard but it took me years to find someone who would even interview me and I am happy where I am at. I am done ladder climbing and I am not working to please her. Those days are done.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I like your attitude about it,RClawson! It's a woman's responsibility to not cut her man's balls off just bc she's in a snit and happens to make more money. I'm sorry she didn't take her responsibility as seriously as she should have on this matter. Definitely poor judgment on her part.


----------



## JCD

Kahlil Gibran said:


> This site is a big proponent of the “No more Mr. Nice Guy” approach, which is fine... in theory. But, how does one pull that off if their wife makes more money? Theories are great, but in American reality, money talks and always has.
> Dr. Glover (two failed marriages) likes to throw out the premise that deep down women want to feel like their male counterpart “sets the tone and takes the lead”. Even if you are a 250 lb. wear-the-pants tough guy, good luck with that if the woman brings 3+ times of the money to the table. There is a cliche that women like to marry/date up. If that’s the case, men should stick with going after the waitress at the local diner. They both stand a good chance of being happy.


And yet Mathew Broderick is married. Hmm. Something is wrong with your original premise. 

Well, if we are going with that logic, any woman with a greater than 22 inch waist would also be single. Any woman lower than a 5 in attractiveness would be single.

This is not the case. Why? Because it is A factor in a marriage, not the entirety of the marriage.

For better or worse, women DO like providers, they do like status, and they like manly men. Women, when selling themselves to men, are careful to outline that they are 'high status respectable girls' if they can make ANY claim to that fact because FOR women, it's a big market signal. Any doctor not married is seriously flawed or wants to be single.

High status women ARE looking for their equals because so many people these days are taught to not settle for anything less. This leads to unhappiness a lot. Women penning articles about how few rich and high status men there are. Well, DUH!

I think that 'dependable provider' is given some pretty good weight too. I think it DOES put a stress on a marriage for a woman to earn more. For one thing, women who earn a lot of money are hard driven and if she gets the sense that her SO is slacking off, it will build resentment. For another, when a woman dips into a man's pocket, it's 'the way things are'. When a man dips into her purse...there is a Disturbance in the Force. (At least Mrs. Badger always gives me merry hell when I ask for some cash...and I actually EARNED it all  )

But it could also be that men, feeling shame, depression etc over this state of affairs, could easily cause some of the major problems in the marriage too. Resentment isn't gender specific.

FOR THE MOST PART, women seem to do their best to respect male feelings on this point, though individual results may vary. If the default position is women with money with leverage in opinion = unacceptable, well...that's a personal issue.


----------



## Applejuice

I'm inclined to think it's more about self-image than social expectations, especially in the 21st Century as the perception of traditional gender roles is adapted and refined.

Long gone are the natural predators our paleolithic ancestors once feared. Now emancipated from the confines of a necessary child-rearing refuge, women can do their own hunting.

Does that diminish us as men? I don't think so. Many of our inherent characteristics are still as valuable today as they, undoubtedly, were then.

If I had a wealthy wife who loved me despite my entrepreneurial shortcomings and relied on me to provide her with the moral support and physical protection I would gladly provide, I'd be a very content man.

Society can stuff its divisive instruments of caste-based hierarchical stratification.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

RClawson said:


> My wife lost all of her humility one day and felt it was time to pull the "I make more money than you card". I cannot remember exactly when or why it happened but I just remember how low it made me feel. I did not think I could feel worse about myself until she she did it again, and again and then more whenever she felt she needed that trump card.
> 
> I eventually called her on it and let her know I would not tolerate it being mentioned ever again.


Man, that’s brutal.
Even if your wife no longer throws down the trump card of “I make more money than you” because you called her on it, you know she still harbors it and she just doesn’t say it. Also deep down you must wonder if she really respects/loves you if her acceptance is based solely on how you're doing financially at the time. 
I can think of no tougher time than now to be a man in terms of relationships.


----------



## JCD

RClawson said:


> I can only speak for my own experiences in this area. My wife lost all of her humility one day and felt it was time to pull the "I make more money than you card". I cannot remember exactly when or why it happened but I just remember how low it made me feel. I did not think I could feel worse about myself until she she did it again, and again and then more whenever she felt she needed that trump card.
> 
> I eventually called her on it and let her know I would not tolerate it being mentioned ever again and that if I left she could count on me taking a good portion of her salary (I would never do this actually).
> 
> This caught her attention and she knows better now because she believes me. If I had known this would have happened I never would have left my career to start a business. I had always admired her success and supported her every step on her professional journey. She is amazing at what she does. Sadly it sucked the humility right out of her in my eyes which was one of the qualities that attracted me to her all those years ago.
> 
> This experience has changed my professional perspective completely. It has been a long road back to the career I am in now. That road included me working at Wal * Mart part time to pay down debt and taking the first part time sales job I could get so I could prove myself.
> 
> For almost two years now I have been working full time. I love what I do and the product I sell. I am respected by my colleagues and trusted by management. If I have a good a year as I believe I am going to I will make about 15K less than I did at my professional peak in 2003.
> 
> Not to long ago my wife implied that that was not good enough. I suggested she find someone who will meet her standard but it took me years to find someone who would even interview me and I am happy where I am at. I am done ladder climbing and I am not working to please her. Those days are done.


I would ask her to put a monetary value on what you bring to the marriage outside of your career, since she seems so money driven.

Have her price out a divorce while she is at it and the remarriage rates of women her age.

If she isn't valuing you, I sympathize with you and pity her. If this goes south, she will quickly find that money makes a very poor blanket to keep her warm.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

JCD said:


> I would ask her to put a monetary value on what you bring to the marriage outside of your career, since she seems so money driven.
> 
> Have her price out a divorce while she is at it and the remarriage rates of women her age.
> 
> If she isn't valuing you, I sympathize with you and pity her. If this goes south, she will quickly find that money makes a very poor blanket to keep her warm.


This.:iagree:


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

What kind of differences are we talking about here? Because anything under 6 figures really isn't worth comparing. We are all poor badgers. Getting one's ego bumped over a 10K difference is really pathetic when you put things in context. And if you want to have children, the dynamics really shift. A woman always takes an income hit when it comes to giving birth, and more if she is nursing. There is no way around it. Theoretically, she needs to make more to compensate for that. Plus, women live longer. So we need more money to fund our retirement years. And tampons cost money, as do bras. I have been peeved about that since I hit adolescence.

In other news, my neighbor, who was involved in the 70's women's rights movements, has completely lost it. She went off on me for having openly expressed my anger at a hit and run to my car this past week. Apparently it wasn't okay for a woman to be angry like that, only a man. :-o But when I put it in the context of class warfare (pointing out that a large new SUV backed up into my car and then drove off, intending to stick me with the damages) she thought it was okay. So, if I am angry about loss of money due to financial status that is okay, but if I am angry about loss of money as a woman then it is not. ARRRRRRRRRRGH. 

WHY WHY WHY WHY should money be any less important to a woman than to a man? Ridiculous, as is the concept of a woman making less than a man to make "nice nice" in a marriage.


----------



## Fozzy

RClawson said:


> I can only speak for my own experiences in this area. My wife lost all of her humility one day and felt it was time to pull the "I make more money than you card". I cannot remember exactly when or why it happened but I just remember how low it made me feel. I did not think I could feel worse about myself until she she did it again, and again and then more whenever she felt she needed that trump card.
> 
> I eventually called her on it and let her know I would not tolerate it being mentioned ever again and that if I left she could count on me taking a good portion of her salary (I would never do this actually).
> 
> This caught her attention and she knows better now because she believes me. If I had known this would have happened I never would have left my career to start a business. I had always admired her success and supported her every step on her professional journey. She is amazing at what she does. Sadly it sucked the humility right out of her in my eyes which was one of the qualities that attracted me to her all those years ago.
> 
> This experience has changed my professional perspective completely. It has been a long road back to the career I am in now. That road included me working at Wal * Mart part time to pay down debt and taking the first part time sales job I could get so I could prove myself.
> 
> For almost two years now I have been working full time. I love what I do and the product I sell. I am respected by my colleagues and trusted by management. If I have a good a year as I believe I am going to I will make about 15K less than I did at my professional peak in 2003.
> 
> Not to long ago my wife implied that that was not good enough. I suggested she find someone who will meet her standard but it took me years to find someone who would even interview me and I am happy where I am at. I am done ladder climbing and I am not working to please her. Those days are done.


:smthumbup: my brother is in a similar situation right now. His wife is VERY career oriented. He isn't a ladder climber either, but he works damn hard at what he does. She's made comments about it before to him too. Very sad that people put so much emphasis on money and status.


----------



## Faithful Wife

wilderness said:


> I agree. The man has to have a higher status than the woman or the marriage will fail 7 times out of 10. Doesn't always translate into higher earnings (but let's face it, is usually does). I don't like this reality any better than the next guy, especially considering I am penniless after fighting the divorce industrial complex for the past few years. But it is what it is.


:scratchhead:

Higher status?

Neither my H nor I have any "status" in any group's eyes.

Who on earth is qualified to tell me or him what our "status" is?


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

Faithful Wife said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Higher status?
> 
> Neither my H nor I have any "status" in any group's eyes.
> 
> Who on earth is qualified to tell me or him what our "status" is?


I’m pretty sure by “status” he means financial well-being (financial status). Not status as in social status/ how you appear to judgmental people.


----------



## Applejuice

Kahlil Gibran said:


> I’m pretty sure by “status” he means financial well-being (financial status). Not status as in social status/ how you appear to judgmental people.


Aaahh yes, I forget that in the US, there IS no distinction.


----------



## MEM2020

QFT

Spoken like a woman in love




Faithful Wife said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Higher status?
> 
> Neither my H nor I have any "status" in any group's eyes.
> 
> Who on earth is qualified to tell me or him what our "status" is?


----------



## RClawson

Kahlil Gibran said:


> Man, that’s brutal.
> Even if your wife no longer throws down the trump card of “I make more money than you” because you called her on it, you know she still harbors it and she just doesn’t say it. Also deep down you must wonder if she really respects/loves you if her acceptance is based solely on how you're doing financially at the time.
> I can think of no tougher time than now to be a man in terms of relationships.


Very perceptive and 100% true. She says all the right things but the damage is done and it is permanent. I would say she loves me but respects me? I doubt it even though she says she does. 

When I was a young man I was ambitious and always on the way up. While climbing the ladder I became very disenchanted with the "corporate culture". I am out for me at this point in life. I make money for me and the company is just a vehicle. I am honest with them with my time and energy but expect nothing from them except to give me a paycheck for what I have done. I refuse to go above and beyond unless it benefits me. 

I think your last sentence speaks volumes and agree 100%.


----------



## JCD

I think there is a distinct social hierarchy in America which is pretty undefined.

Unless it is very technical or lucrative work, white collar seems to trump blue collar, despite that some office drones earn far less than an autoworker, for example.

A teacher is given kudos far outside her price structure as are politicians, cops and media types. I don't even mean moguls. I mean reporters frequently get invited to things that the average man could not enter.

Another group which has 'status' but no wealth is Academia.


----------



## RClawson

JCD said:


> I would ask her to put a monetary value on what you bring to the marriage outside of your career, since she seems so money driven.
> 
> Have her price out a divorce while she is at it and the remarriage rates of women her age.
> 
> If she isn't valuing you, I sympathize with you and pity her. If this goes south, she will quickly find that money makes a very poor blanket to keep her warm.


Thanks but trust me we have reconciled this. She knows better than to pull the money card on me. If she does it again I will be gone until she can apologize and clearly understand that it will be unacceptable if she wishes to continue the marriage.


----------



## JCD

RClawson said:


> Very perceptive and 100% true. She says all the right things but the damage is done and it is permanent. I would say she loves me but respects me? I doubt it even though she says she does.
> 
> When I was a young man I was ambitious and always on the way up. While climbing the ladder I became very disenchanted with the "corporate culture". I am out for me at this point in life. I make money for me and the company is just a vehicle. I am honest with them with my time and energy but expect nothing from them except to give me a paycheck for what I have done. I refuse to go above and beyond unless it benefits me.
> 
> I think your last sentence speaks volumes and agree 100%.


Even if she regrets it to her dying day, how does she unring the bell?

Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to be trying that very hard if she feels you are still 'short' in whatever you 'owe' the family (and by family, I mean her)


----------



## Sandfly

I've always supported the women in my life to pursue their careers and try to bring in more money. 

One I helped to prepare for her promotion to a skilled machinist's job in the factory she worked at, another I coached for interviews for a job we both applied for abroad - I got the job fulltime, so she was going to come with me and I would support us both. 

Then some hours came up for her too - because I let the new boss know that it would be good if she could earn a bit too. 

I was happy for her... she seemed disappointed at not getting the full-time, so you'd think she'd like the offer. Well! It turns out she didn't really want to work... she had already decided she'd rather live off my earnings and have a nice long holiday from working. I felt this economic dependence would be unhealthy for her however.

The place we lived in was paradise. It was an old city with colourful local festivals, lovely people, and good money. The sun shone nearly everyday, we ate out for nearly every meal, went out nearly every night somewhere new. Travelled all over the country. Met some fun people, went on adventures.

But, we came back. She couldn't hack her part-time post there. 

It took a few months, both of us back in the country looking for work, and she found different work in another part of the UK, paying quite a bit more than she was used to. 

Ironically, the job she pretended to want but didn't want, the qualification I pushed her to complete (she never completed anything) paved the way nicely to being by far a strong candidate - fitted her for the criteria perfectly.

In both cases, when they started earning much more than me, the response was not: 

"now I can help you. You helped me with money when I was part-time/unemployed. I am where I am now, partly thanks to you supporting me". Equality, right?

Soon after bringing in their own enormous private piles of cash, they 'fell in love' with the man who had sat on their interview panels.

I won't be making that mistake again. Equality and partnership? Unicorns and Rainbows!


----------



## lifeistooshort

I think a lot of people are focused on the wrong things in life, but to make a blanket statement that men should have higher financial status implies that women should have higher physical status, and a whole bunch of men here think that shouldn't be the case. Both of these ideas are stupid. Thanks to laws of equilibrium I'd say that an equal number of women look for more money as men who look for hot. Actually, with todays media, I'd say more men are looking for hot. To me, a real man isn't based on his income but on his ability to handle things and have my back, and of course whether he brings what he can to the table. Always look for someone of character above everything else.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

Sandfly said:


> I've always supported the women in my life to pursue their careers and try to bring in more money.
> 
> One I helped to prepare for her promotion to a skilled machinist's job in the factory she worked at, another I coached for interviews for a job we both applied for abroad - I got the job fulltime, so she was going to come with me and I would support us both.
> 
> Then some hours came up for her too - because I let the new boss know that it would be good if she could earn a bit too.
> 
> I was happy for her... she seemed disappointed at not getting the full-time, so you'd think she'd like the offer. Well! It turns out she didn't really want to work... she had already decided she'd rather live off my earnings and have a nice long holiday from working. I felt this economic dependence would be unhealthy for her however.
> 
> The place we lived in was paradise. It was an old city with colourful local festivals, lovely people, and good money. The sun shone nearly everyday, we ate out for nearly every meal, went out nearly every night somewhere new. Travelled all over the country. Met some fun people, went on adventures.
> 
> But, we came back. She couldn't hack her part-time post there.
> 
> It took a few months, both of us back in the country looking for work, and she found different work in another part of the UK, paying quite a bit more than she was used to.
> 
> Ironically, the job she pretended to want but didn't want, the qualification I pushed her to complete (she never completed anything) paved the way nicely to being by far a strong candidate - fitted her for the criteria perfectly.
> 
> In both cases, when they started earning much more than me, the response was not:
> 
> "now I can help you. You helped me with money when I was part-time/unemployed. I am where I am now, partly thanks to you supporting me". Equality, right?
> 
> Soon after bringing in their own enormous private piles of cash, they 'fell in love' with the man who had sat on their interview panels.
> 
> I won't be making that mistake again. Equality and partnership? Unicorns and Rainbows!



Sounds like you chose someone of poor character. Looking back, do you see any red flags you may have overlooked that you would see going forward
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

Kahlil Gibran said:


> This site is a big proponent of the “No more Mr. Nice Guy” approach, which is fine... in theory. But, how does one pull that off if their wife makes more money? Theories are great, but in American reality, money talks and always has.
> Dr. Glover (two failed marriages) likes to throw out the premise that deep down women want to feel like their male counterpart “sets the tone and takes the lead”. Even if you are a 250 lb. wear-the-pants tough guy, good luck with that if the woman brings 3+ times of the money to the table. There is a cliche that women like to marry/date up. *If that’s the case, men should stick with going after the waitress at the local diner.* They both stand a good chance of being happy.


Yeah, until they get divorced and then ex-H spends the rest of his life pissed that he has to pay both child support AND alimony (and blames her for it).

Maybe take a walk over to the men don't want to get married thread and see how they'd feel about a wife who made a lot of money.


----------



## Sandfly

Applejuice said:


> If I had a wealthy wife who loved me despite my entrepreneurial shortcomings and relied on me to provide her with the moral support and physical protection I would gladly provide, I'd be a very content man.


She'd have her pick of handsome younger Italian boys.

An old girlfriend of mine had a saying I used to love hearing. She used it when I said a flight of fancy like yours just now:

"and if sh*t were pudding, no one would go hungry."

Always made me laugh. She was nice.


----------



## LongWalk

Some people are extremely status conscious. Some care about wealth. Others style. Women are generally but not always seeking to mate a romantic ideal: he should be everything. If ends up being a nice guy he may find himself in trouble. A spouse who values loyalty is essential for real happiness.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli

Kahlil Gibran said:


> This site is a big proponent of the “No more Mr. Nice Guy” approach, which is fine... in theory. But, how does one pull that off if their wife makes more money? Theories are great, but in American reality, money talks and always has.


Since female hypergamy is a fundamental fact of life, it's a problem, no doubt; but it still depends. 
Here is guy who banged all the hottest hollywood starlets while married to two of the richest financial heiresses in the world. He was fully seated in the captain's chair in all these relationships. And he was short (but big where it counted).

So, what that means is that you will have to have something to make up for that financial deficit or you will be out the door.



Kahlil Gibran said:


> Dr. Glover (two failed marriages)


He must have learned something from his mistakes.



Kahlil Gibran said:


> likes to throw out the premise that deep down women want to feel like their male counterpart “sets the tone and takes the lead”. Even if you are a 250 lb. wear-the-pants tough guy,


You can't be too tough at 250 lbs, the estrogen from all that fat is going to lower your testosterone. The only exception is a guy on anabolics.



Kahlil Gibran said:


> good luck with that if the woman brings 3+ times of the money to the table. There is a cliche that women like to marry/date up. If that’s the case, men should stick with going after the waitress at the local diner. They both stand a good chance of being happy.


It's not a cliche, it's a proven fact; but it can be overcome, as our friend Rubirosa demonstrated. You just can't be a nice guy. And you can bet none of these rich women ever thought back on him without remembering how hot he was and thinking "it was worth it."


----------



## Faithful Wife

Please prove that hypergamy is a fundamental fact of life for human women without using any evo-pysch data, which is not accepted as "the truth" by all of science.


----------



## Jung_admirer

wilderness said:


> I hadn't realized that claiming that you don't care about money factored into trying to shame men into not expressing themselves.
> 
> Suck It Up |


RE: Curse of Jung
Jung would argue the the archetypal manifestations of both therationalmale.com and Jezebel.com represent immature emotional states. He would not endorse either position despite both groups maintaining the opposite.


----------



## Sandfly

Applejuice said:


> lol, she was obviously a romantic fool!
> 
> I wouldn't disagree with your theory but it is a little cynical. Just because she might be able to 'afford' a handsome, younger Italian toyboy doesn't mean the investment would yield superior results.
> 
> In the rainforests of Brazil, would you exchange your rusty SUV for a gleaming supercar just to impress the local tribal chieftain?


You made me smile. I imagined this supercar randomly being offered to me in the depths of the rainforest. I don't know how I ended up there, but now I gotta decide if impressing the bob-cut guy with feathers tied to his forehead is worth losing my ride back to civilisation 

The hypothetical 'she' is 100% likely to be approached by pretty Italian boys on her trips to Florence, but she is unlikely to end up in Manaus.

If one pretty boy didn't do it, the other five would. I'm going for option C - get her money off her before she books her flight to Italy


----------



## Applejuice

Sandfly said:


> You made me smile. I imagined this supercar randomly being offered to me in the depths of the rainforest. I don't know how I ended up there, but now I gotta decide if impressing the bob-cut guy with feathers tied to his forehead is worth losing my ride back to civilisation
> 
> The hypothetical 'she' is 100% likely to be approached by pretty Italian boys on her trips to Florence, but she is unlikely to end up in Manaus.
> 
> If one pretty boy didn't do it, the other five would. I'm going for option C - get her money off her before she books her flight to Italy


Hahaha... you're incorrigible! You realise you're going to hell don't you!


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Please prove that hypergamy is a fundamental fact of life for human women without using any evo-pysch data, which is not accepted as "the truth" by all of science.


But it's accepted by the branch of science that studies it. All the proof I need is what I see and hear. That's called empirical evidence.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/the-declining-demand-for-husbands/

Money Quote: These economists also contend that couples in which the wife earns more than the husband are less satisfied with their marriage and are more likely to divorce.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/business/breadwinner-wives-and-nervous-husbands.html
Money Quote: But what if the woman stays in the labor force and does earn more than her spouse? How does this affect the marriage? The findings here are striking. In such couples, surveys show, both wife and husband generally report being less happy about the marriage.

Given these findings, it isn’t surprising that when a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce rises, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-family-breadwinner-on-the-rise-study-says.html
Money Quote: A recent working paper by economists at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and the National University of Singapore found that, in looking at the distribution of married couples by income of husband versus wife, there is a sharp drop-off in the number of couples in which the wife earns more than half of the household income. This suggests that the random woman and random man are much less likely to pair off if her income exceeds his, the paper says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html
Money Quote: If a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce increases.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing and you don't really need science to see what's right in front of your eyes every day.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm sorry to inform you that none of those "prove" that all women are hypergamous on a biological level, my dear man. What else ya got?


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry to inform you that none of those "prove" that all women are hypergamous on a biological level, my dear man. What else ya got?


While I attribute many marital problems to biological drive, this isn't _"Talk About Biology"_ it's _"Talk About Marriage."_ It matters not if hypergamy is a biological fact, since it's a marital fact. Hypergamy is the female impulse to mate in an upward direction, generally economically, but also socially upward.

And you didn't read any of the links. Don't want to be confused with the facts?


----------



## Faithful Wife

You are not posting scientific fact, Mr. Mach. You are posting articles and blogs about MARRIAGE which has nothing to do with biology, and then trying to say that hypergamy is BIOLOGY with no scientific back up.

Nice try.

Keep telling yourself what ever you want.


----------



## Applejuice

Wow, interesting academic debate and far above my paygrade - pardon the pun.

Faithful, I think raises a valid point Machiavelli though I admire your commitment to empirical analysis.

My question is, how can you compensate for the artificial influence of social manipulation? If we're talking about a premise in which all women are somehow biologically predisposed to 'marry up', how do you compensate for social expediency if it's essentially unquantifiable?

e.g. If I use shock therapy to train albino mice to only mate with other albino mice, how can I argue that the conclusion "our studies show that albino mice only mate with other albino mice in 9 out of 10 cases" is valid?


----------



## Jung_admirer

Machiavelli said:


> You can't be too tough at 250 lbs, the estrogen from all that fat is going to lower your testosterone. The only exception is a guy on anabolics.


My buddy Andrei is packing 250 lbs these days and he hates the roids: 
Andrei Arlovski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sandfly

Applejuice said:


> e.g. If I use shock therapy to train albino mice to only mate with other albino mice, how can I argue that the conclusion "our studies show that albino mice only mate with other albino mice in 9 out of 10 cases" is valid?


Pardon me for interrupting, but I was promised a supercar?


----------



## MEM2020

Scarlett,
We have two nieces, they are sisters who are only 2 years apart in age. 

The older one married for money/security.
The younger one married for love. 

The older niece is not happy despite her beautiful house and cars, and she is intensely jealous of her younger sister. 

The 'money maker' is a deadly bore in public, and apparently no better in private. Turns out he is also a bit mean spirited. 

The academic husband is a joy to be around. My entire family loves him. He is brilliant but not condescending, and big hearted and honest. And his W loves him and lusts after him. 




ScarletBegonias said:


> I hadn't realized money factored into not being a whiny,passive aggressive MrNiceGuy. I always thought this was something you did for yourself regardless of marital status or money status.


----------



## Applejuice

MEM11363 said:


> Scarlett,
> We have two nieces, they are sisters who are only 2 years apart in age.
> 
> The older one married for money/security.
> The younger one married for love.
> 
> The older niece is not happy despite her beautiful house and cars, and she is intensely jealous of her younger sister.
> 
> The 'money maker' is a deadly bore in public, and apparently no better in private. Turns out he is also a bit mean spirited.
> 
> The academic husband is a joy to be around. My entire family loves him. He is brilliant but not condescending, and big hearted and honest. And his W loves him and lusts after him.


The repressed romantic in me just loves that!! <sigh> :smthumbup:

p.s. Incidentally, is the wealthy niece the younger niece by any chance.. I'm seeing a pattern here! (assuming my presumption is correct)

p.p.s. woops.. just reread your post.. there goes my theory! Back to the drawing board..


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's some "science" for you, Mach...since apparently "science" means "my opinion"...

The rise of the evolutionary psychology *********

(the xxx'd out word is d*ouchebag)


----------



## Applejuice

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's some "science" for you, Mach...since apparently "science" means "my opinion"...
> 
> The rise of the evolutionary psychology *********
> 
> (the xxx'd out word is d*ouchebag)


lol.. I'm new to the 'evosych' phenomenon but god only knows how many times I've encountered these types on forums. I actually believe science is becoming dogmatised, even theologised!

I made the mistake of participating in an atheist chat one evening in the hopes of finding someone who shared my quasi-existentialist philosophy and lo and behold, within minutes, I'd become the room pariah.. like I'd committed some sort of heinous public impropriety! I'm tired of so-called intellectuals assuming the moral high ground on the basis of dubious and/or junk science.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I do think there is something to the whole hypergamy thingie. I can clearly remember that after college graduation the guys that didn't land decent jobs, or weren't able to keep up with their peers were traded in by their long term girlfriends for guys that were doing better. 

Honestly though I don't think this bothers men. Before we get married we work hard to gain enough income to attract women. After we get married we bust our a$$ to make sure our families have nothing but the best. Pretty much everything men do is to attract or keep their woman. If money wasn't important to women. It wouldn't be important to us. We don't pursue money and power because we give a crap about it. We do it because we know what comes with it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

1. Thank you for your opinion on hypergamy, without trying to say it is a scientific fact.

2. It actually TOTALLY bothers MRA and PUA types, and they whine all day about it, and use it to try to pretend that science "proves" women are all wh*res.

But I agree that regular men are not bothered by it...since most have never even heard of it nor do they think it is scientific fact....because it isn't. Most men do not think all women are wh*res.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Applejuice said:


> I'm inclined to think it's more about self-image than social expectations, especially in the 21st Century as the perception of traditional gender roles is adapted and refined.
> 
> Long gone are the natural predators our paleolithic ancestors once feared. Now emancipated from the confines of a necessary child-rearing refuge, women can do their own hunting.
> 
> Does that diminish us as men? I don't think so. Many of our inherent characteristics are still as valuable today as they, undoubtedly, were then.
> 
> If I had a wealthy wife who loved me despite my entrepreneurial shortcomings and relied on me to provide her with the moral support and physical protection I would gladly provide, I'd be a very content man.
> 
> Society can stuff its divisive instruments of caste-based hierarchical stratification.


Do realize that you're contradicting yourself there ?

People , both men and women seek their equals in relationships.
Yes?

Why would a wealthy woman marry you " _despite your entrepreneurial shortcomings _"?

For love?
Can't she find another man who's her equal who loves her?
Yes?

For security?
Lol, she could afford ten times the level of security you could provide without having to was your dirty clothes.

For moral support?
With wealth and affluence why would she _need_ support from a man who she doesn't consider as her equal especially if she's self made?

Why would she or why _should_ she even bother being with a man who clearly isn't her equal?


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> * If money wasn't important to women. It wouldn't be important to us. We don't pursue money and power because we give a crap about it. We do it because we know what comes with it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :iagree:
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Most men would'nt be motivated to work if they didn't have to provide for a family or a wife.
> 
> And the average woman ain't getting married to a man who's not gainfully employed and whom she thinks isn't upward mobile or has the potential to be and is making every effort to achieve..
Click to expand...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Applejuice said:


> I don't doubt the validity of your observations Hubby but I do have to question your reasoning.
> 
> Do you think those girls who unceremoniously dumped their boyfriends in favour of a more lucrative substitute were biologically programmed to behave that way or because society compelled them to do so.
> 
> Imagine a scenario in which currency was rendered utterly obsolete and every person on the planet had to reassess their relative value to society:
> 
> 1) Millionaire footballers would become piece meal farmhands
> 2) Bill Gates would become the kings favourite bow string.
> 3) George Bush Jr. would be the court Jester
> 4) Hillary Clinton would become a baby factory
> 5) Architects would be the hovel designers of the age
> 6) Speculative bankers would be suspended on poles by their bell ends
> 
> 7) Fickle gold miners (of both sexes) would be exposed as idle opportunists and sent to the salt mines to live out their days as meat stock.
> 8) Unscrupulous 'aspirationalists' would find themselves selling horse manure for firewood and thus deemed an untouchable caste. (see: Jews/money lenders - medieval Britain)
> 
> Do I have a point? Not really.. just that once you peek through the sanitised facade of civilised society, you start to appreciate the 'real' economy.


I knew a guy used to think like this back in college.

He eventually dropped out of college.

Saw him recently sitting on the pavement playing his guitar, asking for donations.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anytime I end up in a convo with an MRA, a PUA or an evo-psyche guy who is holding tight to the hypergamy idea, I just go with it.

"Oh heck yeah, that's totally true! Every woman you meet has her eye on your taller, bigger, richer friends, don't forget that. And she would throw you off a cliff for one in a heartbeat!"

Since they already believe this, it is pretty easy to make them choke on it.


----------



## Sandfly

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's some "science" for you, Mach...since apparently "science" means "my opinion"...
> 
> The rise of the evolutionary psychology *********
> 
> (the xxx'd out word is d*ouchebag)


I quite like Mach's posts. 

I don't buy into much about behavioural sciences, I don't assume most studies are carried out without a goal, I don't accept statistics without knowing the particular question which gathered the data upon which the conclusion was based (often the conclusion doesn't match).

But Machiavelli makes a valuable contribution.

I like that he provides links, so that one can judge the source for oneself.

I can decide for myself whether to follow it up, or put it to one side. 

You don't like it, that's fine. You can post your links, supporting your views, or not. There's a developing trend to 'angry' people into self-censorship. It's not going to work.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sandfly...I wonder why you are addressing me as if you think I give a crap what you think?

I'll just put you on ignore to solve that issue. Bye.


----------



## Applejuice

Caribbean Man said:


> Do realize that you're contradicting yourself there ?


No, but please elaborate..



Caribbean Man said:


> People , both men and women seek their equals in relationships.
> Yes?


No, that's some sort of metaphysical abstraction you subscribed to but has no real place in contemporary society...



Caribbean Man said:


> Why would a wealthy woman marry you " _despite your entrepreneurial shortcomings _"?


Because money buying into more money achieves next to nothing except the consolidation of more money. Powerful people buy influential people (moneyed or otherwise)



Caribbean Man said:


> For love?
> Can't she find another man who's her equal who loves her?
> Yes?


Define equal? I wasn't aware that there was such an unambiguous scale but I'd be interested to read your synopsis.



Caribbean Man said:


> For security?
> Lol, she could afford ten times the level of security you could provide without having to was your dirty clothes.


lol... you're confusing physical harm with mental trauma. Have you ever asked yourself why so many ultra-billionaires appear to be so unhappy? ..so unfulfilled? Think it over..



Caribbean Man said:


> For moral support?
> With wealth and affluence why would she _need_ support from a man who she doesn't consider as her equal especially if she's self made?


lol... what has affluence got to do with sentiment? Ask a lottery winner if they felt blessed by the light of God...



Caribbean Man said:


> Why would she or why _should_ she even bother being with a man who clearly isn't her equal?


'Equal' is a false adjective and entirely subjective according to context. I consider myself intellectually superior, and therefore unequal to you - does that make it canon? No.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

RClawson said:


> Very perceptive and 100% true. She says all the right things but the damage is done and it is permanent. I would say she loves me but respects me? I doubt it even though she says she does.
> 
> When I was a young man I was ambitious and always on the way up. While climbing the ladder I became very disenchanted with the "corporate culture". I am out for me at this point in life. I make money for me and the company is just a vehicle. I am honest with them with my time and energy but expect nothing from them except to give me a paycheck for what I have done. I refuse to go above and beyond unless it benefits me.
> 
> I think your last sentence speaks volumes and agree 100%.


RC:

.....and as I recall you plan to leave her in the near future. which based on the stories of your marriage sounds like a good decision. I wouldn't postpone the final break with too long, though. when you do go you should surely mention her comments on the salary differential, that she won't have to worry about that anymore etc....


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's some "science" for you, Mach...since apparently "science" means "my opinion"...


:rofl:


----------



## Sandfly

Applejuice said:


> Imagine a scenario in which currency was rendered utterly obsolete and every person on the planet had to reassess their relative value to society


"Imagine all the peepul
Livin' life in peeece"

Drogi tovarishch, ya s toboi coglasen.

But given the prevailing economic conditions, we must work with mankind as we find it. 

Also, EDIT: The billionaires are unhappy for the same reason Gautama was unhappy: he had everything, everything was too easy, people were fake around him, and death was knocking at the door and won't accept a cheque. Oh, to be cursed with such unhappiness


----------



## ReformedHubby

Applejuice said:


> I don't doubt the validity of your observations Hubby but I do have to question your reasoning.
> 
> _Do you think those girls who unceremoniously dumped their boyfriends in favour of a more lucrative substitute were biologically programmed to behave that way or because society compelled them to do so._
> 
> Imagine a scenario in which currency was rendered utterly obsolete and every person on the planet had to reassess their relative value to society:
> 
> 1) Millionaire footballers would become piece meal farmhands
> 2) Bill Gates would become the kings favourite bow string.
> 3) George Bush Jr. would be the court Jester
> 4) Hillary Clinton would become a baby factory
> 5) Architects would be the hovel designers of the age
> 6) Speculative bankers would be suspended on poles by their bell ends
> 
> 7) Fickle gold miners (of both sexes) would be exposed as idle opportunists and sent to the salt mines to live out their days as meat stock.
> 8) Unscrupulous 'aspirationalists' would find themselves selling horse manure for firewood and thus deemed an untouchable caste. (see: Jews/money lenders - medieval Britain)
> 
> Do I have a point? Not really.. just that once you peek through the sanitised facade of civilised society, you start to appreciate the 'real' economy.


I honestly can't answer the question because I don't know if its biological or social pressure. I kind of think its based on the individual, it matters more to some than others. Also, just to be real, successful men have just as many male hanger ons as female groupies. Wealth attracts period.

Regarding your list of folks that would fail in the real economy. I'm not so sure about that. The ability to adapt to what isn't working is a characteristic that most successful people have. I think a couple those people on your list would have been successful regardless of the era they were born in.


----------



## MEM2020

Yes, and wealthy is a relative term. Top 10 percent. 



QUOTE=Applejuice;7268482]The repressed romantic in me just loves that!! <sigh> :smthumbup:

p.s. Incidentally, is the wealthy niece the younger niece by any chance.. I'm seeing a pattern here! (assuming my presumption is correct)

p.p.s. woops.. just reread your post.. there goes my theory! Back to the drawing board..[/QUOTE]


----------



## Applejuice

Sandfly said:


> Also, EDIT: The billionaires are unhappy for the same reason Gautama was unhappy: he had everything, everything was too easy, people were fake around him, and death was knocking at the door and won't accept a cheque. Oh, to be cursed with such unhappiness


Amen Brother!


----------



## Sandfly

Faithful Wife said:


> sandfly...I wonder why you are addressing me as if you think I give a crap what you think?
> 
> I'll just put you on ignore to solve that issue. Bye.


Who was that delightful young lady?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> "*Imagine all the peepul*
> *Livin' life in peeece"*
> 
> Zdrastvuy, tovarishch, ya coglasen.
> 
> *But given the prevailing economic conditions, we must work with mankind as we find it*.


:iagree:
LMAO!

_" Yooooou may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one..."_
~ John Lennon.

Interestingly , John Lennon left a fortune worth $800 MILLION when he died.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> LMAO!
> 
> _" Yooooou may say I'm a dreamer
> But I'm not the only one..."_
> ~ John Lennon.
> 
> Interestingly , John Lennon left a fortune worth $150 MILLION when he died.


That is a lot of money. Back in the 80's that could have bought a lot of property.

Is that because, as Reformed Hubby put it, he didn't really care about the money (so didn't spend it) but needed it to ensure his position and be viewed as a success?


----------



## Applejuice

ReformedHubby said:


> ..The ability to adapt to what isn't working is a characteristic that most successful people have. I think a couple those people on your list would have been successful regardless of the era they were born in.


It's easy to 'adapt' when you have a buffer!

Just look at JP Morgan, they can do no wrong despite doing ALL wrong!

This isn't a free society nor is it a free economy. Anyone who honestly believes they are being fairly represented within the confines of the state are fooling themselves!

p.s. Mess up, no probs... raise interest rates and recoup the losses at the expense of the taxpayer... lol...

p.p.s. Goldman Sachs must burrrnnnn


----------



## Caribbean Man

Applejuice said:


> No, but please elaborate..
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's some sort of metaphysical abstraction you subscribed to but has no real place in contemporary society...
> 
> 
> 
> Because money buying into more money achieves next to nothing except the consolidation of more money. Powerful people buy influential people (moneyed or otherwise)
> 
> 
> 
> Define equal? I wasn't aware that there was such an unambiguous scale but I'd be interested to read your synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> lol... you're confusing physical harm with mental trauma. Have you ever asked yourself why so many ultra-billionaires appear to be so unhappy? ..so unfulfilled? Think it over..
> 
> 
> 
> lol... what has affluence got to do with sentiment? Ask a lottery winner if they felt blessed by the light of God...
> 
> 
> 
> 'Equal' is a false adjective and entirely subjective according to context. I consider myself intellectually superior, and therefore unequal to you - does that make it canon? No.


Alright I get it.

I love poetry and lovesongs , but I also believe in reaching for the stars and providing in a tangibly way for my family.

So if you prefer writing poems and lovesongs to a good paycheck then to each his own I guess?

Best wishes in meeting and marrying that rich woman!

Keep us updated.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> That is a lot of money. Back in the 80's that could have bought a lot of property.
> 
> Is that because, as Reformed Hubby put it, he didn't really care about the money (so didn't spend it) but needed it to ensure his position and be viewed as a success?


Money is a construct.
And a very useful one at that.

Whilst Lennon was writing lovesongs,
He was making tons of money.


----------



## Sandfly

Money is a construct, but as things are, in a society based on the exchange of specialised and repetitive labour, in which no one man produces all he needs, there will be a medium of exchange which is acceptable as a substitute for all other goods, something:

Durable
Relatively non-bulky
Stable in value.

So gold and silver fulfilled this for a long time and our paper money began in earnest as a promise to pay out said non-rust metals on demand at the bank.

So we can't have Capitalism without money, whether it's bit-coin or diamonds or gold. (Capital, vol. 1)

What I want to know is: is there anywhere on earth where resources are not important to relationships, and, on what basis did they then pair off into families, or: is the family unit itself a product of a society in which private property and exchange already exist.

A tribe somewhere? Perhaps it's a red herring anyway, because people in tribes prolly have their pairing arranged for them.

Ideas?


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> I honestly can't answer the question because I don't know if its biological or social pressure. I kind of think its based on the individual, it matters more to some than others. Also, just to be real, successful men have just as many male hanger ons as female groupies. Wealth attracts period.
> 
> Regarding your list of folks that would fail in the real economy. I'm not so sure about that. * The ability to adapt to what isn't working is a characteristic that most successful people have. I think a couple those people on your list would have been successful regardless of the era they were born in.*


:iagree:

And that's what made them successful in the first place.

The dichotomy between money and happiness is a false one.

I personally know rich people who are very happy.
I know poor people who are very unhappy, and vice versa.

Happiness comes from within, money and success is not a barrier to achieving happiness.


----------



## Sandfly

Applejuice said:


> lol, that is so banal and provincial. It's okay big guy, leave the profound decisions to us.
> 
> I don't recall authoring any poems or, as you put it, 'love songs' but I can totally relate to your star delusion.
> 
> Like most Americans (read: westerners), you're convinced that the 50 stars is some sort of illustrative metaphor for freedom and unhampered ambition.
> 
> All I can do is pity you.


Are you trolling AJ? I'll remove you from my friends list (big threat, I know!) if you start picking on CM.

You've got the facts wrong for a start, he's not American, he's not laughing at you - he agrees in a world that's moved beyond this consumer distaster. 

You should retract your post, it's uncalled for and is based on a wrong impression of him.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> Money is a construct, but as things are, in a society based on the exchange of specialised and repetitive labour, in which no one man produces all he needs, there will be a medium of exchange which is acceptable as a substitute for all other goods, something:
> 
> Durable
> Relatively non-bulky
> Stable in value.
> 
> So gold and silver fulfilled this for a long time and our paper money began in earnest as a promise to pay out said non-rust metals on demand at the bank.
> 
> So we can't have Capitalism without money, whether it's bit-coin or diamonds or gold. (Capital, vol. 1)
> 
> *What I want to know is: is there anywhere on earth where resources are not important to relationships, and, on what basis did they then pair off into families, or: is the family unit itself a product of a society in which private property and exchange already exist.*
> 
> A tribe somewhere? Perhaps it's a red herring anyway, because people in tribes prolly have their pairing arranged for them.
> 
> Ideas?


I think you already know the answer to that.

In the beginning it was fertile land to plant food and livestock that were important.
Then as you mentioned gold and silver pieces.

So I guess the answer is no.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you already know the answer to that.
> 
> In the beginning it was fertile land to plant food and livestock that were important.
> Then as you mentioned gold and silver pieces.
> 
> So I guess the answer is no.


What hope for the future then? Perhaps mankind is a mistake, if it can't ever be satisfied !


----------



## ThreeStrikes

So I guess Kanye was right all along

"Now I ain't sayin she's a gold digger, but she ain't messin with no broke..."


----------



## Sandfly

Applejuice said:


> lol Sandfly you big ghey bear, I love you but you have to choose your freinds more wisely..
> 
> "Why would a wealthy woman marry you " despite your entrepreneurial shortcomings "?" were his exact words... does he strike you an emancipatory influence?


I love you too, little bear, but you've got him wrong, and you're coming off the list !!


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Please prove that hypergamy is a fundamental fact of life for human women without using any evo-pysch data, which is not accepted as "the truth" by all of science.


Hypergamy was a fundamental fact of life even before humans invented science. It's pretty much the basis of all literature and human development. Ever heard of David and Abigail & Bathsheba? Paris and Helen? How about the English ladies who were disparaged (paired with non-knightly class men)? 

Females are motivated by hypergamy. Are there exceptions? Sure. Are men likely to come across them? Not so much, because exceptions are exceptional. Every time a woman compliments her husband as being a good provider, she's acknowledging her own hypergamy.

And this is all borne out in the studies contained in the NYT articles I linked to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> What hope for the future then? Perhaps mankind is a mistake, if it can't ever be satisfied !


There is no _hope_ for the future Sandfly, unless they come up with another construct.

We all just have to,
Act normal,

Go to school.
Get a job.
Get married.
Have a family.
Work our butts of to shelter and feed them.
Then die.


The smarter ones try to create wealth for their offspring because the next generation always have ir harder.
But even _that too_, is becoming impossible.

Who made these rules?


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> Who made these rules?


Our owners.


----------



## Machiavelli

Applejuice said:


> lol Machiavelli, if the state insisted that you'd die if you spoke your mind, would you rebel? Women supported their (inevitably) more successful partners because it's the only avenue of power they ever had..


Hypergamy Avenue. I like it.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> We all just have to,
> 
> Act normal,
> Go to school.
> Get a job.
> Get married.
> Have a family.
> Work our butts of to shelter and feed them.
> Then die.


I can't quite get the hang of item number one of your list !

So I'm not interested in money, many of us just 'have to have it' for the sake of giving it, if collective change is looking too difficult, what can an individual do, which does not involve building up assets only to pass them on to be whittled away again?


----------



## ReformedHubby

Applejuice said:


> lol, that is so banal and provincial. It's okay big guy, leave the profound decisions to us.
> 
> I don't recall authoring any poems or, as you put it, 'love songs' but I can totally relate to your star delusion.
> 
> Like most Americans (read: westerners), you're convinced that the 50 stars is some sort of illustrative metaphor for freedom and unhampered ambition.
> 
> All I can do is pity you.


I see where CM is coming from. He is an entrepreneur as am I. I'm not saying business owners are better people, but in general we do view the world differently than most. We generally believe that we have more control over the outcomes in our lives than others do. 

Its not that I don't get that Chase and Goldman Sachs are corrupt. I know there is a "machine", I just don't care about it. I'm too busy going about building my own empire. I hope this post doesn't come across like I'm trying to insult you. I just want to point out that some of us are just fine with the system and don't necessarily need to be pitied.


----------



## Catherine602

RC She was testing you to see if you would become her minion. I'll bet she was hoping that you would stand up to her just the way you did. 

At one time, I made almost as much salary as my husband. 2 years ago, he accepted a position and they did not have a full time position for me. I work part time now and make much less than he does. 

Our dynamic has changed because there is no limit to the work that he is asked to do. He is away from our family more than and I have to work around his schedule. 

When we were equals  we planned things together. Not sure what I am trying say. There is a difference. 

My husband does not throw his weight around. We both agreed to the move and the destruction of my career.


----------



## Sandfly

Applejuice said:


> My issue is that your false idea of 'capitalism' is regulated and honed to benefit the few... a true free *market *doesn;t have copyright, patent or TPP...


I amended your statement to make it more specific. Even if the rotten old system based on mass surplus value extraction continues, even this system functions worse thanks to the items you mention.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> I can't quite get the hang of item number one of your list !
> 
> So I'm not interested in money, many of us just 'have to have it' for the sake of giving it, if collective change is looking too difficult, what can an individual do, which does not involve building up assets only to pass them on to be whittled away again?


My personal philosophy is that people who chase money tend to lose in. Like you said, it is whittled away or frittered away by future generations.
I tend to believe in doing what you like , and being satisified with your choices.
I have my degree in mechanical engineering but I'm involved in fashion and apparel business.
I like engineering but I love fashion.

I had the opportunity to work in Saudi Arabia during the late 90's but I refused and decided to pursue my dream.
Took me almost ten years to stand on my feet.
But in pursuing that dream , I met with a measure of success and made a decent living.

The money and experience I gained while pursuing that dream, I share with others less fortunate, so that they too can have a shot at achieving their dream.

I get my personal satisfaction from doing that.
But you are correct. 
Monet = Happiness.


*[Act Normal  = don't ask too many questions.]


----------



## Machiavelli

Applejuice said:


> But far from Biological.. so I concur.. social manipulation all the way...


So, you're saying chimps are vulnerable to social manipulation? Cause all the chimp chicks go for the Alpha chimp. And while human society has changed, female behavior hasn't.


----------



## 6301

When I married my first wife, I was starting out in my own business. It ain't easy. My wife had a good job with a major corporation and made damn good money along with good benefits and bot oh boy she never let me forget it. It was a battle getting the business off the ground and a battle at home.

Then she got pregnant and it got worse. Two, three times a week all I hear her say is that I have to pick up the slack and what she was telling me was that she had no intentions to taking a step back.

Ever heard the saying that you have to be at the right time and at the right place and know the right person? Well it happened to me and after four years my company took off and not only did I match her income with mine, I passed it up in a cloud of dust. All's well that ends well right? Wrong.

Now the complaining starts that I'm not around enough and it seemed like there was never a fair balance and one night I blew, and told her that for the past six years, all she did was b!tch and complain about money and always let me know that there will be no taking a step backwards. I told her that if you can't say something positive then shut you big mouth and find someone who will put up with your piss poor attitude. 

Man did that feel good. In 10 minuets I got 6 years of crap off my shoulders and she knew that I was pushed to the limit. I got some help from her family when they told her that she's lucky that I didn't pitch her out for running her mouth.

I did 4 years later and I wish I had done it a lot sooner.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, you are right Mach. I just didn't want to admit it before, so you wouldn't see my true hypergamous nature. (giggle giggle, blush!)

But hypergamy is completely true.

You will never be tall enough, strong enough or rich enough to keep any woman faithful. 

Be sure to tell all your friends that, too!


----------



## Machiavelli

Jung_admirer said:


> My buddy Andrei is packing 250 lbs these days and he hates the roids:
> Andrei Arlovski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yeah, I remember when Arnold hated roids. It was a pretty common attitude back in the 70's when everyone was "all natural" and happy to tell you that. yup.

Now, as for your boy here, the link says he's 240 and 6'4". If you buy into the fat-free mass index, which I do, it says a very gifted (genetically) guy can attain a FFMI of 25 max. Using the claimed 240# @ what I estimate is 12% body fat (very generous) we get the unlikely number of 25.9 FFMI. However, the guy might be one in 100,000,000. But the FFMI was based on guys like that in the first place. I'm very skeptical.


----------



## Caribbean Man

6301 said:


> When I married my first wife, I was starting out in my own business. It ain't easy. My wife had a good job with a major corporation and made damn good money along with good benefits and bot oh boy she never let me forget it. It was a battle getting the business off the ground and a battle at home.
> 
> Then she got pregnant and it got worse. Two, three times a week all I hear her say is that I have to pick up the slack and what she was telling me was that she had no intentions to taking a step back.
> 
> Ever heard the saying that you have to be at the right time and at the right place and know the right person? Well it happened to me and after four years my company took off and not only did I match her income with mine, I passed it up in a cloud of dust. All's well that ends well right? Wrong.
> 
> Now the complaining starts that I'm not around enough and it seemed like there was never a fair balance and one night I blew, and told her that for the past six years, all she did was b!tch and complain about money and always let me know that there will be no taking a step backwards. I told her that if you can't say something positive then shut you big mouth and find someone who will put up with your piss poor attitude.
> 
> Man did that feel good. In 10 minuets I got 6 years of crap off my shoulders and she knew that I was pushed to the limit. I got some help from her family when they told her that she's lucky that I didn't pitch her out for running her mouth.
> 
> I did 4 years later and I wish I had done it a lot sooner.


Sorry about your situation, I know it can be hard.

I think I was lucky because both my wife and her family supported me when I started a business.
Although sometimes she questioned my sanity!


----------



## Sandfly

Applejuice said:


> Hmmm.. got me there.. let me think on it..
> 
> My instinctive counter argument would be that alpha's are subjective. Human 'alphas' by today's standard are emaciated, feeble little creatures who command enormous power with little real justification other than their enormously swelled bank balances..


I see your point, but often they have an additional quality, gained through an education that only serious piles of money can buy:

They have been trained since birth in commanding men and persuading men to act against their own interests...

It becomes second nature. You don't need muscles to have a group of muscle-men following you.

You don't think Julius Caesar was 12 feet tall do you?


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> Anytime I end up in a convo with an MRA, a PUA or an evo-psyche guy who is holding tight to the hypergamy idea, I just go with it.
> 
> "Oh heck yeah, that's totally true! Every woman you meet has her eye on your taller, bigger, richer friends, don't forget that. And she would throw you off a cliff for one in a heartbeat!"
> 
> Since they already believe this, it is pretty easy to make them choke on it.


Mach is an extremist with an obsession with Gay Renaissance Sculptors. 

That being said, AS A MAN, I find my eye moving toward a certain type of girl. She's around 16-24 years old, smooth skin, tight waist, um...she has your favorite gender benefit for a girl in good supply. My mind goes toward how 'happy' we could make each other in 15 minute increments. This is exactly what Evo Psych says would be my predilection and I had that before I even knew about evo psych.

BUT, here is the bit that Mach forgets or ignores. This is a biological TUG, not predisposition. This assumes a vacuum and a consequence free life in a monkey tribe.

In real life, I would be considered a man of low character, which LOWERS my biological market appeal in any market which isn't the vast anonymous horde that is America. Her parents would have something to say to me perving on their daughter. My wife and family (extended) would have a great deal to say to me about my choices. AND, I would be competing with young gentlemen whom she might fancy more since HER market value is sky high.

Women tend to be even more consequence sensitive than a man. And the studies of 'rich women unhappily married to artists' could be based on the fact um...they are artists, who are naturally fruit loops. Or that an alpha hard driven female is married to a lazy slob. Or that the man is clinically depressed to be making less. OR...

So yeah, I groove on the tug thing. Not sure if it's proven, but I can buy that women have a 'tug' in the direction of high status rich guys.

A tug is not predestination and a thread is not enough cloth for a blanket statement.


----------



## JCD

Applejuice said:


> It's easy to 'adapt' when you have a buffer!
> 
> Just look at JP Morgan, they can do no wrong despite doing ALL wrong!
> 
> This isn't a free society nor is it a free economy. Anyone who honestly believes they are being fairly represented within the confines of the state are fooling themselves!
> 
> p.s. Mess up, no probs... raise interest rates and recoup the losses at the expense of the taxpayer... lol...
> 
> p.p.s. Goldman Sachs must burrrnnnn


Money makes art possible.


----------



## JCD

Applejuice said:


> Aahhh okay.. I get it.. CM (by virtue of his profile 'che' pic is a rebel..
> 
> I am way more militant than him and I deserve rebel lurve!


No. Rebels are losers who decide that because they are losers, they have to change the game to be winners.

And they generally don't care about who they hang to get there.

No lurve for you, comrade. I'm a Kulak and I don't trust your kind.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> So, you're saying chimps are vulnerable to social manipulation? Cause all the chimp chicks go for the Alpha chimp. And while human society has changed, female behavior hasn't.


You aren't a chimp and human females don't have the same social freedom of action female chimps have.


----------



## Sandfly

JCD said:


> Mach is an extremist with an obsession with Gay Renaissance Sculptors.
> 
> That being said, AS A MAN, I find my eye moving toward a certain type of girl. She's around 16-24 years old, smooth skin, tight waist, um...she has your favorite gender benefit for a girl in good supply. My mind goes toward how 'happy' we could make each other in 15 minute increments. This is exactly what Evo Psych says would be my predilection and I had that before I even knew about evo psych.
> 
> BUT, here is the bit that Mach forgets or ignores. This is a biological TUG, not predisposition. This assumes a vacuum and a consequence free life in a monkey tribe.
> 
> In real life, I would be considered a man of low character, which LOWERS my biological market appeal in any market which isn't the vast anonymous horde that is America. Her parents would have something to say to me perving on their daughter. My wife and family (extended) would have a great deal to say to me about my choices. AND, I would be competing with young gentlemen whom she might fancy more since HER market value is sky high.
> 
> Women tend to be even more consequence sensitive than a man. And the studies of 'rich women unhappily married to artists' could be based on the fact um...they are artists, who are naturally fruit loops. Or that an alpha hard driven female is married to a lazy slob. Or that the man is clinically depressed to be making less. OR...
> 
> So yeah, I groove on the tug thing. Not sure if it's proven, but I can buy that women have a 'tug' in the direction of high status rich guys.
> 
> A tug is not predestination and a thread is not enough cloth for a blanket statement.


Sir, you contradict your conclusions with your examples. 

You admit you have the tugs, but that you do not follow your tugs because society disapproves of you doing that, well let's be blunt - because you don't want your legs broken.

Then you are willing to purchase stock in the idea that women have tugs thinking about high status rich chaps. Here is the difference: society fully approves of this tug, ergo, we can expect it to be a common outcome.

Therefore, you are in fact saying:

That stuff is completely correct, at least according to me and my observations and experience.

BTW stop perving. They know you're doing it


----------



## JCD

Sandfly said:


> Sir, you contradict your conclusions with your examples.
> 
> You admit you have the tugs, but that you do not follow your tugs because society disapproves of you doing that, well let's be blunt - because you don't want your legs broken.
> 
> Then you are willing to purchase stock in the idea that women have tugs thinking about high status rich chaps. Here is the difference: society fully approves of this tug, ergo, we can expect it to be a common outcome.
> 
> Therefore, you are in fact saying:
> 
> That stuff is completely correct, at least according to me and my observations and experience.
> 
> BTW stop perving. They know you're doing it


Um, no.

Society does NOT approve of women marrying up. Let me count the ways

1) Men who want to have dependable wives will consider her trash and feel less secure about themselves so they will fall on that behavior like a ton of bricks

2) women who also have fears of their husbands 'trading up' in the looks department will look askance at gold diggers. Additionally, women who HAVE high income high status men DEFINITELY disapprove of 'poachers'.

3) Anyone who believes in intact families will look askance at this behavior.

4) her PARENTS will look down on this unless a) they are shallow greedy d*uches or b) the old guy was a d*uche

5) Her kids might have a few things to say about her 'abandoning daddy'.

6) Her friends will ask themselves questions about her behavior too...particularly married friends. They will support her...sort of. Recall that thread about that one lady who had an affair and told her friend. Her friend was not amused.


However you are correct: Gold diggers and Rich D*uches are FULLY supportive of this. 

So here is the deal: if your marriage is already balanced on the edge of a cliff, sometimes a tug is all it takes. But don't blame the tug. Blame the precipice. That is a commentary on marriage today, not biological imperatives.

The other scenario is one of complacency. If someone keeps tugging and she isn't self aware enough, THEN there is a problem.

But yeah, it is not beer and skittles for 'trade ups'. I'm sure that Seinfeld's wife is really loving the national attention of 'gold digging wh*re' that she is stuck with.

To summarize: it is more real than FW is saying. But it is a weaker phenomena than Mach is asserting.


----------



## Sandfly

Fair enough. Nice reasoning.

The implication is also that if social mores breakdown, the tug becomes more important too. 

The being aware of one's drives is also important. 

I feel it is important to not let whatever ideology is fashionable - chivalry, 'protestant work ethic', equality - blind us to problems arising from our attempts to divorce from nature. Ideologies come and go, are different in different countries, but when we see patterns across centuries and timezones, we'd be foolish to think we have conquered our biology.

- And each new way of thinking does just this: proclaims itself civilised, and all things in the past as barbaric and quaint.

I think most of our ancestors, pre-industrialisation, were much more savvy and well-adjusted than us, personally.


----------



## RClawson

Catherine602 said:


> RC She was testing you to see if you would become her minion. I'll bet she was hoping that you would stand up to her just the way you did.
> 
> At one time, I made almost as much salary as my husband. 2 years ago, he accepted a position and they did not have a full time position for me. I work part time now and make much less than he does.
> 
> Our dynamic has changed because there is no limit to the work that he is asked to do. He is away from our family more than and I have to work around his schedule.
> 
> When we were equals  we planned things together. Not sure what I am trying say. There is a difference.
> 
> My husband does not throw his weight around. We both agreed to the move and the destruction of my career.


As a test it sucked. Look she is my wife. I was the sole provider for the first 15 years and the main breadwinner for the first 21. I never in my wildest dreams would have ever considered pulling the "breadwinner" card on her. It is likely the lowest thing she has ever done to me. There are times she will tell me that we are a "team". I have been on plenty of teams in my life. In the good ones a team mate never would have treated me like that they would have had my back.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

ReformedHubby said:


> If money wasn't important to women. It wouldn't be important to us. We don't pursue money and power because we give a crap about it. We do it because we know what comes with it.


I spent 8 years as a trading floor assistant at a bond trading firm. Every trader was a man who was ruthless at making money. The more money they made meant the more power they wielded. Power was fear, admiration and envy from other men and that was their motivator. They were better than other males and treated accordingly.....by other men. They drove rare antique cars that most women would think were just "old" but invoked the green eyed monster among gear heads. They wore watches that cost a quarter of a million dollars because other male watch enthusiasts would notice it. It's the reason Larry Ellison owned the worlds largest yacht, Paul Allen commissioned a bigger one and Roman Abramovich a larger one than that.....only to be outdone by an Arab sheikh. 

If women are the reason men make money then how come gay men are by and large successful? Why would they strive to make money? Because they want the fear and envy from other men.


----------



## JCD

I recall this one video where this woman breaks down the 'excuse' of 'Nice Guys Finish Last'.

The crux of her argument is 'saying nice guys finish last' is an excuse for personal failures and excusing the fact you can't get the hottest girl out there even though you are Joe Average.

I think the hypergamy argument is a bit like that. If another man has two more nickels to rub together than you do and he 'gets your girl' it is easier to call her a biological gold digger whom you can't win against than to sack up to the problems in your relationship.

I still believe it's true to an extent. But how it is used pretty much stinks for self analysis.


----------



## JCD

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I spent 8 years as a trading floor assistant at a bond trading firm. Every trader was a man who was ruthless at making money. The more money they made meant the more power they wielded. Power was their motivator because it meant they were feared and envied by other men. They were better than other men and treated accordingly.....by other men. They very much "gave a crap" about that. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, by the way.
> 
> If women are the reason men make money then how come gay men are by and large successful? Why would they strive to make money? Because they want the fear and envy from other men.


I think there is an 'and' in here. They want to be the alpha dogs AND they feel this is a path to poon.

Gay men are successful because they don't need to worry about wives and girlfriends . If they want to get laid, they go to an appropriate bar and presto.

Cuts back the expense of that 'three date rule'


----------



## WyshIknew

JCD said:


> I think there is a distinct social hierarchy in America which is pretty undefined.
> 
> Unless it is very technical or lucrative work, white collar seems to trump blue collar, despite that some office drones earn far less than an autoworker, for example.
> 
> A teacher is given kudos far outside her price structure as are politicians, cops and media types. I don't even mean moguls. I mean reporters frequently get invited to things that the average man could not enter.
> 
> Another group which has 'status' but no wealth is Academia.


Apart from the 'social class' thing that does still operate for some people in Britain there is also a career hierarchy thing going on too.

I've always had 'techie' jobs and was told once by an accountant that if they could find a way to work without us techie geeks they would. Their big problem was that they could always easily find another pen pusher but could rarely find a qualified tech.

As I understand things techies/engineers are actually held in higher regard in the US?

One of my colleagues does dress rather sloppily, old baggy t shirts, old jeans and trainers (sneakers).
In a previous job the whole company received some back pay after a rather drawn out negotiation over a pay rise.
My friends wife told her friend, whose husband worked in the office of the same company, how much back pay her husband had got.
This woman was furious and accused her husband of holding out on her and lying about how much back pay he got as he had far less back pay than my friend.

She said "My husband has got to earn more than Nick, he wears a collar and tie to work."


----------



## NextTimeAround

It seems to me that men value their partner more when they spend (and when they even HAVE to spend) money on her.

In both situations with my exH and now with my fiance, I felt that when I was helping to contribute financially, I got the very casual treatment.

With my exH, as we were both unemployed at the same time when we moved country, I contributed my savings to cover for our every day lives. What did I get for it, a husband who wanted to go out with his friends and buy the rounds for his fully employed friends while they were dismissive of me.

I noticed that also in the beginning with my fiance. He was happy to underwrite the dates of his EA but then claimed that "he didn't like her all that much" so it was easier to pay for her. It wasn't until I pitched a b!tch about who pays for what and had the info to hand to make detailed comparisons that he finally dropped all ties (and I suspect all hope of getting back with her).

In other words, I just find an interesting -- and direct - relationship between how much a man spends on his partner and how much then he values and respects her.

Here I was trying to follow the liberated and empowered woman script by helping with the dating/ relationship costs only to find that these ultimately important partners in my life were happy to treat me as nothing more than a cash machine until I put a stop to it.

And when I did, everything magically changed for the better. Not only did they stop hassling me for cash calls, but my partner really treated me as a more important person in his life AND either minimized the importance of others or completely got rid of them.

so from these experiences. I really don't think I could ever date a guy who has less money than I do or even one who expected me to contribute (in cash terms) to the relationship.

Or maybe you guys can come up with a better interpretation of my experiences.


----------



## JCD

NextTimeAround said:


> It seems to me that men value their partner more when they spend (and when they even HAVE to spend) money on her.
> 
> In both situations with my exH and now with my fiance, I felt that when I was helping to contribute financially, I got the very casual treatment.
> 
> With my exH, as we were both unemployed at the same time when we moved country, I contributed my savings to cover for our every day lives. What did I get for it, a husband who wanted to go out with his friends and buy the rounds for his fully employed friends while they were dismissive of me.
> 
> I noticed that also in the beginning with my fiance. He was happy to underwrite the dates of his EA but then claimed that "he didn't like her all that much" so it was easier to pay for her. It wasn't until I pitched a b!tch about who pays for what and had the info to hand to make detailed comparisons that he finally dropped all ties (and I suspect all hope of getting back with her).
> 
> In other words, I just find an interesting -- and direct - relationship between how much a man spends on his partner and how much then he values and respects her.
> 
> Here I was trying to follow the liberated and empowered woman script by helping with the dating/ relationship costs only to find that these ultimately important partners in my life were happy to treat me as nothing more than a cash machine until I put a stop to it.
> 
> And when I did, everything magically changed for the better. Not only did they stop hassling me for cash calls, but my partner really treated me as a more important person in his life AND either minimized the importance of others or completely got rid of them.
> 
> so from these experiences. I really don't think I could ever date a guy who has less money than I do or even one who expected me to contribute (in cash terms) to the relationship.
> 
> Or maybe you guys can come up with a better interpretation of my experiences.


When dad was paying for school, my grades were half hearted.

When _*I*_ was paying for school, suddenly it seemed much more important.

"Put your money where your mouth is" is a cliché for a reason. Stars who TALK about supporting this or that cause don't mean a damned thing until I see cold hard cash.

Same for politicals. Same for dates, I guess. I work. My paycheck goes to my wife. No ifs, ands, or buts. She is better with the finances. If she wanted to rape me, she could. That is what 'trust' is. 

I happen to also value her quite highly. Coincidence? Probably not.

BUT...during some lean times, she worked her ass off to help the family as well. Only she could say how I treated her then.


----------



## LongWalk

Humans are products of evolution. So far I have not read comment here by a single person making references to religious values in women's mate selection. And yet at one time a person's denomination and spirituality might have been important. Men and women have also chosen spend their genetic potential in monasteries... not so popular today... hmm, wonder why.

Sometimes a TAM poster whose marriage is disintegrating will throw in agonizing lines about God's will. More than once a narrative has included discussion about church life. It helps people to cope with rejection due to WW hypergamy. Women also talk about faith when wishing for the return of the wayward husband. So, evolution has provided us with the penchant to philosophize. It helps us to cope. We need to get over hypergamy and find a new mate. It's that or die out.

Money comes from a variety of sources: skill, drudgery, luck, inheritence, salesmanship, ruthlessness, cheating. Marriage to a prince, hereditary social position, is very attractive to women. We can see that tabloids are full of stories about royalty. Men are generally not attracted to princesses. They are high maintenance.

After divorcing Charles Diana wanted a man of skill. So she coupled with the heart surgeon Hasnat Khan, whom she called "the love of her life".



> According to Khan's testimonial at the inquest for her death, it was Diana who ended their relationship in a late-night meeting in Hyde Park...
> 
> Within a month Diana had begun seeing Dodi Fayed...


Source: Wikipedia

Fayed was a billionaire. Presumably Diana did not have sex with random hot dudes in the toilets of London night clubs after doing a few lines, but who knows.

My brother is a well paid surgeon. I remember him mentioning that the husband of one of nurses was a hunter and she gave him a few pounds of venison as gift. Somewhere in the back of her mind she might once have dreamt of marrying doctor or lawyer... oops, too many of them, they don't always make so much these days... but she may be happy with a guy who earns a wage and can harvest ecological protein every autumn.

A sense of humor, symmetry of face, size of genitals and many other small details may affect a woman's fancy.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> A sense of humor, symmetry of face, size of genitals and many other small details may affect a woman's fancy.



Hey, you don't need to convince me. I'm not saying that the only thing a woman looks at is a man's pay package. I got the sense that Catherine Parr, final wife of Henry the VIII, would have preferred to go with her current paramour Thomas Seymour instead of the king. King got rid of him right fast to clear the decks for his courtship.

I am also not saying that it is irrelevant to a woman's choice as some are suggesting. There were not skads of women lined up to wed Ivan the Terrible because he had a wonderful personality...


----------



## Caribbean Man

The thing is , hypergamy is not necessarily a four letter word.

Neither is whatever term is used to describe older men who like much younger women.

I think the problem comes in when we used to terms like a broad brush to paint an entire gender in a bad way.

Saying that hypergamy is a natural unstoppable female urge to want to leave even a good marriage in favor of a better man , or if she should come into some money ,is like saying all men are rapist because they are stronger and can have erections.

Both are equally stupid and offensive.

Every woman wants a mate who has the capacity to provide material things. Doesn't matter how rich she is , society defines a man by what the work he does and his achievements in the course of his work.
So logically why would a woman partner with a man who's not ambitious and can't provide anything other than sex for her?

The problem comes in when people try to deny that these things exist.
If a woman is in a bad relationship and she gets a chance at improving herself, why wouldn't she grasp the opportunity?

The women who stay with their partner even if she gets the opportunity at a better job and higher salary or more financially endowed man are the ones who are satisfied with their relationships , and view their partners as
" equals " even though she makes more than him.

So the problem might not be " hypergamy" but the state of the relationship or the conditions within the marriage that led to her deciding to leave.

It is my understanding that Princess Dianna and Prince Charles's marriage was on the rocks for a pretty long while before she decided to venture out.


----------



## DarkHoly

Faithful Wife said:


> Please prove that hypergamy is a fundamental fact of life for human women without using any evo-pysch data, which is not accepted as "the truth" by all of science.


Why would anyone put any stock in what people call "science"? Hypergamy is proven every day. It's like telling me to prove the wind exists.


----------



## NextTimeAround

What specifically does hypergamy mean?

There are a lot of poor boys who make good, growing up in poor households and then becoming successful, including financially when they become adults.

I dated 2 guys like this. Socially, they are insecure and wanted to be very controlling in what they deemed acceptable in their partner, ie how I dressed, talked, behaved. 

I also think intra racial relations played a role here. My being a fair skinned black person and having grown up middle class might have made them feel that they would have been able to complete their transformation into the black middle class by marrying me. 

No thanks.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> The thing is , hypergamy is not necessarily a four letter word.
> 
> Neither is whatever term is used to describe older men who like much younger women.
> 
> I think the problem comes in when we used to terms like a broad brush to paint an entire gender in a bad way.
> 
> Saying that hypergamy is a natural unstoppable female urge to want to leave even a good marriage in favor of a better man , or if she should come into some money ,is like saying all men are rapist because they are stronger and can have erections.
> 
> Both are equally stupid and offensive.
> 
> Every woman wants a mate who has the capacity to provide material things. Doesn't matter how rich she is , society defines a man by what the work he does and his achievements in the course of his work.
> So logically why would a woman partner with a man who's not ambitious and can't provide anything other than sex for her?
> 
> The problem comes in when people try to deny that these things exist.
> If a woman is in a bad relationship and she gets a chance at improving herself, why wouldn't she grasp the opportunity?
> 
> The women who stay with their partner even if she gets the opportunity at a better job and higher salary or more financially endowed man are the ones who are satisfied with their relationships , and view their partners as
> " equals " even though she makes more than him.
> 
> So the problem might not be " hypergamy" but the state of the relationship or the conditions within the marriage that led to her deciding to leave.
> 
> It is my understanding that Princess Dianna and Prince Charles's marriage was on the rocks for a pretty long while before she decided to venture out.


:iagree:

Perhaps I've been lucky?

I've always earned more than my wife, I'm currently at two to two and a half times her salary.

However that is just pure chance and all our money goes into the same pot so we both contribute to clan SWysh funds.

I don't think I would feel any different were the roles reversed but I suppose the question is would she?


----------



## JCD

WyshIknew said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Perhaps I've been lucky?
> 
> I've always earned more than my wife, I'm currently at two to two and a half times her salary.
> 
> However that is just pure chance and all our money goes into the same pot so we both contribute to clan SWysh funds.
> 
> I don't think I would feel any different were the roles reversed but I suppose the question is would she?


There is what is said, and then there is revealed preference.

I hope you never find out her choices. 

Then again, I wish the same for myself.


----------



## Sandfly

NextTimeAround said:


> What specifically does hypergamy mean?
> 
> There are a lot of poor boys who make good, growing up in poor households and then becoming successful, including financially when they become adults.
> 
> I dated 2 guys like this. Socially, they are insecure and wanted to be very controlling in what they deemed acceptable in their partner, ie how I dressed, talked, behaved.
> 
> I also think intra racial relations played a role here. My being a fair skinned black person and having grown up middle class might have made them feel that they would have been able to complete their transformation into the black middle class by marrying me.
> 
> No thanks.


Was religion involved NTR? 

For example, when they attempt to set the rules about behaviour and language, did they dress it as what a god fearing woman is supposed to be like?

Were they also using the church/community group route to get themselves a more acceptably middle-class reputation?


----------



## Sandfly

JCD said:


> There is what is said, and then there is revealed preference.
> 
> I hope you never find out her choices.
> 
> Then again, I wish the same for myself.


o hoh hoh!

After all that, enfin nous sommes arrivés a la vérité!

You're not _too _sure... perhaps you've caught a couple of occasions where her actions have made the thought cross your mind, hmm?

I hope you both never find out either.


----------



## JCD

Sandfly said:


> o hoh hoh!
> 
> After all that, enfin nous sommes arrivés a la vérité!
> 
> You're not _too _sure... perhaps you've caught a couple of occasions where her actions have made the thought cross your mind, hmm?
> 
> I hope you both never find out either.


Back in the day, they 'proofed' armor.

A breastplate might LOOK pretty and sturdy and dependable, but until the creator shot the darned thing with a crossbow blot, a 'proof' mark, no one would wear it.

Unfortunately we don't get to take a test shot at the wife. We have to have faith.

Trust is ALWAYS not knowing.

But on reflection, we HAVE had very hard times...and she hasn't gone anywhere. So faith can be rewarded.


----------



## lovelifeandwanttoenjoyit

RClawson said:


> I can only speak for my own experiences in this area. My wife lost all of her humility one day and felt it was time to pull the "I make more money than you card". I cannot remember exactly when or why it happened but I just remember how low it made me feel. I did not think I could feel worse about myself until she she did it again, and again and then more whenever she felt she needed that trump card.
> 
> I eventually called her on it and let her know I would not tolerate it being mentioned ever again and that if I left she could count on me taking a good portion of her salary (I would never do this actually).
> 
> This caught her attention and she knows better now because she believes me. If I had known this would have happened I never would have left my career to start a business. I had always admired her success and supported her every step on her professional journey. She is amazing at what she does. Sadly it sucked the humility right out of her in my eyes which was one of the qualities that attracted me to her all those years ago.
> 
> This experience has changed my professional perspective completely. It has been a long road back to the career I am in now. That road included me working at Wal * Mart part time to pay down debt and taking the first part time sales job I could get so I could prove myself.
> 
> For almost two years now I have been working full time. I love what I do and the product I sell. I am respected by my colleagues and trusted by management. If I have a good a year as I believe I am going to I will make about 15K less than I did at my professional peak in 2003.
> 
> Not to long ago my wife implied that that was not good enough. I suggested she find someone who will meet her standard but it took me years to find someone who would even interview me and I am happy where I am at. I am done ladder climbing and I am not working to please her. Those days are done.


WOW I call that having your balls in the right place, good for you and all the happiness you can find :smthumbup:


----------



## WyshIknew

JCD said:


> Back in the day, they 'proofed' armor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A breastplate might LOOK pretty and sturdy and dependable, but until the creator shot the darned thing with a crossbow blot, a 'proof' mark, no one would wear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately we don't get to take a test shot at the wife. We have to have faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust is ALWAYS not knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But on reflection, we HAVE had very hard times...and she hasn't gone anywhere. So faith can be rewarded.










Likewise.



We are comfy now but we've been on the bones of our arse a few times when young.



Something made her and I stick together.



She's had the poor times and didn't bail for some rich dude. We're both reaping the good times now. Well, the goodish times.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I just can't wait to dump my husband for some other richer taller hotter stronger dude! I'm going man shopping right now....


----------



## lifeistooshort

Faithful Wife said:


> I just can't wait to dump my husband for some other richer taller hotter stronger dude! I'm going man shopping right now....


If you find one let me know if he has a brother:lol:


----------



## Machiavelli

NextTimeAround said:


> What specifically does hypergamy mean?


It's a $50 term for saying that the human female has a fundamental reproductive interest in mating with the "highest ranking" males, usually within a social group, she can get her hands on. *Women make the decision* on who these high ranking males are.

Remember "all" the girls being available for the captain of the high school football team. We've all seen that. And we've all seen that not all girls were necessarily under that particular spell, at least not publicly. Back in my time, the neolithic (Rock) era, a lot of girls preferred the guy with the Les Paul hanging around his neck. Sometimes, that was the same guy and all the girls had a consensus on one guy. Maybe 5% of guys are in that position: they are the elite of the elite, *as determined by women.* These guys are the sexual alphas.

The desire that women have to mate with these guys the society of women has determined are high value is called "hypergamy."


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> I just can't wait to dump my husband for some other richer taller hotter stronger dude! I'm going man shopping right now....


It's interesting that you still have these kinds of urges so late in life. Typically, this drive ought to be tapering off at age 40.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, Mach I know...I'm an old hag. My husband should have been done with me long ago and picked up a couple of 20 y/o playboy bunnies.

So sad for me!

But I'm a feisty old lady, in case you hadn't noticed.

And see what happened was...an alien ship landed in my back yard one day and this alien popped out and said "Earth Woman, it was my people who populated the earth. Your people think you evolved from apes, but I am here to tell you that you are the descendants of our Royal People. Here drink this!"

And he gave me a magic potion that makes my body young forever, as well as my sex organs, and they also left me a big box of treasure, so now I am like Oprah rich.

So me and my young body and all my money is going on a man hunt...I can keep my hubby around as a pet, because I can afford that.

You and all your beliefs about the apes, have fun now!

edited to add:

Oh wait! I forgot to say that hypergamy actually came from our original planet, the aliens told me. So it is still us women who decide which of you males have any value.

I'm going to go put number ranks on all the guys I see with a tattoo laser the aliens gave me. Whee!


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> The thing is , hypergamy is not necessarily a four letter word.
> 
> Neither is *whatever term is used to describe older men* who like much younger women.


I think that term is called "normal." When I was about 32, I caught myself doing a double take on some 20 year old I would have chased off when I was 17. I asked why did I react positively to her and I realized I'd been doing it a while to similar girls. As soon as I was aware of it, I understood that it must have a biological, reproductive reason. It turns out the most biologically viable offspring women produce are birthed when the woman is 14-20. Mystery solved.



Caribbean Man said:


> I think the problem comes in when we used to terms like a broad brush to paint an entire gender in a bad way.
> 
> Saying that hypergamy is a natural unstoppable female urge to want to leave even a good marriage in favor of a better man , or if she should come into some money ,is like saying all men are rapist because they are stronger and can have erections.
> 
> Both are equally stupid and offensive.


Exactly. We have certain biological drives, but we can also override that with free will, whereby the prefrontal cortex exerts mastery over the limbic reproductive drive.



Caribbean Man said:


> Every woman wants a mate who has the capacity to provide material things. Doesn't matter how rich she is , society defines a man by what the work he does and his achievements in the course of his work.
> So logically why would a woman partner with a man who's not ambitious and can't provide anything other than sex for her?


Right on, again. When my sons were playing English football I once found myself eavesdropping on the team mothers (all married) rating the coach, a 6'3" ex-athlete, XBH single father of 3, with a classic V torso, a classic Mustang, and a big paycheck. Key wistful phrase, "If anything happened...."



Caribbean Man said:


> The problem comes in when people try to deny that these things exist.
> If a woman is in a bad relationship and she gets a chance at improving herself, why wouldn't she grasp the opportunity?
> 
> The women who stay with their partner even if she gets the opportunity at a better job and higher salary or more financially endowed man are the ones who are satisfied with their relationships , and view their partners as
> " equals " even though she makes more than him.
> 
> So the problem might not be " hypergamy" but the state of the relationship or the conditions within the marriage that led to her deciding to leave.


Excellent points. Two examples of hypergamy, one benign (maybe) and one malignant, from the Bible: Abigail, who saved her husband's neck, but still telegraphed her sexual interest in the future king, and became consort upon her lower ranking, but wealthy husband's death; Bathsheeba who conspired, unsuccessfully, with the same king to literally cuckold her husband with a bastard child.



Caribbean Man said:


> It is my understanding that Princess Dianna and Prince Charles's marriage was on the rocks for a pretty long while before she decided to venture out.


A prince always represents the apex of alphadom, until he proves otherwise, and he has to work overtime to do so.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, Mach I know...I'm an old hag. My husband should have been done with me long ago and picked up a couple of 20 y/o playboy bunnies...
> I'm going to go put number ranks on all the guys I see with a tattoo laser the aliens gave me. Whee!


Well, good for you.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

Holy thread derail Batman!
My initial post with this thread was a critical look at the revered work of Dr. Robert Glover and his often promoted (on this site) work on the “No More Mr Nice Guy” approach.

I do agree with his premise that a person who is always nice with alternative motives is annoying and not to be respected trusted or admired. Where I do take his advice with a grain of salt is when he gets into the theory that women crave to have their male counterpart "Set the Tone and Take the Lead." That’s easy for him to say considering he’s now turned the “No More Mr Nice Guy” brand into a money making machine. He has a best selling book, offers online consultation, has workshops held around the country, podcasts you can purchase, etc. Good for him. No wonder he can take his own advice and speak to the woman, with whom he is currently involved, with a sense of authority. 

Where I wonder if it holds water is in a situation where the woman brings more money to the table. My observation of real couples its that in the vast majority of cases where the woman makes more money its a neutering, no-win situation for the man. In an ideal world it shouldn’t matter, you are a team, blah, blah, blah. Reality in America says different. I wonder if Dr. Glover lost all his money if he could pull off his alpha male approach with any real success.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm sorry for my part in the thread derail, Kahlil. I liked the book NMMNG. It think it is true that for most couples, the H makes more money and that works well. But I'm sure there is a sizeable percentage of women who make more, and that works for them.

Don't you think it would be more about specific compatibility between a couple?

I know a couple where the W is a doctor and the H is a SAHM. But he is also educated and has a career, they decided as a couple that he would stay with their kids so she could go into practice with this group of docs. This works very well for them. The H owns a lot of properties and takes care of that plus the kids. They have a house keeper and a part time cook. So technically, the W makes the income and the H does the domestic stuff (except what is hired out) and they are doing very well together. 

They are not the only example I know like that, either. But I think in the couples it works successfully for, there is a nice chemistry/compatibility and that is really why it works.

I also know a lot of women who are with under-employed men and they really love them and stick around no matter what. They don't seem to base their love for him on what he is worth.

As for Dr. Glover...IMO he is a hot older dude...I think even if he lost his money he'd be able to pull the babes.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Machiavelli said:


> It's interesting that you still have these kinds of urges so late in life. Typically, this drive ought to be tapering off at age 40.



If you really believe this you don't understand women anywhere near as well as you think you do. This kind of quality is inherent in a specific person, so why would someone that's looking to marry up all of a sudden change their mind around 40 and decide social status and things don't matter anymore? If anything it'll get worse as she evaluates her life and the fact that it's almost half over. It's like saying a user will all of a sudden stop being a user at a certain point in life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

Machiavelli said:


> I think that term is called "normal." When I was about 32, I caught myself doing a double take on some 20 year old I would have chased off when I was 17. I asked why did I react positively to her and I realized I'd been doing it a while to similar girls. As soon as I was aware of it, I understood that it must have a biological, reproductive reason. It turns out the most biologically viable offspring women produce are birthed when the woman is 14-20. Mystery solved.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. We have certain biological drives, but we can also override that with free will, whereby the prefrontal cortex exerts mastery over the limbic reproductive drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, again. When my sons were playing English football I once found myself eavesdropping on the team mothers (all married) rating the coach, a 6'3" ex-athlete, XBH single father of 3, with a classic V torso, a classic Mustang, and a big paycheck. Key wistful phrase, "If anything happened...."
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent points. Two examples of hypergamy, one benign (maybe) and one malignant, from the Bible: Abigail, who saved her husband's neck, but still telegraphed her sexual interest in the future king, and became consort upon her lower ranking, but wealthy husband's death; Bathsheeba who conspired, unsuccessfully, with the same king to literally cuckold her husband with a bastard child.
> 
> 
> 
> A prince always represents the apex of alphadom, until he proves otherwise, and he has to work overtime to do so.



Women that age produce the most biologically viable offspring with men the same age. It's well known now that sperm quality deteriorates just like eggs and contributes to all kinds of issues, so I doubt it's all about the offspring. Probably an inconvenient fact for older men convinced that knocking up women half their age is a good idea. And that she's not just in it for the money and stability while she looks elsewhere.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Machiavelli said:


> Excellent points. Two examples of hypergamy, one benign (maybe) and one malignant, from the Bible: Abigail, who saved her husband's neck, but still telegraphed her sexual interest in the future king, and became consort upon her lower ranking, but wealthy husband's death; Bathsheeba who conspired, unsuccessfully, with the same king to literally cuckold her husband with a bastard child.


Lol,
Dude, you _know_ the history!

I remember that David and Abagail story well.

Her husband , Nabal was foolish enough to challenge public enemy # 1 , David and his 
" terrorist " organization , when they were passing through, and begged him for food and water.

The account in the bible states that he treated them with scant courtesy , but his beautiful wife laid eyes the rebel leader David , and she went against her wealthy husband's wishes , went behind his back with animals loaded with relief supplies , found David and fed him and his men.

Clearly , she was interested in him based on the story, because as soon as her husband died from sudden illness , she found him and " married " [ had sex ] him.

The story of Bathsheeba is interesting too.
The story states that she lived close to the kings residence and was bathing in the nude on her rooftoop , when David saw her, sent one of his trusted men to ask her to come over. She explained that her husband, Uriah was an infantry man with the army and was far away fighting war.
But here's where the story gets interesting.
She came over not once but quite a few times over the following days to have sex with him , until she missed her period, and realized that she was pregnant.
Then she connived with him to cuckold her husband , eventually getting married and joining David's harem.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Kahlil Gibran said:


> Holy thread derail Batman!
> My initial post with this thread was a critical look at the revered work of Dr. Robert Glover and his often promoted (on this site) work on the “No More Mr Nice Guy” approach.
> 
> I do agree with his premise that a person who is always nice with alternative motives is annoying and not to be respected trusted or admired. Where I do take his advice with a grain of salt is when he gets into the theory that women crave to have their male counterpart "Set the Tone and Take the Lead." That’s easy for him to say considering he’s now turned the “No More Mr Nice Guy” brand into a money making machine. He has a best selling book, offers online consultation, has workshops held around the country, podcasts you can purchase, etc. Good for him. No wonder he can take his own advice and speak to the woman, with whom he is currently involved, with a sense of authority.
> 
> Where I wonder if it holds water is in a situation where the woman brings more money to the table. My observation of real couples its that in the vast majority of cases where the woman makes more money its a neutering, no-win situation for the man. In an ideal world it shouldn’t matter, you are a team, blah, blah, blah.* Reality in America says different. I wonder if Dr. Glover lost all his money if he could pull off his alpha male approach with any real success.*


Nope.

As much as people don't like hearing it,

Money talks.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DarkHoly said:


> Why would anyone put any stock in what people call "science"? Hypergamy is proven every day. It's like telling me to prove the wind exists.


...or like asking for scientific proof of love.


----------



## always_alone

Kahlil Gibran said:


> Where I wonder if it holds water is in a situation where the woman brings more money to the table. My observation of real couples its that in the vast majority of cases where the woman makes more money its a neutering, no-win situation for the man. In an ideal world it shouldn’t matter, you are a team, blah, blah, blah. Reality in America says different. I wonder if Dr. Glover lost all his money if he could pull off his alpha male approach with any real success.


Lots of talk here about women's hypergamy, but none of men's hypogamy. 

I've seen it many times before: man feels emasculated in the face of a woman's success, and so wants nothing to do with her, and preferring someone *less* successful, poorer, less intellectual than himself. For all the posturing about it all being about looks, it's also about stoking the male ego.

Those with a healthy one have little problem with their women earning more money or having more success. Those who don't feel inadequate and do everything in their power to undermine her and make her feel bad about herself (including carrying on and on about how they are so fantastic, they'll trade in her 40 for two 20s).


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> So, you're saying chimps are vulnerable to social manipulation? Cause all the chimp chicks go for the Alpha chimp. And while human society has changed, female behavior hasn't.


Two distinct problems with your analysis here:

1) In the chimp world, the females will copulate with the alpha, but will also do so with other males when so inclined. Which is often. Indeed females prove to be as polyamorous as men wish they could be.

2)Comparing chimp behaviour with human behaviour only goes so far. Sure we have very similar DNA, but last I heard they weren't involved in any of the complex economies, social rituals, tool development, etc and so on that humans are. Do you really imagine that none of this impacts our mating behaviour?


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> The story of Bathsheeba is interesting too.
> The story states that she lived close to the kings residence and was bathing in the nude on her rooftoop , when David saw her, sent one of his trusted men to ask her to come over. She explained that her husband, Uriah was an infantry man with the army and was far away fighting war.
> But here's where the story gets interesting.
> She came over not once but quite a few times over the following days to have sex with him , until she missed her period, and realized that she was pregnant.
> Then she connived with him to cuckold her husband , eventually getting married and joining David's harem.


It's even more interesting than that. Uriah the Hittite was an officer in David's version of the SAS/SF. Bathsheeba's father, Eliam Ammiel was David's Chief of Special Operations. David ordered his Army CinC Joab to send Uriah back to Jerusalem as dispatch courier. When Uriah went to the palace, David said thanks go home and get it on with your wife. Uriah, being a hard core officer of men, denied himself while his troops were still in the field and slept on the porch of his own house, before reporting back to his unit. David found out and had Joab put him in the vanguard of an attack and the army withdrew leaving Uriah to his fate. This is a massive conspiracy involving not just the king, but also the WW, the FIL, the household servants, and the army command. Lots of scumbags in this story.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

Faithful Wife said:


> But I'm sure there is a sizeable percentage of women who make more, and that works for them.


I’m not saying there aren’t many situations where the wife makes more money and the arrangement doesn’t blow up. I’m totally looking at it in the Dr. Glover perspective that the natural order of things is the man must be in the lead and set the tone. 9 times out of 10, this is isn’t realistic if the woman is the majority breadwinner (the best the guy can hope for at this point is an equal voice). Therefore, with the whole money workforce dynamic shift of equal amount of women and many in higher paying positions he is full of crap.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Two distinct problems with your analysis here:
> 
> 1) In the chimp world, the females will copulate with the alpha, but will also do so with other males when so inclined. Which is often. Indeed females prove to be as polyamorous as men wish they could be.


That's not a problem at all. We see the same behavior in polygynous human societies, where the women will go for strange if given the opportunity. It's very well documented thoughout history. It's also been demonstrated and duplicated that women in relationships show more skin, behave more flirtatiously, and exhibit greater than normal attraction to men with V torsos, higher levels of upper body muscularity, deeper voices, and facial scars when ovulating. This is why Moslems shut in and cover up the women of their harems. Mohammed instituted the veil because some of his followers suggested they could cuckold him just as easily as he was cuckolding them.



always_alone said:


> 2)Comparing chimp behaviour with human behaviour only goes so far. Sure we have very similar DNA, but last I heard they weren't involved in any of the complex economies, social rituals, tool development, etc and so on that humans are. Do you really imagine that none of this impacts our mating behaviour?


It hasn't so far. And chimps use tools, weapons, and wage war.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Sandfly said:


> Was religion involved NTR?
> 
> For example, when they attempt to set the rules about behaviour and language, did they dress it as what a god fearing woman is supposed to be like?
> 
> Were they also using the church/community group route to get themselves a more acceptably middle-class reputation?


No, religion didn't play a part. It was more, the "I know better and you don't" attitude.

I remember with the first guy, he asked me what I was doing one evening I told him I was going to the ballet. He asked later, how was it, was there singing, dancing? I said, it's a ballet, that's dancing only. He became very angry and told me that he knew all about ballet, because you see, he used to date a ballet dancer...... oh, okay.......

the really sad part about this, is that depsite the fact that my aprents really saw THEMSELVES as succecssful black people, they felt that their daughters didn't have a hope in hell in finding a decent husband (That's because the really good black men can date and marry white ......that's not an option for black women) so my parents really thought I was passing on a "good" opportunity.

Something that I guess this guy was playing on and he constantly called my parents after we broke up.


----------



## Machiavelli

Kahlil Gibran said:


> I’m not saying there aren’t many situations where the wife makes more money and the arrangement doesn’t blow up. I’m totally looking at it in the Dr. Glover perspective that the natural order of things is the man must be in the lead and set the tone. 9 times out of 10, this is isn’t realistic if the woman is the majority breadwinner (the best the guy can hope for at this point is an equal voice). Therefore, with the whole money workforce dynamic shift of equal amount of women and many in higher paying positions he is full of crap.


Glover is correct. If you read the links I posted, you'll see there is much discussion of the issue in the pages of the NYT. There is some good research on this, not to mention what you see anecdotally on this site in CWI. This is going to be a continuing problem for a while as more women are going to be getting medical, dental, and law degrees than men. 

Ever heard of this b!tch? She divorced her musician husband because he was a SAHD most of the time and she didn't want to be married to a kitchen b!tch.

Sure there are exceptions, but as we see with the falling marriage rates, women are all competing for the same group of guys who are making more than they are. This is why defacto polygny and "soft harems" are the reality for high income women. See: Hayek, Salma; Evangelista, Linda; Pinault, François-Henri.


----------



## NextTimeAround

How about Briatori. Isn't he the father of Heidi Klum's fist child? But also dated Naomi Campbell?

But hasn't Meryl Streep stayed with the same husband through all her success? And we don't hear a peep about him.


----------



## Machiavelli

NextTimeAround said:


> (That's because the really good black men can date and marry white ......*that's not an option for black women*) so my parents really thought I was passing on a "good" opportunity.


Why is that? I don't see it as often as I did in the 90s.


----------



## Machiavelli

NextTimeAround said:


> How about Briatori. Isn't he the father of Heidi Klum's fist child? But also dated Naomi Campbell?
> 
> But hasn't Meryl Streep stayed with the same husband through all her success? And we don't hear a peep about him.


Briatori is classic. But notice who Naomi is with now, not just a super rich guy, but a super rich, V torso, Russian thug. Hypergamy on all cylinders. 


Briatori reminds me of some study that was done where they showed women photos of guys of various levels of attractiveness and assigned them different income and management levels and had women rate them by desirability. They actually were able to determine how much extra money a 5'5" asian guy needed to make to attract a 5'10" nordic: an extra $250,000 annually would do the trick.


----------



## Machiavelli

NextTimeAround said:


> But hasn't Meryl Streep stayed with the same husband through all her success? And we don't hear a peep about him.


Legally speaking she's stayed with him. Kind of like Dolly Parton and her husband. They got some alpha injections when they needed it, though.


----------



## Sandfly

NextTimeAround said:


> No, religion didn't play a part. It was more, the "I know better and you don't" attitude.
> 
> I remember with the first guy, he asked me what I was doing one evening I told him I was going to the ballet. He asked later, how was it, was there singing, dancing? I said, it's a ballet, that's dancing only. He became very angry and told me that he knew all about ballet, because you see, he used to date a ballet dancer...... oh, okay.......
> 
> the really sad part about this, is that depsite the fact that my aprents really saw THEMSELVES as succecssful black people, they felt that their daughters didn't have a hope in hell in finding a decent husband (That's because the really good black men can date and marry white ......that's not an option for black women) so my parents really thought I was passing on a "good" opportunity.
> 
> Something that I guess this guy was playing on and he constantly called my parents after we broke up.


I find this new perspective - well, new for me - very interesting. 

In my own life I never think about how race could enhance the acceptance or rejection of my partner or of myself. 

In my local area, we do have three very distinct minority communities - Pakistani/indian muslim; Indian Hindu and second/third generation black carribean 

- in order of greatest to fewest in number.

The black men are very popular with the white women, but for some reason they often pick quite big and pale women - The other two communities seem to arrange within their own neighbourhoods, or import grooms from abroad. It's kind of an artificial situation produced by the granting of working visas and residency through marriage.

I don't know whether their choices are also influenced by what their families and friends think. It's not like you can just ask them, that'd be rude and it wouldn't necessarily be a conscious decision anyway.

For me colour doesn't matter at all. But class does. If I hear casual swearing or see a lack of self-control, there is no tank-top or miniskirt on the planet that would make me even look in that general direction.

That's a shame about your parent's attitude. They treat those guys as a scarce commodity, and they feel that you are lucky to have found them. That seriously sucks. I am always popular with the potential in-laws, and I don't know why. I have very little to offer their daughters (except happiness lol), I mean to say, very little in upward social mobility. Perhaps they mistake tall, slim and well-educated for successful. Maybe money doesn't always matter, long as they see something in you. I don't see something in me, but they can carry on with their illusions.

Good thing that you are not easily swayed, because if it's not right for you, that's who's going to have to live with it, not them.

If you would, can you tell me what the options are for black women? There are lots of white men who would crawl across glass for beyonce, jamelia, rhianna, Naomi Campbell. Of them, jamelia is the only one I think I like, but it's a very strong like. Possibly because she's classier and happier than the other examples. But then, they are superstars, and I suppose at that point the black men who normally go for white girls are now also very interested. 

How do _you _increase your chances in your case? eg by being successful yourself? By giving up on dreams of marriage? I really don't know, I'm curious about this dynamic.


----------



## Catherine602

Its interesting that the same gang of 4 or so only post on threads to spread their massage. Why on a on a marriage positive site. Who are they trying to convince? I thought the great majority of men were like them. 

I thought all men just tolerated women because they needed sex but secretly disliked them and thought they were disposable, interchangeable and a source of recreational pleasure. 

Wish women who deny their husband sex would read the post from men who love their wives so deeply and want to show them. They should also read the post from the gang of 4. 

I thought my husband would be unhappy with me because I am not 20 and had two babies. My body in my 30's is not like the one I had in my teens and 20s. 

I did not know that he could still love me deeply, need me and find me sexually attractive still. In that area, the gang of four have had a profound effect on me. I know I am lucky to have met a man like my husband. 

Wish women who deny their loving husbands knew that these men don't think that they are disposable and using their wives for sex. Wish they knew that when a man admires a beautiful women or young woman he is not a perv and there is no threat to his beloved wife. 

From what many man say, it's like admiring a beautiful house but loving your home. Mostly I wish they knew how fortunate they are. To have a fellow human love and want to show it for years. That alone would change their lives.


----------



## Machiavelli

Sandfly said:


> The black men are very popular with the white women, but for some reason they often pick quite big and pale women - The other two communities seem to arrange within their own neighbourhoods, or import grooms from abroad. It's kind of an artificial situation produced by the granting of working visas and residency through marriage.


It's only partially due to the visa deal, although that's a factor; not so attractive means more likely to not deport the guy. However, back in college (early 70s) the black guys tended to like white girls that didn't measure up, and there was no visa involved. I'd shake my head and they'd go "you don't think so?" I'd say "you can do better." But it's a matter of per taste and I had pretty rarified tastes.

A few years back there was a study where people in the US and UK rated facial attractiveness of models of different races and . On average, all women rated black males the highest and Asian males the lowest. All men rated Asian females the highest and black females the lowest. The hypothesis is that testosterone levels are the deciding factor.



Sandfly said:


> If you would, can you tell me what the options are for black women? There are lots of white men who would crawl across glass for beyonce, jamelia, rhianna, Naomi Campbell.


All "golden ratio" physiques, so they will be highly attractive to all men, although Beyonce can be borderline.


----------



## Machiavelli

Catherine602 said:


> Its interesting that the same gang of 4 or so only post on threads where they have a chance to spread their agenda.
> 
> I wish women who deny their husband sex would read the post from men who love their wives so deeply and want to show them. They should also read the post from the gang of 4.


This is completely natural when women get over their man. Whether he was a provider drone or a more alpha male reconfigured by the wife into a delta/gamma, once that animal attraction is gone, the women don't really want to do it anymore. That's when they "lose interest in sex."



Catherine602 said:


> I thought the great majority of men viewed women as disposable, interchangeable and a source of recreational pleasure.


This is certainly true for the Alphas and Sigmas. That's why you get ancient old gits like Joe Namath thinking young female sports reporters still want to get it on with them at the drop of a hat. My wife was watching some dumb show and Jon Bon Jovi was being introduced to some hot young thing and he was all smiles until the girl goes "Grandma is your biggest fan. She really loves you." Looked like he was shot in the head. My wife called me in and replayed it. She got a huge laugh out of that.


----------



## Sandfly

Machiavelli said:


> A few years back there was a study where people in the US and UK rated facial attractiveness of models of different races and . On average, all women rated black males the highest and Asian males the lowest. All men rated Asian females the highest and black females the lowest. The hypothesis is that testosterone levels are the deciding factor.


At the very least, if true, it means there will be a tendency for racial characteristics to disappear as there will be mixing rather than in-group isolationism. 

But... there is this class plus race aspect - new to me... a whole new world !


----------



## NextTimeAround

Machiavelli said:


> Why is that? I don't see it as often as I did in the 90s.


IMO, it's just social control. Sometimes I see clips on TV show documentaries, or read articles in American media, and black women dating white men for a long time was presented as a non option and when it does happen, it gets suppressed. 

I can't recall seeing any photos of Boris Becker and his black wife in mainstream American media. I saw a photo in Ebony magazine. 

It's only of late that I've seen photos of Robert DeNiro and his black partners from over the years. 

and every now and again, I do encounter remarks from white women that leave you wondering .........

I never had a comfortable relationship with my parents. so IMO, I think it had a lot to do with taking options off the table. So when I was dating a white guy or when I was married, I;d get the niggling remark that would leave one wondering, are you punching above your level?

I have read about surveys that have determined that of all the ethnic groups doing OLD, black women receive the fewest responses (from all men) compared to other groups of women.


----------



## NextTimeAround

> If you would, can you tell me what the options are for black women? There are lots of white men who would crawl across glass for beyonce, jamelia, rhianna, Naomi Campbell. Of them, jamelia is the only one I think I like, but it's a very strong like. Possibly because she's classier and happier than the other examples. But then, they are superstars, and I suppose at that point the black men who normally go for white girls are now also very interested.


Well, it's not against the law for a black woman to date outside of her race. Some do it and some don't

I think those who have cultivated white friends, no matter what they look like, will most likely date and marry a white guy. I think behaviro, personality and personal tastes in music and how you spend your free time count for a lot.

For example, we grew up in the white suburbs and went to schools that well, we personally integrated in the late '60s. We did go to a majority balc university. My sister chose to go to the same university for med school and for her specialisation. She was still desperate for a husband. this was the early 80s.

She moved back to the mid size mid western city that we grew up in. Never connected with any of the white girls she went to a high school with. Never made any white friends in her adulthood. 

In short, she has never dated a white girl. And I have never heard her mention that a white guy was interested in dating her. 

Meanwhile, she had a disastrous marriage to a black man whose med school education helped pay for. He went on to have a 6 year affair with a white woman..... paying for her nursing education and other things with the household budget. And when he was ready to move on, left her and his children high and dry to be with his mistress. 

and to this day, my sister is still not interested in dating a white guy.


----------



## Blonde

Machiavelli said:


> Bathsheeba who conspired, unsuccessfully, with the same king to literally cuckold her husband with a bastard child.


Correction regarding Bathsheba:

David was on the palace roof. The text does not say that Bathsheba was on her roof. The text does say that Bathsheba's "bathing" was a Jewish purification rite following her period.



> 2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace.* From the roof he saw a woman bathing. *The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (*Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness*.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.” 2 Sam 11


_*Bathsheba did not choose her bathing location. She went to the community mikveh and bathed according to the requirements of the law. David was walking the roof of his palace, which would have been one of the highest buildings in Jerusalem, and from that height he saw her bathing in the community mikveh. The mikveh walls were not tall enough to conceal Bathsheba from the eyes of a man on the roof the palace, but that was not her doing. *David sends a servant to find out who she is because she was at the community mikveh, not in her own home—if she’d been bathing at her house and he’d seen her there, he would simply have needed to find out whose house it was.

*Bathsheba was not tempting David. She was not being “immodest.” She was not trying to get his attention. She was following the Jewish law and doing what every other woman did—bathing naked in the community mikveh several days after her period, to purify her ritual uncleanness. T*his information is honestly not that hard to find. All you have to do is start asking questions about what all is involved in this Jewish ritual bath that is mentioned, and how it takes place. [source]_​


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> I just can't wait to dump my husband for some other richer taller hotter stronger dude! I'm going man shopping right now....


I'm 6' 2"...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Correction regarding Bathsheba:
> 
> David was on the palace roof. The text does not say that Bathsheba was on her roof. The text does say that Bathsheba's "bathing" was a Jewish purification rite following her period.
> 
> 
> 
> _*Bathsheba did not choose her bathing location. She went to the community mikveh and bathed according to the requirements of the law. David was walking the roof of his palace, which would have been one of the highest buildings in Jerusalem, and from that height he saw her bathing in the community mikveh. The mikveh walls were not tall enough to conceal Bathsheba from the eyes of a man on the roof the palace, but that was not her doing. *David sends a servant to find out who she is because she was at the community mikveh, not in her own home—if she’d been bathing at her house and he’d seen her there, he would simply have needed to find out whose house it was.
> 
> *Bathsheba was not tempting David. She was not being “immodest.” She was not trying to get his attention. She was following the Jewish law and doing what every other woman did—bathing naked in the community mikveh several days after her period, to purify her ritual uncleanness. T*his information is honestly not that hard to find. All you have to do is start asking questions about what all is involved in this Jewish ritual bath that is mentioned, and how it takes place. [source]_​



Thanks for the clarification of the bathing part. I never understood why a Jewish woman would take a bath in the nude in public.

But I am still a bit puzzled by some aspects of the story.

If the Mikveh or purification ritual took place seven days after a woman's menstrual period then it would mean that sex on that day would risk pregnancy. The most fertile period in a woman's cycle or ovulation takes place around 11 - 16 days after the first day of her period.
Surely , Bathsheba would have known that?
So it still appears as if she was complicit in some manner to bear David a child.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> That's not a problem at all. We see the same behavior in polygynous human societies, where the women will go for strange if given the opportunity. It's very well documented thoughout history. It's also been demonstrated and duplicated that women in relationships show more skin, behave more flirtatiously, and exhibit greater than normal attraction to men with V torsos, higher levels of upper body muscularity, deeper voices, and facial scars when ovulating. This is why Moslems shut in and cover up the women of their harems. Mohammed instituted the veil because some of his followers suggested they could cuckold him just as easily as he was cuckolding them.
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't so far. And chimps use tools, weapons, and wage war.



Um...polygamy is a human social construct. I'm surprised that you don't continue the evo psych all the way to it's conclusion and always stop at harems and the David Statue.

According to the research, females (species indeterminate) will mate with the highest status **** they can pull down. This does not mean that they GET that ****. The research from birds indicate that females ARE monogamous with 'good guys'. They sometimes cheat...*if they can get away with it* with someone of higher status.

Human females, having left their poo flinging social constructs behind...though one wonders watching the Maury show...also have a keenly developed sense of loss and understand 'red headed step children' and DNA testing.

However that is not what keeps them from cheating. It is losing 'the nest'. They screw around, they lose their happy home.

You seem to cut out the rational thought processes from female sexuality. It is a TUG, not biological determinism.



However...ladies who are offended. Allow me to offer an anecdote. I've started to go to the gym. I am in a high status position according to the dictates of my job. It is a COOL job. These are recent occurances...and suddenly I am getting solicitations from women left and right WHILE MARRIED. Not a lot...not every day and NOT EVERY WOMAN

Now, despite the febrile imaginings of Mach, these are not supermodel hot women. They are lonely women who are taking a shot. They have to be to give up some of their market value by throwing caution to the win and hit on a married man. I guess my V isn't quite deep enough  

There is SOMETHING to this. Just not EVERYTHING to this.


----------



## Sandfly

NextTimeAround said:


> Well, it's not against the law for a black woman to date outside of her race. Some do it and some don't
> 
> I think those who have cultivated white friends, no matter what they look like, will most likely date and marry a white guy. I think behaviro, personality and personal tastes in music and how you spend your free time count for a lot.


I think I see now. Opportunity to meet, determined by what circles you mix in, in the first place. Just normal story then, otherwise pretty random. I wonder where Mexican groups fit into this, for both white and black people. There is the different language, culture and Catholicism. Then some are Chicanos (?), some are not. Maybe even between recent arrivers and long-settled groups there is a barrier. Hmmmm!


----------



## Red Sonja

This entire thread is amusing to me, I suppose because I believe that where you end up in life depends mostly on your personal values, how hard you are willing to work (and perhaps a bit of luck) and not a bunch of predictive theories.

Anyhow, in RL I am a *Rich Female D*uche *rofl and no, I did not inherit it, marry it or win it in the lottery. Note that my wealth-status was never apparent to the casual observer because I was never interested in the “trappings of wealth” such as exotic cars, high-end designer clothes, jewelry, etc. I was always the "save it, retire early, then play" type. I was in the top 1% of earners (USA) by age 25 (5 years before marriage) and was continuously in that top 1% until I retired at age 50. For a more complete picture I should add that I am only in the top 3% of net worth.

So Mach, where do you predict I fit using the hypergamy/chimp society theories?  Hint: I have been married for 27 years.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Sandfly said:


> I think I see now. Opportunity to meet, determined by what circles you mix in, in the first place. Just normal story then, otherwise pretty random. I wonder where Mexican groups fit into this, for both white and black people. There is the different language, culture and Catholicism. Then some are Chicanos (?), some are not. Maybe even between recent arrivers and long-settled groups there is a barrier. Hmmmm!


You're asking some heavy questions. As I understand it, Hispanics breaks out by origin ie Cubans who, supposedly see themselves as top of the heap. Of Hispanics, they are the richest, thanks to Castro who would not accept US dollars in his country. Most of the Hispanic groups have sent money back to their country of origin for a few generations.

Many of them, no matter what shade of skin color they have see themselves as white and --sometimes-- superior to black people. Even though thanks to civil rights, mostly a black effort, hispanics can benefit from positive discrimination in employment and educational counts.

I never dated a hispanic. I always assume it's because they would rather have a blonde than another brunette like themselves. Who knows.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Red Sonja said:


> This entire thread is amusing to me, I suppose because I believe that where you end up in life depends mostly on your personal values, how hard you are willing to work (and perhaps a bit of luck) and not a bunch of predictive theories.
> 
> Anyhow, in RL I am a *Rich Female D*uche *rofl and no, I did not inherit it, marry it or win it in the lottery. Note that my wealth-status was never apparent to the casual observer because I was never interested in the “trappings of wealth” such as exotic cars, high-end designer clothes, jewelry, etc. I was always the "save it, retire early, then play" type. I was in the top 1% of earners (USA) by age 25 (5 years before marriage) and was continuously in that top 1% until I retired at age 50. For a more complete picture I should add that I am only in the top 3% of net worth.
> 
> *So Mach, where do you predict I fit using the hypergamy/chimp society theories?  Hint: I have been married for 27 years*.


You have not mentioned anything about your husband.


----------



## Sandfly

JCD said:


> However that is not what keeps them from cheating. It is losing 'the nest'. They screw around, they lose their happy home.


I liked the rest of your post, but this was patently false. This is no barrier to either sex cheating.


----------



## Red Sonja

NextTimeAround said:


> You have not mentioned anything about your husband.


No I haven't because the hypergamy/chimp society theories here are supposed predict who I chose to marry. I was asking for a prediction.


----------



## Sandfly

Red Sonja said:


> No I haven't because the hypergamy/chimp society theories here are supposed predict who I chose to marry. I was asking for a prediction.


I bet you married a creative type from a foreign country, probably European, who does his own thing. I bet he is within 5 years of you, either side. I am certain he is an active man and doesn't watch much TV, doesn't have a beer belly, and has a college education.

I tried to be specific enough ! It's just what popped into my head.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Red Sonja, I like this case study. But I still want more information. What is your profession / business because making your fortune as a lawyer for example, requires a completely different person from a supermodel. 

I know, I know, we were told that Reeva Steenkamp was both a fashion model and a lawyer......... but that's only one example.



> Anyhow, in RL I am a Rich Female D*uche () and no, I did not inherit it, marry it or win it in the lottery. Note that my wealth-status was never apparent to the casual observer because I was never interested in the “trappings of wealth” such as exotic cars, high-end designer clothes, jewelry, etc. I was always the "save it, retire early, then play" type.


Yeah, well, even Linda Tripp found someone to marry her.

So what type of man would an uber rich self deprecating underachiever want to marry..... and want to marry her.

In any case, without seeing specific examples of what you are talking about, everything is relative. For example, some people would Liz Claiborn a designer brand. Others will not.

And exotic cars, would any non American car be considered exotic or only some after a certain price point. I have not had to buy a car in about 25 years but I hear in the US to get a decent one these days, it can cost between USD30 to 40K new. Or do you buy used cars?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Sandfly said:


> I think I see now. Opportunity to meet, determined by what circles you mix in, in the first place. Just normal story then, otherwise pretty random. I wonder where Mexican groups fit into this, for both white and black people. There is the different language, culture and Catholicism. Then some are Chicanos (?), some are not. Maybe even between recent arrivers and long-settled groups there is a barrier. Hmmmm!



I'm not Mexican but I did grow up in Arizona, and as such have known many Mexicans. In my experience they date and marry white people all the time. Especially women; Latina women are very popular.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> The most fertile period in a woman's cycle or ovulation takes place around 11 - 16 days after the first day of her period.
> Surely , Bathsheba would have known that?
> So it still appears as if she was complicit in some manner to bear David a child.


Not sure if she would have understood the menstrual cycle and fertile time? 

In that patriarchal era, I don't think a woman would have much choice if summoned by the King. She was a victim of her own beauty. Her husband Uriah was killed. The baby dies. All very sad for her IMO. 

There is nothing at all in the Bible where Bathsheba is blamed or told to "repent". David OTH is confronted by Nathan the prophet, writes repentance Psalm 51 and is refused by God when he begs for the life of the illegitimate child (who dies shortly after birth)


----------



## over20

David then goes on to be named the prophet after God's own heart.....through all that darkness and sin God is merciful


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Um...polygamy is a human social construct. I'm surprised that you don't continue the evo psych all the way to it's conclusion and always stop at harems and the David Statue.


Some people say physics is a human social construct. I don't buy that it is. I think "evo psych" is misnamed. Back in the 70's I took a course called "Psychology of Sexual Behavior" which was the same stuff. I believe in natural selection, but I don't buy Darwinian evolution. 



JCD said:


> According to the research, females (species indeterminate) will mate with the highest status **** they can pull down. This does not mean that they GET that ****.


In polygyny, they are much more likely to get it. The winners in a polygynous society are high status males and low status women. The big losers are low status males and the somewhat losers are high status women. When society drops the monogamy shackles women will gravitate to the alphas and they will even tolerate each other, just to get the alpha fix.



JCD said:


> The research from birds indicate that females ARE monogamous with 'good guys'. They sometimes cheat...*if they can get away with it* with someone of higher status.


As we see so often with humans.



JCD said:


> Human females, having left their poo flinging social constructs behind...though one wonders watching the Maury show...also have a keenly developed sense of loss and understand 'red headed step children' and DNA testing.


Feminists oppose DNA testing. It's actually illegal in France for that reason. But in the age of the pill, women can usually avoid pregnancy or they can terminate it. The problem is that they want these alpha offspring and if they can get a beta to raise it, so much the better.



JCD said:


> However that is not what keeps them from cheating. It is losing 'the nest'. They screw around, they lose their happy home.


If they think they can get a gold plated nest, and they're the 30-50% of women who are adulterous, they're happy to make the trade. As we often see.



JCD said:


> You seem to cut out the rational thought processes from female sexuality. It is a TUG, not biological determinism.


They can certainly adjust levels of attraction to reflect economic reality, as many studies of female hypergamy show. That would seem to indicate a some rational thought is at play. When ovulating and in a nightclub on the road? Not so much.



JCD said:


> However...ladies who are offended. Allow me to offer an anecdote. I've started to go to the gym. I am in a high status position according to the dictates of my job. It is a COOL job. These are recent occurances...and suddenly I am getting solicitations from women left and right WHILE MARRIED. Not a lot...not every day and NOT EVERY WOMAN
> 
> Now, despite the febrile imaginings of Mach, these are not supermodel hot women. They are lonely women who are taking a shot. They have to be to give up some of their market value by throwing caution to the win and hit on a married man. I guess my V isn't quite deep enough
> 
> There is SOMETHING to this. Just not EVERYTHING to this.


The hotter you get, the hotter the women hitting on you get. I've been skinny, muscular, fat, and muscular again. Been there, seen it all. And just because the hotter 8 & 9 women start in on you, that doesn't mean the 4 and 5 girls will go away. They'll still take their shots, because they've scored high, before. This was confusing to me all my life. I thought all men got hit on and the hitting was done by women of similar rank; neither is true.


----------



## Blonde

over20 said:


> David then goes on to be named the prophet after God's own heart.....through all that darkness and sin God is merciful


David sows the wind and reaps the whirlwind.

His son Absalom had sex with David's concubines on the roof. His daughter Tamar was raped by her half brother. Absalom tried to take over the kingdom and was killed.... 

among other unsavory fruits of the actions David sowed...

"man after God's own heart"? OK. But very dysfunctional with a trail of destruction in his wake when it comes to his family


----------



## Machiavelli

Blonde said:


> David sows the wind and reaps the whirlwind.
> 
> His son Absalom had sex with David's concubines on the roof. His daughter Tamar was raped by her half brother. Absalom tried to take over the kingdom and was killed....
> 
> among other unsavory fruits of the actions David sowed...
> 
> "man after God's own heart"? OK. But very dysfunctional with a trail of destruction in his wake when it comes to his family


David was a stereotypical "Alpha" in every way. Women made him that way. Even Saul saw it happening, jealously.


----------



## over20

Very true, your right....but Christ does come from David's line


I don't want to hijack the thread any longer, sorry all


----------



## Red Sonja

NextTimeAround said:


> Red Sonja, I like this case study. But I still want more information. What is your profession / business because making your fortune as a lawyer for example, requires a completely different person from a supermodel.


I was an engineer by education and profession; I started and own 3 engineering businesses with 75 employees in total (sold a 4th business ten years ago).



NextTimeAround said:


> In any case, without seeing specific examples of what you are talking about, everything is relative. For example, some people would Liz Claiborn a designer brand. Others will not.
> And exotic cars, would any non American car be considered exotic or only some after a certain price point. I have not had to buy a car in about 25 years but I hear in the US to get a decent one these days, it can cost between USD30 to 40K new. Or do you buy used cars?


I live in the Los Angeles area so I have to own a car. I buy average priced new cars for cash, drive them for 10 years and then sell them for cash. I currently drive a 2008 Honda Pilot ($25K new), before that a 1998 Ford Explorer ($25K new), etc. Everyone else in my neighborhood has $90K+ cars in their garages (BMW’s, Range Rovers, Porches, etc.), waste of money IMHO. 

As for designers … Prada, Chanel, Gucci are examples of what I consider high-end designers, also a complete waste of money.

As for jewelry … I just never liked it much (gets in the way) and most of it is a waste of money. And, I could not wear it at work anyway because I would risk destroying a $50k computer board.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Not sure if she would have understood the menstrual cycle and fertile time?
> 
> In that patriarchal era, I don't think a woman would have much choice if summoned by the King. She was a victim of her own beauty. Her husband Uriah was killed. The baby dies. All very sad for her IMO.
> 
> T*here is nothing at all in the Bible where Bathsheba is blamed or told to "repent". David OTH is confronted by Nathan the prophet, writes repentance Psalm 51 and is refused by God when he begs for the life of the illegitimate child (who dies shortly after birth)*


Well , in reality, David did have a huge power differential over Bathsheba , but she could have decided not to have sex with him. She could have decided after she found out that she was pregnant not to go ahead with the plan to fool her husband.
And she could have decided that she wanted no part with David after he murdered her husband.


But she still went on and became one of David's many wives.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nathan the prophet was a REAL man IMO. He confronted the King and told him like it was.
He was a low down piece of sh!t.
Real men speak their mind and speak the truth.


----------



## Red Sonja

Sandfly said:


> I bet you married a creative type from a foreign country, probably European, who does his own thing. I bet he is within 5 years of you, either side. I am certain he is an active man and doesn't watch much TV, doesn't have a beer belly, and has a college education.


Wrong: H is USA born (as am I) and watches a lot of TV (a lot more than me).

Right: 3 years younger, college educated, active and fit (cyclist).


----------



## over20

According to Scripture Bathsheba did NOT know her husband was to be killed. She sent word from her home to David that she was with child. David then "In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah, In it he wrote, put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die." 2 Sam 11:14


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kahlil Gibran said:


> I’m not saying there aren’t many situations where the wife makes more money and the arrangement doesn’t blow up. I’m totally looking at it in the Dr. Glover perspective that the natural order of things is the man must be in the lead and set the tone. 9 times out of 10, this is isn’t realistic if the woman is the majority breadwinner (the best the guy can hope for at this point is an equal voice). Therefore, with the whole money workforce dynamic shift of equal amount of women and many in higher paying positions he is full of crap.


I do agree...but I don't think Glover said that the man earning more was "the natural order of things". I think instead he says there will be a tendency for a (hetero) woman to not be able to have sustained attraction for her husband if he doesn't at least show some leadership capabilities. So his point was about attraction, not natural order. Because if the guy earned less but at least shows backbone, everyday courage and family leadership, I think his wife will still be attracted. The problem he describes in the book is when the husband constantly defers to the wife to make all decisions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said:


> I'm 6' 2"...


Sorry, not tall enough. 

But I'm not a 22 y/o blonde so I'm sure I'm not good enough for you, either.


----------



## Machiavelli

Red Sonja said:


> This entire thread is amusing to me, I suppose because I believe that where you end up in life depends mostly on your personal values, how hard you are willing to work (and perhaps a bit of luck) and not a bunch of predictive theories.
> 
> Anyhow, in RL I am a *Rich Female D*uche *rofl and no, I did not inherit it, marry it or win it in the lottery. Note that my wealth-status was never apparent to the casual observer because I was never interested in the “trappings of wealth” such as exotic cars, high-end designer clothes, jewelry, etc. I was always the "save it, retire early, then play" type. I was in the top 1% of earners (USA) by age 25 (5 years before marriage) and was continuously in that top 1% until I retired at age 50. For a more complete picture I should add that I am only in the top 3% of net worth.
> 
> So Mach, where do you predict I fit using the hypergamy/chimp society theories?  Hint: I have been married for 27 years.


This is where solipsism gets in the way of understanding typical behaviors.

Remember, chimp theories are only for the mass of chimps, not the exceptional chimps. Typical behaviors are not 100% even among typical chimps, much less atypical chimps. You've already pointed out that you are out on the far leading edge of the bell curve in earnings, so it stands to reason that you are exceptional in other areas as well.

According to the theories, men generally can't turn down sex with hot women, so I should have a massive female body count, since I've been offered massive amounts of female bodies, including but not limited to runway models, Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, strippers, and trophy wives of other men. Nevertheless, my number is not that big, since I have a high degree of impulse control, unlike many other men, thus keeping my reproductive machine in line with the Pago-Christian beliefs I subscribed to at the time. So, even though it's happened to me, I can recognize that most men do not get sexually propositioned by Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders that they haven't even been introduced to. Furthermore, unlike Joe Namath, I can also recognize that this will never happen to me again, simply due to the SMV of a non-billionaire 57 year old man.

When we say "men this" and "women that" we're talking about the big fat center and the leading edge of the bell curve, not the 20% or less that negative outliers.


----------



## over20

Wow..I'm impressed Mach!


----------



## sparkyjim

Blonde said:


> David sows the wind and reaps the whirlwind.
> 
> His son Absalom had sex with David's concubines on the roof. His daughter Tamar was raped by her half brother. Absalom tried to take over the kingdom and was killed....
> 
> among other unsavory fruits of the actions David sowed...
> 
> "man after God's own heart"? OK. But very dysfunctional with a trail of destruction in his wake when it comes to his family





Machiavelli said:


> David was a stereotypical "Alpha" in every way. Women made him that way.


DAMN those women for making the King of Israel bend to their evil conniving schemes!!!


----------



## Sandfly

Catherine602 said:


> Its interesting that the same gang of 4 or so only post on threads to spread their massage.
> 
> I thought all men just tolerated women because they needed sex but secretly disliked them and thought they were *disposable, interchangeable and a source of recreational pleasure*.


So who is the gang of four, and (optional bonus question!) 

What could they do to be less harmful/ more constructive in their opinionating?

------------------------------------

The bit in bold is the impression I got on some dates I have been on (years ago). It is horrible to be eyed up as a commodity, for whatever reasons...


----------



## Catherine602

Why would a beautiful runway model throw herself at you Mac? They can have any man in the universe. 

You mean they throw themselves at any random male with the right piping? 

I didn't know men have to exert so much control. My husband probably has 20 yr old grad student attacking him in the office. VAR time. 

Every woman over 25 yo had better get surveillance, PI and a few VAR's.

When that teenager at the Mickie D's counter says "can I help you" is she offering herself to male customers? 

How about the 22 yr old secretary who smiles and says hello.

The 24 yo mother trying to sell girl scout cookes? "Do you want the chocolate mint or me".


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Two distinct problems with your analysis here:
> 
> 1) In the chimp world, the females will copulate with the alpha, but will also do so with other males when so inclined. Which is often. Indeed females prove to be as polyamorous as men wish they could be.


Yeah, I saw this on an analysis of chimp behavior, comparing to the human alpha thing. It seems that when the Alpha is not looking, other chimps will be ready to mount the female chimp, and she will allow it, also looking to make sure the Alpha does not see it.



always_alone said:


> 2)Comparing chimp behaviour with human behaviour only goes so far. Sure we have very similar DNA, but last I heard they weren't involved in any of the complex economies, social rituals, tool development, etc and so on that humans are. Do you really imagine that none of this impacts our mating behaviour?


The chimp thing, is to say that some of the behaviors make no sense at all, but look at nature.


----------



## treyvion

Red Sonja said:


> I was an engineer by education and profession; I started and own 3 engineering businesses with 75 employees in total (sold a 4th business ten years ago).
> 
> 
> 
> I live in the Los Angeles area so I have to own a car. I buy average priced new cars for cash, drive them for 10 years and then sell them for cash. I currently drive a 2008 Honda Pilot ($25K new), before that a 1998 Ford Explorer ($25K new), etc. Everyone else in my neighborhood has $90K+ cars in their garages (BMW’s, Range Rovers, Porches, etc.), waste of money IMHO.
> 
> As for designers … Prada, Chanel, Gucci are examples of what I consider high-end designers, also a complete waste of money.
> 
> As for jewelry … I just never liked it much (gets in the way) and most of it is a waste of money. And, I could not wear it at work anyway because I would risk destroying a $50k computer board.


So you make all that money, and don't fork it out trying to live like the Joneses, and much happier this way? What a man!


----------



## Machiavelli

Red Sonja said:


> No I haven't because the hypergamy/chimp society theories here are supposed predict who I chose to marry. I was asking for a prediction.


No, I know of no such predictive power that would apply to individuals. Humans have relatively little experience with women out earning men, but we do see that marriage rates are lower and divorce rates are higher for women in the high earning category. I can tell you when I was in grad school and my wife was out-earning me, she was irritable and sexually turned off. This was all her, I was the exact same guy.


----------



## Machiavelli

treyvion said:


> Yeah, I saw this on an analysis of chimp behavior, comparing to the human alpha thing. It seems that when the Alpha is not looking, other chimps will be ready to mount the female chimp, and she will allow it, also looking to make sure the Alpha does not see it.


Isn't it the Masai who put the spear in the ground outside the harem wife's hut, so the polygynous husband knows not to enter and see something that might result in unpleasantness?

ETA: Correct. It is the Masai.


----------



## Catherine602

Sandfly said:


> So who is the gang of four, and (optional bonus question!)
> 
> What could they do to be less harmful/ more constructive in their opinionating?
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> The bit in bold is the impression I got on some dates I have been on (years ago). It is horrible to be eyed up as a commodity, for whatever reasons...


Sand I don't think they can do anything. Free speech is something to prize. You have to have a good picker to tell if the woman you are considering for a serious relationship is capable of freeing herself of the notion that men find women deposable. 

I'll give you an example. Early in our marriage, I asked my husband not to stare at woman when he is with me. He had no problem with doing that for me but he asked why. :scratchhead: 

I told him because it made me feel that he does not love me. Silly but that's how I feel. He is not a pushover BTW. 

He does it freely when I am not with him or when he is with his friends. If I interfered with that it would be controlling. 

Many men will resist that one simple request because they feel its an attempt to control them. They are taking more of a risk than they realize. It's cumulative, it takes a long time to pay off.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Humans have relatively little experience with women out earning men, but we do see that marriage rates are lower and divorce rates are higher for women in the high earning category.


As it happens, we're seeing much more of this as women's salaries increase. And contrary to what you say here, marriage rates are actually higher for these educated independent women, and the marriages they enter are much more likely to last. 

Fancy that!


----------



## JCD

over20 said:


> Wow..I'm impressed Mach!


Knocking off scores of 8's and 9's of women isn't as hard as it sounds
.
.
.
.
on the internet.


----------



## over20

???? do you think he's lying?


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> Some people say physics is a human social construct. I don't buy that it is. I think "evo psych" is misnamed. Back in the 70's I took a course called "Psychology of Sexual Behavior" which was the same stuff. I believe in natural selection, but I don't buy Darwinian evolution.


Excuse me. I can test gravity. It works on the North Pole, in my living room, and on Ganymede.

I see no such predictive power in evo psych. You won't even venture a guess based on your theories with a single girl. These theories must have SOMETHING to say.

But here is the biggest deal: Name one (1) Democratic Society which is polygamous. Lots of potentates, Shahs, Emperors, Kings, and Grand Poobahs.  Where a dictatorial leader can get away with crap outside the 'will of the people' (but not the will of his army...so the Army gets dibs on the chicks too), he 'suddenly has thousands of women throwing themselves at him.'

But...does this make sense? Do you THINK that some Chinese, Mongolian or Polish woman who was wife# 3,249 in the Great Khan's Harem REALLY was there a) willingly, and b) thought that this was a great reproductive strategy for her? Essentially she's like a girl in a Thai Fishbowl...except that there is only one customer EVER, and 3248 other girls who might get picked. So every day she is praying her number is picked...except when she's hoping it isn't.

SOMEHOW women prefer THAT to actually having regular sex, affection, a family, her own personal house and children...because...um...they get a silk robe and free meals and get to live with 3248 women selected for aesthetic quirks and not social skills?

So let's be very clear here. There is one gender who is all about variety and it isn't chicks! Lesbian couples don't swap. Lesbian couples don't do multiples or have Alpha Dyk*s that they flock around. They are in all respects save their target of attraction like 'normal' girls. (Please argue otherwise)

So polygamy is a MALE CONSTRUCT! And it's a MALE CONSTRUCT in *despotic cultures*. Where 'lower class' men and women have ANY say, they slap those 'shackles of monogamy' on PDQ. I don't need Stormtroopers picking up my wife because some @sshat with a crown thinks she's cute, thank you very much.

Take a look at our Despotic Alpha Beeatch Catherine the Great. How did THIS woman, who could have done ANYTHING SHE WANTED, do? According to serious historians, and not pre-internet sex trolls, she was serially monogamous. Occasionally she tired of them, but she had one guy...and then went to the next. She had a serious EA/PA with Potemkin which filled in her love index.




> In polygyny, they are much more likely to get it. The winners in a polygynous society are high status males and low status women. The big losers are low status males and the somewhat losers are high status women. When society drops the monogamy shackles women will gravitate to the alphas and they will even tolerate each other, just to get the alpha fix.


Ah. Wish fulfillment. When troops drop into the village, have everyone line up and 'make an offer they can't refuse', women flock to the bed of the Alpha Turd. I can understand why you think physics is a human construct. Men with bayonets 'gravitating' women toward the Grand Poobah IS sort of 'socially constructed.'

Want to know the other aspect to despotic cultures? There is no social advancement except through influence at the top. So...is it that they are SO HOT for his fat Alphaness...or are they willing to do anything to better themselves (BTW...little hint...very few of these 'Alphas' had David's V. Neither did Clinton. Sort of might make you wish you spent more time in politics than at the gym. Just saying...)

The basis for my statements comes from 'The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Sexuality'. They agree with some of what you say...with a lot of caveats you seem to leave out of the mix.

Their three aspects of female sexuality is

1) Monogamous

2) Do not seek sexual variety for the sake of sexual variety. Catherine dropped her beaus when they became sullen, demanding, petulant or politically untenable...and one screwed her 13 year old cousin.

3) are _sometimes_ unfaithful.



Edited to add: There is SOME truth to the 'flocking' to the Alpha...but there is a law of diminishing returns. As one woman said: "Who wouldn't want to be the second wife of JFK rather than the first wife of Bozo the Clown?'

SOME women are sexual opportunists.

BUT...there is a law of diminishing returns. First Wife is always vehemently against any sort of Second Wife IF SHE HAS A SAY.

So...as a woman, I might happily be wife Two. I get HALF of his wealth, status and influence with maybe half the sex duties. Yay me!

I would be VISCERALLY opposed to Wife Three. First Wife is happy that her competition has competition...maybe...though I better have a food taster (one of those little drawbacks to these Alpha Flockers [are you sure you spelled that correctly?] )

So Wife Three...she has to live with two women who hate her like poison...but mom and dad are happy...I get to be important...sort of...

Would you, Mach, want to be Wife# 3,249? What exactly is left for you? Little and nothing. IF she makes that choice, it is because she is tired of shoveling yak turds and cooking for her 4 wretched brothers. She is, in fact, there for the silk robes, the free meals and certainly NOT the Alpha C*ck.

So the sexual opportunism benefit for the women quickly peters out around wife 10. And doing this for 'consort status' is rather horrible because you get all the duties, all the threat of the headman's ax...and none of the legal protections.

And you think they are there WILLINGLY? I have a few other words: duress, phlegmatically, despondently, accepting.


----------



## JCD

over20 said:


> ???? do you think he's lying?


Well, any woman who is attracted to me and makes it known gets an automatic +2 points. Maybe that's affecting Mach's rating system.

LYING? No. Exaggerating? Maybe.

Perhaps he is, in fact, the Gift God has given all women as he describes himself.

In which case he isn't a liar; I just hate him.


----------



## over20

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


I give you an extra +2......your funny!


----------



## Faithful Wife

It doesn't matter how many hot 20 y/o's want Mach...none of them will be faithful to him since there is always someone hotter, richer, faster, taller, stronger and better. Always. 

And he won't be faithful to those 20 y/o's either because he will always have to have one after another of whatever woman comes into his view, per the rules of his own design.

I hope you all have fun with your big mate swap party Mach, since fidelity is literally impossible, according to you.


----------



## Red Sonja

Machiavelli said:


> No, I know of no such predictive power that would apply to individuals.


Yup, but you were implying that there was and that is why I posed my question. And, for me it was all in good fun until you and treyvion started in with the thinly veiled personal insults, i.e.:



Machiavelli said:


> This is where *solipsism *gets in the way of understanding typical behaviors.





treyvion said:


> So you make all that money, and don't fork it out trying to live like the Joneses, and much happier this way? What a *man*!


Oh and BTW ... I know I am a statistical outlier.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> It doesn't matter how many hot 20 y/o's want Mach...none of them will be faithful to him since there is always someone hotter, richer, faster, taller, stronger and better. Always.
> 
> And he won't be faithful to those 20 y/o's either because he will always have to have one after another of whatever woman comes into his view, per the rules of his own design.
> 
> I hope you all have fun with your big mate swap party Mach, since fidelity is literally impossible, according to you.


Now now. We already have enough over exaggeration on this thread without going full bore.

Besides, Mach assured us he has better than average self control. So HE is fine. It's those golddiggers.


----------



## JCD

Red Sonja said:


> Yup, but you were implying that there was and that is why I posed my question. And, for me it was all in good fun until you and treyvion started in with the thinly veiled personal insults, i.e.:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and BTW ... I know I am a statistical outlier.


Huh...50...rich...and retired.

Did I mention I was 6'2" and low maintenance? And I have a Pilsner. 

That is sort of like a 'V' but with a little bulge around the base.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said:


> Now now. We already have enough over exaggeration on this thread without going full bore.


You're saying I'm exaggerating? This is exactly what they think, not an exaggeration. No one is faithful, why would they be? Their sex organs are in charge, and only know one path and one reason to exist....

Marvin Gaye - Lets Get It On - YouTube

It really is a wonderful world. All that sex with all those hotties. Both genders really have a great deal worked out with science...or wait, was that deal worked out with God... I can't remember which one supposedly created us...God? Apes? Which one says that blonde 22 y/o's and tall rich dudes are the only people anyone wants to have sex with? I can't remember now...the constructed, specific creation story changes every time you try to pin it down.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> You're saying I'm exaggerating? This is exactly what they think, not an exaggeration. No one is faithful, why would they be? Their sex organs are in charge, and only know one path and one reason to exist....
> 
> Marvin Gaye - Lets Get It On - YouTube
> 
> It really is a wonderful world. All that sex with all those hotties. Both genders really have a great deal worked out with science...or wait, was that deal worked out with God... I can't remember which one supposedly created us...God? Apes? Which one says that blonde 22 y/o's and tall rich dudes are the only people anyone wants to have sex with? I can't remember now...the constructed, specific creation story changes every time you try to pin it down.


Don't you know? The rest of us 'settle'.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sorry, no, that is not what happens. You'll cheat whether you "settled" or not, the circumstances just haven't presented themselves to you yet. Your woman will cheat, and same goes for her. Don't kid yourself, nature herself has made it so that you simply must cheat, you cad. But at least it is all fair. She will, too.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry, no, that is not what happens. You'll cheat whether you "settled" or not, the circumstances just haven't presented themselves to you yet. Your woman will cheat, and same goes for her. Don't kid yourself, nature herself has made it so that you simply must cheat, you cad. But at least it is all fair. She will, too.


Then I guess we're well matched.

And what makes you think I haven't already had the opportunities? Darn it! You mean I was doing it wrong when I turned them down? (mutter mutter)

And I'm not a cad, I'm a badger.


----------



## JCD

This thread is getting pretty far astray.

Speaking of social constructs: I think that men feel bad if they aren't the breadwinner. Women bring their womb and their breasts to the table for child rearing. It is their contribution.

Men are stuck searching for a role. If a woman fills in ALL the 'slots' in the 'couple' dynamic, they flail around feeling superfluous. Society has trained this into them.

Unfortunately, it also affects the women as well. They are raised with the nuclear 'daddy works and mommy...well...she works too' vibe.

So, in the midst of anger and resentment which happens frequently with couples, the women MAY ask themselves, or worse, their partners that very question: What the hell do YOU do here?

And as RClawson has shown us, words like that bite VERY deeply indeed. From the sounds of it almost to an unrecoverable extent.

It has bred it's own resentment in his life and I'm guessing if he was offered the golden ticket to success, he'd think twice for grabbing at it partially out of spite.

So a woman earning more who actually wants to USE her power? That requires a deft touch indeed. I doubt most women have the skill to pull it off without damaging feelings badly.

It's like talking about a man's sexual prowess. Not a minefield you want to play in...unless you want to play in it alone.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

6301 said:


> When I married my first wife, I was starting out in my own business. It ain't easy. My wife had a good job with a major corporation and made damn good money along with good benefits and bot oh boy she never let me forget it. It was a battle getting the business off the ground and a battle at home.
> 
> Then she got pregnant and it got worse. Two, three times a week all I hear her say is that I have to pick up the slack and what she was telling me was that she had no intentions to taking a step back.
> 
> Ever heard the saying that you have to be at the right time and at the right place and know the right person? Well it happened to me and after four years my company took off and not only did I match her income with mine, I passed it up in a cloud of dust. All's well that ends well right? Wrong.
> 
> Now the complaining starts that I'm not around enough and it seemed like there was never a fair balance and one night I blew, and told her that for the past six years, all she did was b!tch and complain about money and always let me know that there will be no taking a step backwards. I told her that if you can't say something positive then shut you big mouth and find someone who will put up with your piss poor attitude.
> 
> Man did that feel good. In 10 minuets I got 6 years of crap off my shoulders and she knew that I was pushed to the limit. I got some help from her family when they told her that she's lucky that I didn't pitch her out for running her mouth.
> 
> I did 4 years later and I wish I had done it a lot sooner.


Good for you.
Just curious, what became of your X? I can’t imagine a woman who demands unrealistic perfection from her mate (make a lot of money, but do it in a short amount of time to help her with other tasks) along with a kid(s?) sounds like quite the catch. Is there some poor sap who’s saddled with her now?


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> As it happens, we're seeing much more of this as women's salaries increase. And contrary to what you say here, marriage rates are actually higher for these educated independent women, and the marriages they enter are much more likely to last.
> 
> Fancy that!


So you say, but the researchers who actually study this exact subject who were interviewed in the articles I linked to say just the opposite. What is your cite? 

You're making the counterclaim, so let's see what you got, so we can weigh the evidence.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

always_alone said:


> As it happens, we're seeing much more of this as women's salaries increase. And contrary to what you say here, marriage rates are actually higher for these educated independent women, and the marriages they enter are much more likely to last.
> 
> Fancy that!


and in reality there are articles like this...

_The female millionaires surveyed indicated that they are “not looking to take care of anybody" and would prefer a financially stable partner.

The survey also found that the rich women would be more careful with their wealth if they entered into a marriage than the rich men. Eighty-two percent of the female respondents said they would insist on a prenuptial agreement, while only 17.4 percent of the male respondents would do the same..._

Millionaire Men Prefer To Date Women With Less Money


----------



## RoseAglow

Machiavelli said:


> So you say, but the researchers who actually study this exact subject who were interviewed in the articles I linked to say just the opposite. What is your cite?
> 
> You're making the counterclaim, so let's see what you got, so we can weigh the evidence.


I've been watching this thread with interest, but staying out of the fray. But, since you asked, here is a thread I started with links to a few studies, showing that marriage is moving towards being an institution for the well-educated mostly and much less for people with less than a Bachelors. Of the well-educated class (defined as people with a bachelor's degree or more), women are more likely than men to marry someone with a lesser or no degree. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...169497-class-divide-marriage-luxury-good.html


----------



## Machiavelli

over20 said:


> Wow..I'm impressed Mach!


Don't be, I figure it's mostly just genetic, the luck of the draw. For those taking notes, here is the formula: don't be butt ugly; be single; between 17 and 27 years old; play lead guitar in a local, big city rock and roll band (make sure it's the Rock Era); be an amateur photographer and help girls with photo portfolio for the cost of paper, film, and chemicals; help girls with physique training; have a muscular physique, flat stomach, be 6'1"; own a vette, bike, and a custom van; attend college and obtain federal employment by day in a large federal agency swarming with easy women.

At the time, those were just the things I liked to do. Only looking backwards do I see how all that worked together.


----------



## Machiavelli

RoseAglow said:


> I've been watching this thread with interest, but staying out of the fray. But, since you asked, here is a thread I started with links to a few studies, showing that marriage is moving towards being an institution for the well-educated mostly and much less for people with less than a Bachelors. Of the well-educated class (defined as people with a bachelor's degree or more), women are more likely than men to marry someone with a lesser or no degree.
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...169497-class-divide-marriage-luxury-good.html


Correct. Increasingly college women marry men with lesser degrees when they do marry. But, they're also marrying at a lesser rate than they did previously, and those who do marry have higher rates of dissatisfaction when they earn more than the male.

Not all women who are over-credentialed compared to their husbands out earn the husbands, especially since so many women go for relatively worthless (marketplace wise) degrees.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It doesn't really matter who any of us choose to marry, since none of us will be faithful anyway, and "love" is really just a chemical c*ocktail in your brain. So get out there and screw everyone you can nail down! That's the point of it all, ya know.

Guns N' Roses-Welcome to the Jungle - YouTube


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> So you say, but the researchers who actually study this exact subject who were interviewed in the articles I linked to say just the opposite. What is your cite?
> 
> You're making the counterclaim, so let's see what you got, so we can weigh the evidence.


Actually, one set of researchers you cited say this, but they are relying on 20 year old data.

All the rest demonstrates severely selective reading. Here is a paragraph immediately following one of your "money quotes":



> Some attitudes have recently changed in the United States. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, only about 28 percent of respondents this year agreed that “it was generally better for a marriage if a husband earns more than his wife,” compared with 40 percent in 1997.


This is from much more recent research at Breadwinner Moms | Pew Research Centerâ€™s Social & Demographic Trends Project


> Most people reject the idea that it is bad for a marriage if a wife out-earns her husband. When asked if they agree or disagree that it is generally better for a marriage if a husband earns more than his wife, some 28% of survey respondents say they agree and 63% disagree.


The great thing about evolution is that it keeps happening. People and social norms and expectations change!


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Well, any woman who is attracted to me and makes it known gets an automatic +2 points. Maybe that's affecting Mach's rating system.


It certainly does these days. Maybe +7.

Now, in no post did I hang a rating number on any of the cheerleaders, models, female federal agents, groupies, swingers, etc. However, your assumptions were pretty correct. Some of them were pretty hot, but I also had 5s and 6s, and what are called "cougars" today, coming on to me, too. 



JCD said:


> LYING? No. Exaggerating? Maybe.
> 
> Perhaps he is, in fact, the Gift God has given all women as he describes himself.


Not so much of a gift, apparently, since I turned most of them down (they don't expect that and some get really pissed). Before I married, I only had two GFs in all those years that stuck around for more than 6 months and I never broke up with a girl but once, and that was my LTGF who became a pin cushion for the Air Force Academy (there was an AFB right down the road from her University), so you could say even she beat me to the punch.



JCD said:


> In which case he isn't a liar; I just hate him.


Now I hate myself for not cashing in 100% of the time (at least when I was single).


----------



## CuddleBug

When my wifee and I first got married, way back, I made more money. Then I got layed off, got another job but she made more money. Then we made the same. Then I got layed off due to a major plant in town being bought out and shut down. Then I got another job and we made about the same again. Then she took a promotion and now makes way more money than I do and I make a decent amount.

What I did, is setup our finances from day 1.

We both have our own bank accounts but they are joint spousal.

We both have our own credit cards but they are joint spousal.

We both have our own cars.

We pay the bills and expenses 50/50 based on our incomes.

This minimizes any fighting about finances to almost nothing but my wifee still has an occasional habit of telling me don't buy or upgrade this or that, with my money, so I tell her to take a hike.

I had more of a beef with her making noticeably more money than I do but she didn't care about that. To my wifee, whether she made less, the same or more doesn't matter to her. We are both working full time, and everything is done together is all that matters to her. And her making more money than I do doesn't bother me anymore. It's what we are doing combined together as a married couple. My wifee and I didn't get married because of how much money we could make.


----------



## Machiavelli

Back to the topic.

While women are getting a lot more degrees and advanced degrees, they aren't really staying in the workforce in the way men do. Sorry, y'all, but the biological (again) imperative is just too strong.

_Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Path to Motherhood_

Women with Elite Education Opting Out

Female Ivy League Grads Have Duty to Sisterhood to Keep Working

Ivy League Education Makes Mom More Likely to Stay Home

So, what we see from that is elite women are able to hook up with elite, very high earning men who can afford to keep them out of the workplace. 

Of course, the lower orders need a second income just to pay the federal and state protection money on the first income.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Actually, one set of researchers you cited say this, but they are relying on 20 year old data.
> 
> All the rest demonstrates severely selective reading. Here is a paragraph immediately following one of your "money quotes":
> 
> 
> 
> This is from much more recent research at Breadwinner Moms | Pew Research Centerâ€™s Social & Demographic Trends Project
> 
> 
> The great thing about evolution is that it keeps happening. People and social norms and expectations change!


But the Pew thing is what people "say." What they actually "do" is something else. That's without even considering Pew always has a spin.

No. People don't "evolve" very far from nature's demands.


----------



## HuggyBear

This entire thread could have been enlightening, if it could have really been kept under the guise of "men's clubhouse".

The input from those who aren't men really kind of ruined what this could have been.

I think I'll go on over to the "ladies' lounge" and help them with image and vibrator issues....

True, I wouldn't be so disappointed if my actual (detailed) reply didn't get disappeared, but this one will do.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Kahlil Gibran said:


> Millionaire Men Prefer To Date Women With Less Money


In other words, the survey found most men prefer a power imbalance in their favor over equality, whereas women prefer equality. Not exactly shocking.


----------



## Machiavelli

Therealbrighteyes said:


> In other words, the survey found most men prefer a power imbalance in their favor over equality, whereas women prefer equality. Not exactly shocking.


Gender Identity and Relative Income Within Households
We examine causes and consequences of relative income within households. We establish that gender identity – in particular, an aversion to the wife earning more than the husband - impacts marriage formation, the wife's labor force participation, the wife's income conditional on working, marriage satisfaction, likelihood of divorce, and the division of home production. The distribution of the share of household income earned by the wife exhibits a sharp cliff at 0.5, which suggests that a couple is less willing to match if her income exceeds his. Within marriage markets, when a randomly chosen woman becomes more likely to earn more than a randomly chosen man, marriage rates decline. Within couples, if the wife's potential income (based on her demographics) is likely to exceed the husband's, the wife is less likely to be in the labor force and earns less than her potential if she does work. Couples where the wife earns more than the husband are less satisfied with their marriage and are more likely to divorce. Finally, based on time use surveys, the gender gap in non-market work is larger if the wife earns more than the husband.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

HuggyBear said:


> This entire thread could have been enlightening, if it could have really been kept under the guise of "men's clubhouse".
> 
> The input from those who aren't men really kind of ruined what this could have been.
> 
> I think I'll go on over to the "ladies' lounge" and help them with image and vibrator issues....
> 
> True, I wouldn't be so disappointed if my actual (detailed) reply didn't get disappeared, but this one will do.


I must admit because I’m new to the forum I wasn’t sure how things worked here. Other forums I’m familiar with allow men to view the ladies section but not comment and vice versa. That’s why I started this thread here. With the way TAM is set up what’s the difference between The Men's Clubhouse, The Ladies' Lounge and General Relationship Discussion?


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Back to the topic.
> 
> While women are getting a lot more degrees and advanced degrees, they aren't really staying in the workforce in the way men do. Sorry, y'all, but the biological (again) imperative is just too strong.


You are making a number of incorrect assumptions when drawing these conclusions from the research. First and foremost, you seem to be thinking that *most* women are throwing out their education in favorite of an Mrs, whereas data show:



> About 70 percent of married moms who attended top-tier universities such as Princeton and Harvard were employed in 2010, according the analysis.
> 
> That compares to about 80 percent of married moms who attended the nation's least competitive universities, said Joni Hersch, the law and economics professor at Vanderbilt University who prepared the data.


Also your assumptions that only women at top tier universities would have top tier incomes, or that women from second tier universities are merely "supplementing" household income are dubious at best. Like it or not, more and more women are becoming primary breadwinners, and more and more men are opting for SAHD, or just "supplementing" household income.

And guess what? Most of these people still want marriage or LTR.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

Therealbrighteyes said:


> In other words, the survey found most men prefer a power imbalance in their favor over equality, whereas women prefer equality. Not exactly shocking.


Really? That’s what you got out of that article?
The point they were implying is that the vast majority of wealthy men are far more generous with their money (to their spouse) than wealthy women.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Gender Identity and Relative Income Within Households


Based on 20 year old data. Meanwhile more recent research shows a shift in attitudes, and academic studies do *not* find that women are opting out of the workforce.

The times are changing!


----------



## Sandfly

HuggyBear said:


> This entire thread could have been enlightening, if it could have really been kept under the guise of "men's clubhouse".
> 
> The input from those who aren't men really kind of ruined what this could have been.
> 
> I think I'll go on over to the "ladies' lounge" and help them with image and vibrator issues....
> 
> True, I wouldn't be so disappointed if my actual (detailed) reply didn't get disappeared, but this one will do.


I'm seeing some healthy counter-arguments from both sides. Learning some interesting things, even in those cases where it's "just" someone's experience. Those are worth more, in fact.

---------------------

In the case of one poster who is blatantly trolling with things she doesn't believe,

I agree.



Faithful Wife said:


> No one is faithful, why would they be? Their sex organs are in charge, and only know one path and one reason to exist....
> 
> Marvin Gaye - Lets Get It On - YouTube
> .


Let's not!


----------



## RoseAglow

JCD said:


> This thread is getting pretty far astray.


It's an interesting thread. I am shocked, simply shocked, that women tend to go for guys who provide financial stability, and men tend to go for women who are attractive. Well, mostly I've seen focus on the former; fair enough. Next thing you know the sun will rise tomorrow.



> Speaking of social constructs: I think that men feel bad if they aren't the breadwinner. Women bring their womb and their breasts to the table for child rearing. *It is their contribution.*


(My bold for emphasis.) So wait- all women bring to the table are boobs, bu$h, and babies? Just kidding, of course  

More seriously, I do think that working out of each spouse's contribution is Part 1. Historically, men and women have needed each other for survival, for different reasons. The expected contributions have been in a great flux since, say, the late 1960s. 

Do men really feel badly if they aren't the breadwinner? What about if they bring in mostly equal salaries? In my group of friends and colleagues, almost all of the women make more then the men (although for many us, it's very close.) But, we almost all have bachelors or higher, so maybe that puts us in a different category.



> Men are stuck searching for a role. If a woman fills in ALL the 'slots' in the 'couple' dynamic, they flail around feeling superfluous. Society has trained this into them.


This is true, if men are reduced to only being useful for a paycheck. My husband makes slightly less than I do now- for our time together I have always made more, at the beginning I made twice what he did. But, he has many roles to fill, and he's gotten more roles, fills more of those 'slots' since we got married, become parents, and became home owners. He could- and has- lost his paycheck. It didn't change his other contributions, in fact, they became more valuable (things like his ability to fix things, change oil, his willingness to take on more child care, etc.)



> Unfortunately, it also affects the women as well. They are raised with the nuclear 'daddy works and mommy...well...she works too' vibe.


Well, I don't see anything unfortunate about it. I think generally things are better when women are in the workforce, but then again, I get a lot out of working so called me biased. 



> So, in the midst of anger and resentment which happens frequently with couples, the women MAY ask themselves, or worse, their partners that very question: What the hell do YOU do here?


I agree with this 100%. Except, I think it's an excellent question that both men and women should ask when they evaluate their relationships. It should go both ways- what exactly does each bring to the table? 



> And as RClawson has shown us, words like that bite VERY deeply indeed. From the sounds of it almost to an unrecoverable extent.


I am sorry that his wife was so lousy to him. It is never good for one spouse to put down the other, it is just UGH and very painful.

There is a way to have a discussion, asking one spouse to step it up here or there, without knocking the other down. 



> It has bred it's own resentment in his life and I'm guessing if he was offered the golden ticket to success, he'd think twice for grabbing at it partially out of spite.
> 
> So a woman earning more who actually wants to USE her power? That requires a deft touch indeed. I doubt most women have the skill to pull it off without damaging feelings badly.


OK, so by use her power, what do you mean? Do you mean make a big deal about her bigger salary/make her guy feel less? Or do you mean making independent decisions about where to spend the money, since she brings in most of it? 



> It's like talking about a man's sexual prowess. Not a minefield you want to play in...unless you want to play in it alone.


 Agreed!

As a general rule, I think men and women are successful in their relationships when they figure out what is most important to each other and strive to ring those bells. 

The reason is, a person is prone to fall for another person who rings their personal bells. Many men are very attracted to women who are good looking and have a healthy figure; many women are attracted to men who can keep them safe and can provide financial stability. It's a general way of things, with a lot of variation among individuals. 

It's why I think it's important to have relatively frequent, honest check-ins, asking "what do you/I bring to the table, here? Are we meeting each other's needs?"

The best way to prevent your partner from leaving IMO is to marry a person with very strong boundaries, someone who understands that all people are vulnerable to falling for someone who hits those aspects that make the individual feel love. It's important to be aware of those boundaries- this has been my biggest lesson from reading this and other marriage boards. A person with very strong boundaries is not going to have an affair.

The next thing to do to keep your mate is to make sure that you are meeting his/her needs. Then they won't feel the need to leave in order to get sex, affection, respect, attraction, financial support- whatever need is being left unmet.

Absent those two characteristics (strong boundaries, having needs met) then yes, I think *in general* men are more likely to jump ship for someone hotter and/or more sexual (which usually also means someone younger) than their wives. This is because sex and physical attractiveness tend to be the needs not met. Women are more likely to jump ship for someone who can provide more financial security, not less, than their husbands- although I think many women also leave for someone who gives them time, attention, and affection. Again, they will leave for someone who meets the unmet need.

Hypergamy? Eh. Please see my signature, which I took from this thread. People try to marry the person who meets their needs and can help them achieve their goals. I think that is simpler explanation that applies to a much larger percentage of couples.


----------



## RoseAglow

Machiavelli said:


> No, I know of no such predictive power that would apply to individuals. *Humans have relatively little experience with women out earning men*, but we do see that marriage rates are lower and divorce rates are higher for women in the high earning category. I can tell you when I was in grad school and my wife was out-earning me, she was irritable and sexually turned off. This was all her, I was the exact same guy.


I think the bold is key. We are in new times. Interesting times, one might say....


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> Ever heard of this b!tch? [/URL]She divorced her musician husband because he was a SAHD most of the time and she didn't want to be married to a kitchen b!tch


If she is just doing what is in her hypergamous nature, why are you calling her a b*tch?


----------



## treyvion

Kahlil Gibran said:


> and in reality there are articles like this...
> 
> _The female millionaires surveyed indicated that they are “not looking to take care of anybody" and would prefer a financially stable partner.
> 
> The survey also found that the rich women would be more careful with their wealth if they entered into a marriage than the rich men. Eighty-two percent of the female respondents said they would insist on a prenuptial agreement, while only 17.4 percent of the male respondents would do the same..._
> 
> Millionaire Men Prefer To Date Women With Less Money


It was the same thing with executive and director class "black" females. They felt there was no one to date or marry who could fit their standards.

Ironically, the standard was the male had a position and salary greater than or equal to hers. Now when all these females with these big jobs keep trying to reach "up", whose going to be left to reach "up" to?

Have you considered the type of support which may benefit you may not be financial at all. What about how he treats your mind? What about how he saves you time? What about how he adores you, makes you feel?

I'm sure they will figure it out.


----------



## Betrayedone

RClawson said:


> I can only speak for my own experiences in this area. My wife lost all of her humility one day and felt it was time to pull the "I make more money than you card". I cannot remember exactly when or why it happened but I just remember how low it made me feel. I did not think I could feel worse about myself until she she did it again, and again and then more whenever she felt she needed that trump card.
> 
> I eventually called her on it and let her know I would not tolerate it being mentioned ever again and that if I left she could count on me taking a good portion of her salary (I would never do this actually).
> 
> This caught her attention and she knows better now because she believes me. If I had known this would have happened I never would have left my career to start a business. I had always admired her success and supported her every step on her professional journey. She is amazing at what she does. Sadly it sucked the humility right out of her in my eyes which was one of the qualities that attracted me to her all those years ago.
> 
> This experience has changed my professional perspective completely. It has been a long road back to the career I am in now. That road included me working at Wal * Mart part time to pay down debt and taking the first part time sales job I could get so I could prove myself.
> 
> For almost two years now I have been working full time. I love what I do and the product I sell. I am respected by my colleagues and trusted by management. If I have a good a year as I believe I am going to I will make about 15K less than I did at my professional peak in 2003.
> 
> Not to long ago my wife implied that that was not good enough. I suggested she find someone who will meet her standard but it took me years to find someone who would even interview me and I am happy where I am at. I am done ladder climbing and I am not working to please her. Those days are done.


Hmmm....I can really identify with this. My stbxw makes HUGE, obscene amounts of money and it was further complicated by me having to go out on medical leave resulting in me being Mr Mom for a while which was fine. Someone had to be there for the kids.....Now the kids are gone and our relationship crashed and burned big time and I was, am, am naturally the family leader but over time the role reversal just ground me down (Marine officer, pilot, definitely no shrinking violet) but it got to me and while she never vocalized her disdain to me I sure could smell it. This kind of role reversal is big time unhealthy to most, but not necessarily all relationships. The odds are definitely against you.


----------



## RoseAglow

JCD said:


> Well, any woman who is attracted to me and makes it known gets an automatic +2 points. Maybe that's affecting Mach's rating system.
> 
> LYING? No. Exaggerating? Maybe.
> 
> Perhaps he is, in fact, the Gift God has given all women as he describes himself.
> 
> In which case he isn't a liar; I just hate him.


Mach seems like a very smart man, very physically fit, respected in his field of fitness, and therefore more likely to have an excellent reputation among people he hasn't met, even people like Dallas Cheerleaders, models, etc. All of the people in those roles have a very, very high value on fitness. I think it's quite feasible that he has had opportunities that other lack, although who knows to what extent. 

At the same time, these are the same groups who are likely hitting those Financial Support/Physical Attractiveness swaps. He is working with the top 1% on both groups, yes? Or at least the top 10%, if he's interacting with sports pros and models.
So I think he also might see his theory playing out in real life than the rest of us who interact primarily with normal people. Just a guess.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Machiavelli said:


> Some people say physics is a human social construct. I don't buy that it is. I think "evo psych" is misnamed. Back in the 70's I took a course called "Psychology of Sexual Behavior" which was the same stuff. I believe in natural selection, but I don't buy Darwinian evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> In polygyny, they are much more likely to get it. The winners in a polygynous society are high status males and low status women. The big losers are low status males and the somewhat losers are high status women. When society drops the monogamy shackles women will gravitate to the alphas and they will even tolerate each other, just to get the alpha fix.
> 
> 
> 
> As we see so often with humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Feminists oppose DNA testing. It's actually illegal in France for that reason. But in the age of the pill, women can usually avoid pregnancy or they can terminate it. The problem is that they want these alpha offspring and if they can get a beta to raise it, so much the better.
> 
> 
> 
> If they think they can get a gold plated nest, and they're the 30-50% of women who are adulterous, they're happy to make the trade. As we often see.
> 
> 
> 
> They can certainly adjust levels of attraction to reflect economic reality, as many studies of female hypergamy show. That would seem to indicate a some rational thought is at play. When ovulating and in a nightclub on the road? Not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> The hotter you get, the hotter the women hitting on you get. I've been skinny, muscular, fat, and muscular again. Been there, seen it all. And just because the hotter 8 & 9 women start in on you, that doesn't mean the 4 and 5 girls will go away. They'll still take their shots, because they've scored high, before. This was confusing to me all my life. I thought all men got hit on and the hitting was done by women of similar rank; neither is true.


You don't buy Darwinian evolution but you do believe in natural selection. :scratchhead:

??
The latter is a component of the former. What part of D evolution do you doubt then?


----------



## Sandfly

nuclearnightmare said:


> You don't buy Darwinian evolution but you do believe in natural selection. :scratchhead:
> 
> ??
> The latter is a component of the former. What part of D evolution do you doubt then?


There are other kinds. Natural selection was noticed by plenty of other contemporary scientists.

I prefer Alfred Wallace, whom he swindled out of his place in history. His workd on the Malay archipelago and studies in the Amazon are a thousand times better researched 

Darwin pulled a great scam of using Wallace's papers to retrospectively tie up the loose ends in his own studies.


----------



## Machiavelli

Kahlil Gibran said:


> I must admit because I’m new to the forum I wasn’t sure how things worked here. Other forums I’m familiar with allow men to view the ladies section but not comment and vice versa. That’s why I started this thread here. With the way TAM is set up what’s the difference between The Men's Clubhouse, The Ladies' Lounge and General Relationship Discussion?


The girls always want to play in the boys' treehouse. Didn't you notice that back in 1st grade?


----------



## WyshIknew

Sandfly said:


> There are other kinds. Natural selection was noticed by plenty of other contemporary scientists.
> 
> I prefer Alfred Wallace, whom he swindled out of his place in history. His workd on the Malay archipelago and studies in the Amazon are a thousand times better researched
> 
> Darwin pulled a great scam of using Wallace's papers to retrospectively tie up the loose ends in his own studies.


Also Lamarck had his own, largely discredited, version of evolution although I understand some aspects of Lamarck's hypothesis are being reconsidered.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> You are making a number of incorrect assumptions when drawing these conclusions from the research. First and foremost, you seem to be thinking that *most* women are throwing out their education in favorite of an Mrs, whereas data show:
> 
> 
> 
> Also your assumptions that only women at top tier universities would have top tier incomes, or that women from second tier universities are merely "supplementing" household income are dubious at best. Like it or not, more and more women are becoming primary breadwinners, and more and more men are opting for SAHD, or just "supplementing" household income.
> 
> And guess what? Most of these people still want marriage or LTR.


I never said "most," and neither did the research; it said "_more likely_ to marry and leave the workforce." Everybody knows there are more women outlearning men, but it's because you have to have two incomes and, for the moment, the deck is stacked in favor of women. And as we see in the other studies I posted, men and women find it less than optimal. Furthermore, there is an enormous difference between a LTR and marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> There are other kinds. Natural selection was noticed by plenty of other contemporary scientists.
> 
> I prefer Alfred Wallace, whom he swindled out of his place in history. His workd on the Malay archipelago and studies in the Amazon are a thousand times better researched
> 
> Darwin pulled a great scam of using Wallace's papers to retrospectively tie up the loose ends in his own studies.


I too , believe in natural selection and some parts of the evolutionary.
But I am definitely NOT a follower of some of Darwin's theories.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Machiavelli said:


> The girls always want to play in the boys' treehouse. Didn't you notice that back in 1st grade?


Some of the most interesting lessons I've learned in life about women , I learned in elementary school during lunchbreak on the playground.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Based on 20 year old data. Meanwhile more recent research shows a shift in attitudes, and academic studies do *not* find that women are opting out of the workforce.
> 
> The times are changing!


It's a 2013 paper. Here's a free pdf. If you read it, you'll see that comparative data from 1970 up to current US Census data is used. Papers cited range from 1970 up to 2012.


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> Some of the most interesting lessons I've learned in life about women , I learned in elementary school during lunchbreak on the playground.


Once I learned the big lesson, I never wanted to keep them out of the treehouse again. Especially if nobody else was around. Somehow, I never got cooties.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Kahlil Gibran said:


> Really? That’s what you got out of that article?
> The point they were implying is that the vast majority of wealthy men are far more generous with their money (to their spouse) than wealthy women.


As was already said here, what people say and what they do are very different. I don't know of any wealthy guys who married down and didn't have a pre-nup. They didn't get to where they are by being reckless with their money.

It's an advertisement for the website and nothing more. Hey ladies, we have all these millionaire men who want to blow their hard earned money on you and none of them want pre-nups. Sign up and have your Amex handy for that $40 a month payment.


----------



## WyshIknew

Does similarity of intellect have any bearing in a LTR?

I enjoy reading the input of many of the women here, even if I don't always agree with them. And find their posts intelligent, insightful and thought provoking.

Cosmos, TRBE, Always_alone, Faithful Wife in no particular order and naming only a few.

At least in the field of communicating ideas I sometimes feel a little outclassed by them (is that a male/female thing?).

And in a totally hypothetical situation I would imagine some of us could be IRL friends but could never make it in a relationship.

I would say that Mrs Wysh and I have similar intellects with myself as the slightly higher intellectual partner. So we are fairly well matched.


----------



## Sandfly

Machiavelli said:


> The girls always want to play in the boys' treehouse. Didn't you notice that back in 1st grade?


Man... we had a fort, that was our word for treehouse, that my dad made for us. 

A proper little cabin made of corrugated iron riveted together, with a heavy wooden pallet for a base. We also lived on a steep hillside with a thick primaeval (never altered by man) forest which went back to infinity. There was a brook running all the way from "neverfoundthetruesource" to a drain at the bottom of the hill. 

Not even after hours of hiking did we find the end of the forest.

We had a good sized backyard with a chicken coup, and a pumpkin patch, and even strawberries running along one section (the strawberries never did very well, and the ground didn't seem to like them.)

The "downside" was much of my childhood was spend sawing overgrowth, chopping wood, weeding and shifting and breaking rocks.

When I lived in the big bad East, I saw happy and fit young ladies in their 20's helping their families in the fields doing hard labour. It didn't matter that they attended university on weekdays, or had masters degrees and ran their own pharmacy (example.) During planting and harvesting, they worked to help their parents on the farms. Not about money, it's about getting fresh food off ma and pa for the rest of the year. My neighbours used to gift me lots of food, and everyday the landlady made some regional taste-sensation. Sadly, I had to drink the moonshine at mealtimes... not used to spirits everyday at lunchtime, you know? It was like fine brandy (though they _called _it vodka). It was funny in late autumn to see this massive pot constantly boiling away, distilling next years' brandy-vodka.

If I had a goal in life it would be to live in Canada or Russia in a two-room cabin which backed onto a forest. 

Heaven for me is a world with maybe fifty people in it and a hard, but secure and independent life. 

Money sucks (IMO) ! Do any women feel this way... would love to know. I need to know really ... if I had money, the first thing I would do is exchange it all for my slice of paradise, and I'm guessing it wouldn't go down well with the hypothetical wife... but I live in hope???

I must be the only man in the west who would go to Ukraine to get a bride - not to bring her to Europe, or because she's beautiful, but simply because she knows her mushrooms from her toadstools, is used to hard labour and knows how to live like a pioneer !

God, she would be _so _disappointed... taking her out of poverty into the bright light and luxury of a westernised city is not what I have in mind... lol


----------



## Machiavelli

RoseAglow said:


> It's an interesting thread. I am shocked, simply shocked, that women tend to go for guys who provide financial stability, and men tend to go for women who are attractive. Well, mostly I've seen focus on the former; fair enough. Next thing you know the sun will rise tomorrow.


The natural order, in a nutshell.




RoseAglow said:


> So wait- all women bring to the table are boobs, bu$h, and babies? Just kidding, of course


Actually, you pretty much nailed it. I'm not so sure about the bush, but what used to be under the bush is widely available. However, we want it exclusively if we're going to have babies, so we marry. That's pretty much the bottom line. 



RoseAglow said:


> Do men really feel badly if they aren't the breadwinner? What about if they bring in mostly equal salaries? In my group of friends and colleagues, almost all of the women make more then the men (although for many us, it's very close.) But, we almost all have bachelors or higher, so maybe that puts us in a different category.


My parents both had BS degrees. My mom worked about 2/3 of the years I was growing up. My dad made about 4X what my mom, a federal employee, made. When I met my wife (Ivy League drop out), she made about 60% of what I made. That lasted until son #1 came in, then we became a one income household. There were some times we needed her to work and she resented it (possible key fact: Latina). Oddly enough, she has outlearned me the last four years and it's not something she likes, but she isn't being a b!tch about it. Whereas before, just the fact that she had to work even PT was a major sh!tstorm. The difference? Kids are grown and will all be married off by Christmas.



RoseAglow said:


> The reason is, a person is prone to fall for another person who rings their personal bells. Many men are very attracted to women who are good looking and have a healthy figure; many women are attracted to men who can keep them safe and can provide financial stability. It's a general way of things, with a lot of variation among individuals.


A lot of married working women (not most) are very attracted to younger men who are good looking and have a good physique. And they try to act on that. Sometimes, obnoxiously so.



RoseAglow said:


> The best way to prevent your partner from leaving IMO is to marry a person with very strong boundaries, someone who understands that all people are vulnerable to falling for someone who hits those aspects that make the individual feel love. It's important to be aware of those boundaries- this has been my biggest lesson from reading this and other marriage boards. A person with very strong boundaries is not going to have an affair.


But all women hate cheaters and if you're going to bring that up with your fiancée or wife, well! that's just disrespectful.

Aside from that, I agree completely. Combine a high earning woman, who has never even thought about the concept of boundaries, but who's been negatively comparing her under-earning husband with alpha male go-getters for a couple of years since her big promotion, and a road trip with a young hot stud, or her silver fox mentor, who knows the ropes (and I don't mean the business) and you just might have a problem in the making. It's a stereotype for a reason.



RoseAglow said:


> Hypergamy? Eh. Please see my signature, which I took from this thread. People try to marry the person who meets their needs and can help them achieve their goals. I think that is simpler explanation that applies to a much larger percentage of couples.


The only thing "most" men need from women is sex and plenty of it, legitimate kids and loyalty, some positive reinforcement, and sex. Also, more sex.


----------



## jld

I used to know some homestead types. Gosh, their lives sounded hard. Most of us in America just don't live this way at all.

My mil milked her own cows by hand until 2010. Dh grew up with a big garden and got one gift at Christmas every year. That was in France in the 70s and 80s, (his family was lower middle class). He was a happy kid on that farm, though.

If we could all simplify (we can't, or are not willing to), life would probably be much easier.

We don't have the kind of family values in America that you are talking about from the East, Sandfly. Our lives are pretty easy and self-oriented.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> If she is just doing what is in her hypergamous nature, why are you calling her a b*tch?


Because, female canines are totally subservient to their cycle when in heat. Theoretically, human females are expected to ameliorate these primitive responses. When they invalidate the theory by their behavior, the fall into the beach category. Plus, she called her XBH her "kitchen b!tch." Very disrespectful to a loyal husband who, being a lead guitarist, could have been getting plenty of quim every night after the show.


----------



## Sandfly

RoseAglow said:


> Next thing you know the sun will rise tomorrow.


Just a second... the sun _won't _rise tomorrow. 

Your side of the earth will spin to face the sun, however.

If the sun changes position, we are doomed !


----------



## skype

Machiavelli said:


> The only thing "most" men need from women is sex and plenty of it, legitimate kids and loyalty, some positive reinforcement, and sex. Also, more sex.


I deliberately avoided men like you when I was dating. I do not agree that "most" men look at women with that cynical attitude, using them for sex and producing offspring only. Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. I feel very sorry for your wife.


----------



## Machiavelli

over20 said:


> According to Scripture Bathsheba did NOT know her husband was to be killed. She sent word from her home to David that she was with child. David then "In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah, In it he wrote, put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die." 2 Sam 11:14


It does not say she didn't know, the scriptures are silent on the matter. All these power people had servants and all the servants knew the score. Bathsheba could have confessed to her husband. Her servants could have tipped him off, but everybody kept him in the dark. She and her family gained tremendously by David's elimination of the inconvenient Uriah.


----------



## Machiavelli

skype said:


> I deliberately avoided men like you when I was dating. I do not agree that "most" men look at women with that cynical attitude, using them for sex and producing offspring only. Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. I feel very sorry for your wife.


She's just happy I don't have a secret family across town, the way it's done in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, etc.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> I never said "most," and neither did the research; it said "_more likely_ to marry and leave the workforce."


And yet you use these ambiguous slices of statistical representations to make grand proclamations about the "natural order" of things. Then conveniently ignore all evidence that gender roles change in various ways over time, and that even your neanderthal depiction of human behaviour was never even true in the first place.


----------



## Machiavelli

Catherine602 said:


> Why would a beautiful runway model throw herself at you Mac? They can have any man in the universe.


Ever see who dates supermodels? Mine weren't "super" just models back when Dallas was the #2 female fashion city. But then again, I wasn't in a "super" group. Think of it as the flea market version of this:


















Just google: musicians + models


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> It doesn't really matter who any of us choose to marry, since none of us will be faithful anyway, and "love" is really just a chemical c*ocktail in your brain. So get out there and screw everyone you can nail down! That's the point of it all, ya know.
> 
> Guns N' Roses-Welcome to the Jungle - YouTube


Speaking of....Axel Rose (lol) and Stephanie


----------



## Machiavelli

nuclearnightmare said:


> You don't buy Darwinian evolution but you do believe in natural selection. :scratchhead:
> 
> ??
> The latter is a component of the former. What part of D evolution do you doubt then?


I believe in natural selection within species, I don't believe that natural selection results in the emergence of new species, as Darwin hypothesized. JMHO.


----------



## Machiavelli

Sandfly said:


> I must be the only man in the west who would go to Ukraine to get a bride - not to bring her to Europe, or because she's beautiful, but simply because she knows her mushrooms from her toadstools, is used to hard labour and knows how to live like a pioneer !
> 
> God, she would be _so _disappointed... taking her out of poverty into the bright light and luxury of a westernised city is not what I have in mind... lol


Get several. They might be useful for homestead perimeter defense when the SHTF.
Ukrainian female troops passing in review:


----------



## Sandfly

That's a pretty specific heresy to hold Mach ! For me the fact that donkeys and horses produce offspring, but their offspring can't reproduce - as well as things like the Liger define the barriers between species while affirming their common DNA. But I have no stake in converting you. You might enjoy this cartoon:


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> And yet you use these ambiguous slices of statistical representations to make grand proclamations about the "natural order" of things. Then conveniently ignore all evidence that gender roles change in various ways over time, and that even your neanderthal depiction of human behaviour was never even true in the first place.


Roles have changed a lot in the last 150 years. Our hardwiring hasn't changed at all. And that's the problem. Of course, I have a very high Neanderthal DNA component, but not quite as much as this guy.


----------



## Sandfly

Machiavelli said:


> Get several. They might be useful for homestead perimeter defense when the SHTF.
> Ukrainian female troops passing in review:


Dude, by mentioning numbers you're thinking in terms of commodities... 

I just want a nice girl who can lift the tractor while I make the repairs to the undercarriage 

Er... that wasn't innuendo BTW.

First hand experience says that these girls are only average... in parts of the former Evil Empire one wonders if the gods of Olympus have second homes there  Many slavic men are drunken pigs though, so... it can work if you're a well-mannered gentleman, providing you're not effeminate.

... they are also extremely well-educated, talented and _friendly_. 

Er... that also is not innuendo. I mean, they enjoy conversation, and there's no automatic suspicion reflex.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Roles have changed a lot in the last 150 years. Our hardwiring hasn't changed at all. And that's the problem. Of course, I have a very high Neanderthal DNA component, but not quite as much as this guy.


Oh wait, hard-wiring has changed: only 5% or less Neanderthal nowadays. Plus that little thing known as neuroplasticity.

The plumbing may be the same, but it doesn't follow from that the rest is.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Oh wait, hard-wiring has changed: only 5% or less Neanderthal nowadays. Plus that little thing known as neuroplasticity.
> 
> The plumbing may be the same, but it doesn't follow from that the rest is.


Sure, only 5% Neanderthal and 95% Cro-Magnon. The Cro-Magnon part hasn't changed in 50,000 years either. I only brought up the Neanderthal since you mentioned it.


----------



## JCD

Haven't they established there was no Cro/Neanderthal cross breeding at all?

Or is this that 'egg' thing where one week it's good for you and one week it's bad?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> Because, female canines are totally subservient to their cycle when in heat. Theoretically, human females are expected to ameliorate these primitive responses. When they invalidate the theory by their behavior, the fall into the beach category. Plus, she called her XBH her "kitchen b!tch." Very disrespectful to a loyal husband who, being a lead guitarist, could have been getting plenty of quim every night after the show.


So I'm confused then...(normal, since I'm female, right?)....have we descended from DOGS then? I thought it was apes. Or God. Or something like that. Dogs is it this time? 

You seem to just want to find an excuse to call women b*tches to me, but it must just be my poor little female brain getting in the way. But of course, it is STILL JUST HER NATURE, right? So why again does it mean she is a bad person...I mean, she was on her PERIOD and is SUBSERVIENT to her CYCLE so....how could she even help it if she tried? Oh the logic of your strange, strange system.

Mach...you're a treasure to all men everywhere. And I do agree that you should continue telling them all that no woman will ever be faithful to them, and will throw them over for a BBD.

Thank you!

Now it won't be such a shock to the poor dudes.

Signed,
Beeotch Wolf

(and....I'm outta here, so no worries, Mr. Mach...you can have it).


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> I used to know some homestead types. Gosh, their lives sounded hard. Most of us in America just don't live this way at all.
> 
> My mil milked her own cows by hand until 2010. Dh grew up with a big garden and got one gift at Christmas every year. That was in France in the 70s and 80s, (his family was lower middle class). He was a happy kid on that farm, though.
> 
> If we could all simplify (we can't, or are not willing to), life would probably be much easier.
> 
> We don't have the kind of family values in America that you are talking about from the East, Sandfly. Our lives are pretty easy and self-oriented.


The thing is that back then we thought life was hard.

But in retrospect, that life was way more satisfying.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> The thing is that back then we thought life was hard.
> 
> But in retrospect, that life was way more satisfying.


Were you not always rich, CM?


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Were you not always rich, CM?


lol! I'm not rich, neither was I born rich!

I just work hard and met with a bit of success.

I was born and grew up in rural seaside fishing community , on a tiny Island in the Caribbean . 
The entire island population numbered just around 30.000 people.
My maternal grandmother and her entire clan , including my mother were cocoa and coffee farmers.

My childhood days were filled with hunting , river baths , fishing , diving for clam and conch , exploring the coastlines and the forests.

I left my island home to attend a " good school" on a much larger island with more " opportunities " and returned periodically for vacations.
After I finished school and finally got married I started a business, I never took the time to go back.


But everytime I think of back home , I get nostalgic.


----------



## jld

But they were landowners, right?

And you mentioned your wife is not accustomed to "not have," correct?

Her parents would not have let her marry a man who could not ensure her level of comfort would at least be maintained, no?


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> But they were landowners, right?
> 
> And you mentioned your wife is not accustomed to "not have," correct?
> 
> Her parents would not have let her marry a man who could not ensure her level of comfort would at least be maintained, no?


Yep!

My grandmother owned two estates. One was over 30 acres on the beachfront.
Eventually, that little village became a tourism hotspot with many villas, resorts and so forth being built and really generous offers began coming in for the land after she died.

So yes.
My wife's future was basically secured, plus she had her own options.

So on a socioeconomic level, we were / are both equal.


----------



## LongWalk

The effect of natural selection on human behavior continues. Given that we so many fewer children today, I hypothosize we gain an relatively large advantage with each additional child. This ought to lead us to different reproductive strategies:

1) More split ups that lead to children with new partners
2) More children conceived surreptiously so that a beta male's labor goes to raising another man's child
3) Some beta men presumably get smart women for their offspring but the price may be caring for the children of others as well.
4) Some single moms are going to have many children, probably with a variety of partners.
5) The percentage of people with health problems in their genetic profile will rise.


----------



## Betrayedone

Sandfly said:


> Dude, by mentioning numbers you're thinking in terms of commodities...
> 
> I just want a nice girl who can lift the tractor while I make the repairs to the undercarriage
> 
> Er... that wasn't innuendo BTW.
> 
> First hand experience says that these girls are only average... in parts of the former Evil Empire one wonders if the gods of Olympus have second homes there  Many slavic men are drunken pigs though, so... it can work if you're a well-mannered gentleman, providing you're not effeminate.
> 
> ... they are also extremely well-educated, talented and _friendly_.
> 
> Er... that also is not innuendo. I mean, they enjoy conversation, and there's no automatic suspicion reflex.


I don't see ANYTHING about these women as average!


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Kahlil Gibran said:


> This site is a big proponent of the “No more Mr. Nice Guy” approach, which is fine... in theory. But, how does one pull that off if their wife makes more money? Theories are great, but in American reality, money talks and always has.
> Dr. Glover (two failed marriages) likes to throw out the premise that deep down women want to feel like their male counterpart “sets the tone and takes the lead”. Even if you are a 250 lb. wear-the-pants tough guy, good luck with that if the woman brings 3+ times of the money to the table. There is a cliche that women like to marry/date up. If that’s the case, men should stick with going after the waitress at the local diner. They both stand a good chance of being happy.


I'll give you my two marriages.

One I was the ONLY bread winner versus the wife making LITERALLY 2x what I make.

Guess which marriage had the cheater as a wife.

Guess which marriage has a wife who we have a very active sex life...only with each other....where the wife respects me. Loves me for the man and father I am. Great communication etc.

If I lost my job tomorrow...I know it wouldn't change the dynamics of my marriage, aside from the impact on finances. My wife's response would be, okay what do we need to cut back on. We look at all money made as joint income. There is no his vs hers.

Money is attractive, but unless the woman is very shallow, won't be a determinant of success or failure in a marriage.

Yes, when a woman meets a guy and he's successful, obviously that is something she tells her friends. It has an impact in the very short term. If you're talking about long term success in a marriage, if the wife lost respect for her husband ONLY because he was making less money, then that marriage is going to have other problems. The wife doesn't love her husband for the content of the man he is then and is somewhat shallow.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Haven't they established there was no Cro/Neanderthal cross breeding at all?
> 
> Or is this that 'egg' thing where one week it's good for you and one week it's bad?


Precisely. The so-called "scientific consensus" has flip flopped FOUR times in the last ten years. I'm sure some guys were always on one side or the other, but you know modern science. Now the consensus says modern Caucasians and Asians are a **** Sapiens Neanderthal cross. Only unmixed Africans are pure **** Sapiens Sapeins, according to the latest DNA gossip.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> So I'm confused then...(normal, since I'm female, right?)....have we descended from DOGS then? I thought it was apes. Or God. Or something like that. Dogs is it this time?


You've put your finger on something that's bothered me ever since I came to TAM.

For those who stop and think things through, (Which admittedly is not everyone) the implication in a lot of the advice given to men (Especially those in sexless marriages) is offensive inasmuch as the idea that women are simply incapable of rising above their base natures is an _a priori_ assumption therein.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> So I'm confused then...(normal, since I'm female, right?)....have we descended from DOGS then? I thought it was apes. Or God. Or something like that. Dogs is it this time?
> You seem to just want to find an excuse to call women b*tches to me, but it must just be my poor little female brain getting in the way.


You're commenting from emotionalism on a link I posted, that you can't be troubled to actually read. Had you done so, you would see that the "lady" who wrote the article referred to her BH as her "kitchen b!tch," I just turned it around.



Faithful Wife said:


> But of course, it is STILL JUST HER NATURE, right? So why again does it mean she is a bad person...I mean, she was on her PERIOD and is SUBSERVIENT to her CYCLE so....how could she even help it if she tried? Oh the logic of your strange, strange system.


Read the link, you silly girl.



Faithful Wife said:


> Mach...you're a treasure to all men everywhere. And I do agree that you should continue telling them all that no woman will ever be faithful to them, and will throw them over for a BBD.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Now it won't be such a shock to the poor dudes.
> 
> Signed,
> Beeotch Wolf


If you'll wipe the estrogen out of your eyes, you'll see that studies show only 30-50% of married women are adulteresses.



Faithful Wife said:


> (and....I'm outta here, so no worries, Mr. Mach...you can have it).


As you wish.


----------



## JCD

ocotillo said:


> You've put your finger on something that's bothered me ever since I came to TAM.
> 
> For those who stop and think things through, (Which admittedly is not everyone) the implication in a lot of the advice given to men (Especially those in sexless marriages) is offensive inasmuch as the idea that women are simply incapable of rising above their base natures is an _a priori_ assumption therein.


Well I certainly can't take you to task for being offended at how Mach talks about women. He needs to work on his tact muscles...and that is coming from a Badger.

And implying psycho/biological determinism is just as insulting. Free will? What the hell is that? According to the theory, if a woman sees the BBD, her sweaty panties will drive her use her intelligence to ONLY focus on how to cheat most effectively on her man so she can 'get dem good genes.'

Huh.

I, as always, take the middle path. We have all had 'The Spark', that little sense of attraction which just drives us NUTS...and unfortunately, it is not always with our spouses!

And we see men act like morons when a pretty girl walks into a room (somehow, Mach avoids the negatives that apply to men when he cites his determinism) Heck, I've BEEN that man on occasion.

FW wants to take offense and say 'it isn't so', that she is a free agent who isn't guided by her biology. Okay.



> However, a 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%), suggesting that the widely quoted figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate. In situations where disputed parentage was the reason for the paternity testing, there were higher levels; an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%). Most at risk of parental discrepancy were those born to younger parents, to unmarried couples and those of lower socio-economic status, or from certain cultural groups.[5]
> 
> A 2006 study examined non-paternity rates from 67 published studies. Non-paternity rates for men who were judged to have high paternity confidence ranged from 1.9% in the U.S. and Canada, 1.6% in Europe, and 2.9% elsewhere. In contrast, men in studies of disputed paternity, considered to have low paternity confidence, the rates of non-paternity were higher – 29% in the U.S. and Canada, 29% in Europe, and 30% elsewhere.[6]
> 
> The rates value varies according to the population studied:
> United Kingdom:
> 1 to 2% in a sample of 1,678 men[7]
> 1.3%[8]
> 
> Mexico: 9.8% to 13.8% in a sample of 396 children[9]
> Switzerland: 0.3 to 1.3% in a sample of 1,607 children[10]
> United States: A study in Michigan of 1417 white and 523 black children found non-paternity rates of 1.4% and 10.1% respectively.[11]
> A study of 1748 Hawaiian families with 2839 children reported a non-paternity rate of 2 to 3%.[12]
> 
> France: 2.8% in a sample of 362 children[13]


Three point seven in median. Seems a little low if that biological drive is the only factor.

But if this is a 'story men tell themselves' to rationalize their cheating spouses and girlfriends, it is no more pernicious than the one women tell each other that 'all men are pigs and rapists' which they won't seem to let go.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

Dad&Hubby said:


> If I lost my job tomorrow...I know it wouldn't change the dynamics of my marriage, aside from the impact on finances. My wife's response would be, okay what do we need to cut back on. We look at all money made as joint income. There is no his vs hers.


That’s easy to say now, but I’ve observed that when a man loses his revenue stream (laid off, etc.) *and it effects the accustomed lifestyle of the still working female*, things get ugly fast. 

As with my original post, I find it real hard to buy into Dr. Glover’s flawed premise (the man always taking the lead) when he’s viewed as dead weight financially.


----------



## wilderness

Kahlil Gibran said:


> That’s easy to say now, but I’ve observed that when a man loses his revenue stream (laid off, etc.) *and it effects the accustomed lifestyle of the still working female*, things get ugly fast.
> 
> As with my original post, I find it real hard to buy into Dr. Glover’s flawed premise (the man always taking the lead) when he’s viewed as dead weight financially.


Very well said.


----------



## Sandfly

> However, a 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%), suggesting that the widely quoted figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate. In situations where disputed parentage was the reason for the paternity testing, there were higher levels; an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%). Most at risk of parental discrepancy were those born to younger parents, to unmarried couples and those of lower socio-economic status, or from certain cultural groups.[5]
> 
> A 2006 study examined non-paternity rates from 67 published studies. Non-paternity rates for men who were judged to have high paternity confidence ranged from 1.9% in the U.S. and Canada, 1.6% in Europe, and 2.9% elsewhere. In contrast, men in studies of disputed paternity, considered to have low paternity confidence, the rates of non-paternity were higher – 29% in the U.S. and Canada, 29% in Europe, and 30% elsewhere.[6]
> 
> The rates value varies according to the population studied:
> United Kingdom:
> 1 to 2% in a sample of 1,678 men[7]
> 1.3%[8]
> 
> Mexico: 9.8% to 13.8% in a sample of 396 children[9]
> Switzerland: 0.3 to 1.3% in a sample of 1,607 children[10]
> United States: A study in Michigan of 1417 white and 523 black children found non-paternity rates of 1.4% and 10.1% respectively.[11]
> A study of 1748 Hawaiian families with 2839 children reported a non-paternity rate of 2 to 3%.[12]
> 
> France: 2.8% in a sample of 362 children[13]


All your study proves is that where a father suspects something, there's a good chance something is going on. That in itself is useful information.

Nor does a paternity test coming up OK prove that someone isn't _sleeping round_. 

It just means they didn't _conceive _when they did. 

These are five specific circumstance, where at any of those stages, the fact of infidelity could have remained hidden.

the woman has slept around without protection, 
become pregnant from it, 
gone full-term with the bastard child (no secret abortion), 
has lied about whose it is to her partner (prompting the test), 
and in the end a test actually took place.


If after these massive hurdles, the discovered rate is around 29-30%, then there's no reason to believe that the 'high-confidence' samples were not self-selecting. 

Anyone who had something to hide in the 'high confidence' population from which a sample is drawn, successfully weaselled their way out of the test. "Don't you trust me?"

You made a great case for compulsory testing.


----------



## ocotillo

JCD said:


> Well I certainly can't take you to task for being offended at how Mach talks about women. He needs to work on his tact muscles...and that is coming from a Badger.


I'm not offended by Machiavelli at all. I'm simply coming from the perspective of a person who believes that rising above our base instincts is what distinguishes us from the beasts of the field and that men and women are equally human in this regard. 

My mother was a feminist before it was even cool to be one and the idea that reality might me something else entirely goes against what I was brought up to believe. You can see that I raised this issue in the Ladies Lounge clear back in 2011.




JCD said:


> And implying psycho/biological determinism is just as insulting. Free will? What the hell is that? According to the theory, if a woman sees the BBD, her sweaty panties will drive her use her intelligence to ONLY focus on how to cheat most effectively on her man so she can 'get dem good genes.'


The idea is equally rampant in Christianity, especially in Pauline theology. Men rise above their animal side. Women don't. The idea simply strikes me as offensive to women and goes against the idealist in me.


----------



## Sandfly

Theology might be nonsense, but so is free will for the majority of people.

You just proved it by quoting your mother as the inspiration of your opinion. It didn't come from nowhere, you didn't choose or invent it of your own free will.

All the fat people, drunks, smokers, drug addicts, nymphomaniacs, schizophrenics, bipolar, depressed people, people with phobias, insomnia, OCD and a million other disorders which affect what we think and do...

prove that automatic free will is nonsense. Once you _recognise _your urges, _understand _them and then _change _your behaviour (eg in the case of phobias, addictions, obesity) THEN free will becomes possible. But all three things are necessary, and very few make the effort, so most people are easy to influence, and don't have free will.

Free will is built upon the recognition of necessity. This is contradictory, but that's life, dialectical and not logical.


----------



## JCD

Sandfly said:


> Theology might be nonsense, but so is free will for the majority of people.
> 
> You just proved it by quoting your mother as the inspiration of your opinion. It didn't come from nowhere, you didn't choose or invent it of your own free will.
> 
> All the fat people, drunks, smokers, drug addicts, nymphomaniacs, schizophrenics, bipolar, depressed people, people with phobias, insomnia, OCD and a million other disorders which affect what we think and do...
> 
> prove that automatic free will is nonsense. Once you _recognise _your urges, _understand _them and then _change _your behaviour (eg in the case of phobias, addictions, obesity) THEN free will becomes possible. But all three things are necessary, and very few make the effort, so most people are easy to influence, and don't have free will.
> 
> Free will is built upon the recognition of necessity. This is contradictory, but that's life, dialectical and not logical.


Generally when people say things like this, they mean 'except me'. Heck, Mach himself said it.

You are dancing around the fact of 'The Choice'. When Little Miss Hotpants starts blowing in my ear, I can a) throw her on whatever horizontal surface presents itself, b) turn her down flat or c) continue playing a game.

My instincts generally vote 'a' with 'c' coming in second. SO FAR, my record has been 'b'. And in MOST people's cases, they choose 'b'.

The problem with many of your other examples is that of uneven consequences. Having that one piece of cake isn't going to cost me my marriage. Having that one last drink or hit isn't going to cost my my life and livelihood...unless there is an Intervention involved...which is why people speak so highly of taking addicts to task. When they can see the writing on the wall, they are much more likely to quit.

And here is the other thing: OCD, drinking, drugs etc all have inhibiting factors on judgment and higher brain function or involve a broken brain. Not much choice when your chooser is broken.

Now Mach will swear that when the dopamine or f*ckamine or whatever chemicals start to percolate in a woman's head and her ovaries are slapping out eggs, she is just as judgmentally inhibited.

Well...obviously not so much. Because otherwise that incidence of bastardy would be higher. Seventy percent of women say 'no' to infidelity. Even the majority of MEN say no. (I've heard 45%)

So free will seems to have the edge.


----------



## JCD

ocotillo said:


> The idea is equally rampant in Christianity, especially in Pauline theology. Men rise above their animal side. Women don't. The idea simply strikes me as offensive to women and goes against the idealist in me.


Huh. What a pass you just gave the rest of the world.

In Islam, if you don't have marks on your face and four male witnesses that you were raped, you were a willing participant.

In Japan (at times) if you were female and ALONE IN A ROOM with a man not your husband, you could get the ax.

China has not exactly been a paragon of women's rights and seeing them as 'the stronger sex'.


Russia? HAH! Quote from an American Female Teacher in Moscow (When it comes to dating Russian men) "No means Yes and Yes means Anal."

That you are more exposed to Christianity and 'Pauline Doctrine' doesn't mean that that grass is any greener anywhere else.


----------



## ocotillo

Sandfly said:


> You just proved it by quoting your mother as the inspiration of your opinion. It didn't come from nowhere, you didn't choose or invent it of your own free will.


If this was directed at me, Sandfly, the source of my opinion is secular humanism. I'm not sure how adherence to a philosophy based upon ethics and social justices proves an inherent lack of free will, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. 



Sandfly said:


> All the fat people, drunks, smokers, drug addicts, nymphomaniacs, schizophrenics, bipolar, depressed people, people with phobias, insomnia, OCD and a million other disorders which affect what we think and do...


Undoubtedly, but are those individuals who lose their inner battles the ones you tend to respect? Or is it the other way around?



Sandfly said:


> ....prove that automatic free will is nonsense. Once you recognise your urges, understand them and then change your behaviour (eg in the case of phobias, addictions, obesity) THEN free will becomes possible. But all three things are necessary, and very few make the effort, so most people are easy to influence, and don't have free will.


No argument here, but I think that's wide of the point. Is one gender inherently better at this than the other? Especially when it comes to reproductive instincts?




JCD said:


> Huh. What a pass you just gave the rest of the world.


No free pass for the rest of the world. My comments were in reference to a contrast drawn on this thread by FW between evolutionary psychology and (Christian?) theology.


----------



## JCD

ocotillo said:


> If this was directed at me, Sandfly, the source of my opinion is secular humanism. I'm not sure how adherence to a philosophy based upon ethics and social justices proves an inherent lack of free will, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Undoubtedly, but are those individuals who lose their inner battles the ones you tend to respect? Or is it the other way around?
> 
> 
> 
> No argument here, but I think that's wide of the point. Is one gender inherently better at this than the other? Especially when it comes to reproductive instincts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No free pass for the rest of the world. My comments were in reference to a contrast drawn on this thread by FW between evolutionary psychology and (Christian?) theology.


'Social justice' has been the basis of *really horrible regimes*. See Chavez, Castro, Mao, Lenin et al.. Contentions that 'they weren't doing it right' work just as well for Christian theologians, thank you very much.

As a point to note, it is unsurprising that Mach goes to evolutionary psychology, some go to Christianity, or you go to (ahem) secular humanism. We all try to find The One Tool which makes sense in life.

Dogma is dogma, no matter the flavor.

Obviously I am not dogmatic. I am a badger.  We hate dogs.

As far as one gender being better? Better how? Do men have more self control? I don't see women imposing burnooses on men. But is that a matter of 'being wiser geneticall' or lacking the power to impose their will?

On the sexual objection thread, I've heard some rather horrifying insinuations about how 'If I were Queen for a day' life would not be much fun for men AT ALL. Denial of 'humanity' in the other gender is not just a male sport.


----------



## Sandfly

I'm not immune to the promptings of nature.

Under the right circumstances, I will lie, bully, steal and cheat. Just depends how extreme you want to make the examples, till you find my action-point. 

For some people this is very low, so they're found going in-and-out of prisons. 

But there are bottom lines in behaviour, determined by actual physiology. You can train a cat to prefer cooked meat, you can train a human to prefer prison to working. But you can't train a cat to eat grass, or a prisoner to hate fresh air and sunlight.

Mach is talking about attraction which is all chemicals, not what a person decides to do with it.

So we should look at what creates a situation which promotes attraction (but doesn't guarantee it, FW) it would be things like: figure enhancing clothes, time together, intimate groups, such and such a physique (what kind?), smell (what sort?), alcohol, the relationship 'rebound' effect, social approval, hierarchy... etc etc whatever it may be. 

Then by learning about attraction triggers, you also learn how to _discourage _them. That's surely worth doing, so that so-called "choices" never arise.

For example, don't let your wife go out alone to weekly work parties (alcohol) in small groups (intimacy) with handsome young co-workers (physique), who have just arrived at the work's party after a good workout (smell.) 

Would you expect your wife to forever resist, given enough of these parties? 

The really poor thing is when people try to pretend they made a moral decision - rationalising after the fact.

The poor choice was made before then, when they knew they shouldn't, but still went to the parties to see Handsome Jeff, or to the hotel with mike... or they chose to contact an old flame through facebook... The wrong choice was made then. 

Everything after that was consequences. 

So we should learn about situations and triggers, because calculation and logic has nothing to do with attraction.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Kahlil Gibran said:


> That’s easy to say now, but I’ve observed that when a man loses his revenue stream (laid off, etc.) *and it effects the accustomed lifestyle of the still working female*, things get ugly fast.
> 
> As with my original post, I find it real hard to buy into Dr. Glover’s flawed premise (the man always taking the lead) when he’s viewed as dead weight financially.


I think that we are trying to apply science ,math and logic to a grey area in human behavior that is subjective ,and it doesn't really work that way.
Human beings are very complex and our behavior can be very unpredictable and irrational at times.
That is a pollsters nightmare , he can gain or loose credibility based on the vagaries of human nature.

I think what Dads and Hubby was saying in his last post , which I also said in an earlier post , is that whether or not a woman stays with a man and continues treating him with respect when his is in a financially disadvantageous position to her , depends on the type of person she is , and I might add , like I did earlier , the relationship dynamic leading up to the point where she begins to make more money.

If the relationship was lopsided when he made more money and she had secret resentments then obviously she would either leave or see it as payback time.

If he treated her with respect and as an equal partner when he made more money , then chances are , the principle of reciprocity an fairness will guide her actions.

However, if she's a woman with serious character flaws like deep insecurities and control issues ,and the relationship is one where there were constant power struggles , he should prepare for the worst .

And like I said before , added to all of that, we human beings can be very unpredictable, anything can happen. It all depends on the given parameters and other existing realities.

Human beings aren't rational , we are " rationalizing animals." Sometimes we find it frightening to think for ourselves , and painful to change.


----------



## LongWalk

Are men and women suspicious of each other? Instinctively they are. And the gut feeling that both genders have is important to survival and passing genes on. When an adulterer comes home fresh from fornication and their partner does not immediately declare that they perceive the infidelity, it empowers the cheater to keep on cheating. One of the untrue partner's justifications is that if you truly loved me and knew me, you would have detected what I was up to on the spot.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> The really poor thing is when people try to pretend they made a moral decision - rationalising after the fact.


:iagree:

I think it's called " backwards rationalization."

I think a lot of people aren't honest with themselves either. Which can be a sobering , frightening thought. If a partner isn't honest with themselves , then how can they be honest with you ?
So they fool themselves with all sorts of fanciful , questionable logic , thinking they're superior when really we're all just ordinary human beings subject to our biology.

Then after the fact , backward rationalization begins to occur.


----------



## Sandfly

Caribbean Man said:


> I think it's called " backwards rationalization."
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> So they fool themselves with all sorts of fanciful , questionable logic , thinking they're superior when really we're all just ordinary human beings subject to our biology.


I agree. 

If I found a suitcase stuffed with pound notes on the beach, I wouldn't take it and say "It's OK, I'll give half to charity. God directed me to find the suitcase, so that he could build another church, and half of it is my reward for being good". 

I'd just take it and say "I'm a rotten person, but now I'm a rich rotten person!"

Who would you trust: a person who you _know_ you can't trust with money-suitcases lying around 

- you can make sure you don't leave any lying around! 

Or a mate who pretends to be good, and then takes your money and calls the police on you because he has rationalised it eg 

"CM might be dealing drugs. I'll report him, and take the suitcase full of money. God directed me to find the suitcase, so as to bring CM to justice and to reward me !".

If I tell you I would be tempted around piles of money, then you know you can trust me in other situations when I say I am not interested in anyone's wife, over someone who admits to no weaknesses.

I don't know if I am making sense with these examples... could be something like "better the devil you know, than the one you don't (really know)".

Apparently this phenomenon actually exists in social science. People tend to trust the person who admits to some small weaknesses, when they then go on to say what their strengths are. I guess that's why they ask it at interviews, to compare honesty, regardless of the answer given.

Perhaps this is why the masses still trust Obama, and not Clinton. Clinton should have just said "yeah, I did that intern. She wouldn't take no for an answer. Now let's get back to talking about the economy."


----------



## ocotillo

Sandfly said:


> I'm not immune to the promptings of nature.
> 
> Under the right circumstances, I will lie, bully, steal and cheat. Just depends how extreme you want to make the examples, till you find my action-point.


I'm not immune to the promptings of nature either, but I think when we talk about, 'right circumstances' as an open-ended concept, we're probably conflating the question.

Would you steal to save the life of a starving child? (The moral dilemma faced by the principle protagonist in _Les Miserables_) I hope so.

But that is a helluva lot different than suddenly finding your wife unattractive when she can no longer bear children, which is probably a closer ethical corollary to the topic of this thread.

Sure there are some men who do this and sure there are people who will defend their inability to control their feelings, but there are plenty of others who believe the commitment they made meant something and practice a modicum of mental hygiene.

I don't disagree at all with the balance of what you've said, Sandfly, but at the same time, I do understand the angst when someone feels that they (By extension) have been attacked because of their gender.


----------



## LongWalk

Ocotillo,

Men and women are morally different. Women are better liars than men. We are more accomplished at robbery and murder. Prisons are 80 percent for men and 20 for women. I made the stats up because I am on my phone. Basically in all countries, across all cultures violent crime is a male instinct. We need women to be more civilized. Would be interesting to know if lesbians were more criminal than hetero and bi women.

Naturally as a non criminal man I would resent a women implying that I was one. Likewise it is an insult for women to be considered cheaters if only the circumstances arise. But statistically women are the ones divorcing. Many women are no doubt justified in wanting out. But some percent has lost attraction for their mate because he compares unfavorably with a more alpha ideal.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround

> The really poor thing is when people try to pretend they made a moral decision - rationalising after the fact.


And women do this too. There are fair few women out there who claim that they pay or go dutch on dates, always paying their fair share. Denounce the thought that one might consider changing something about themselves to improve their dating prospects.

Yet, their anger betrays them. It may come out as their wondering why they can't find a man who will "just once" treat them to dinner. Or worse, it may come out as they accuse other women of using / golddiggin guys just because they allowed the guy to pay for the date. I have always thought that that last one was illogical. Why should a third party get concerned about how 2 people split (or not split) the cost of a date when the third party's finances are not affected by it.

How else do we explain such illogical and anti social behavior if we refuse to see that there is a biological urge to be taken care of.


----------



## LongWalk

When I was growing up feminism was still called "women's lib". For teenage boy in the 70s we strove to conform. Buying things for women to get into their pants seemed dishonest, dishonorable. Much later in life I realized giving women drinks and food was an essential test. However, it has to be done in style. It should never be clumsy.To be vulgar in a biologically materialistic transaction is to strip it of its beauty. It is called marriage and not the "exclusive f buddy contract with child rearing options".

In some relationships the man could never meet the woman´s romantic expectations. In others the man carelessly allows the romantic side of his affection to atrophy. If his earning powers falls, all of his other failures will float to the surface of her consciousness.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Kahlil Gibran said:


> That’s easy to say now, but I’ve observed that when a man loses his revenue stream (laid off, etc.) *and it effects the accustomed lifestyle of the still working female*, things get ugly fast.
> 
> As with my original post, I find it real hard to buy into Dr. Glover’s flawed premise (the man always taking the lead) when he’s viewed as dead weight financially.


And I've observed where a man was injured on the job and couldn't work again, ending up going on worker's compensation and having to have 8 surgeries over 7 years and finally having to have an ankle fuzed. And his wife still loved him and treated him with the same respect, love and commitment. I'm venturing to guess because she fell in love with him and believed in the "for better or worse" part.

See what I did there. (but yes I'm speaking of a couple I'm friends with in real life even though we can make up as many, "I've seen" scenarios to support our beliefs we want).

All of this comes down to the people involved. Just like if a woman had a car accident and was paralyzed from the neck down so sex became an issue, how many men would remain in that marriage.....some would and some would leave due to the circumstances.

It's not just a financial issue. If you love your lifestyle more than the spouse providing it, then you won't stay through the hard times. If you love your spouse more than the lifestyle you will.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> I agree.
> 
> If I found a suitcase stuffed with pound notes on the beach, I wouldn't take it and say "It's OK, I'll give half to charity. God directed me to find the suitcase, so that he could build another church, and half of it is my reward for being good".
> 
> I'd just take it and say "I'm a rotten person, but now I'm a rich rotten person!"
> 
> Who would you trust: a person who you _know_ you can't trust with money-suitcases lying around
> 
> - you can make sure you don't leave any lying around!
> 
> Or a mate who pretends to be good, and then takes your money and calls the police on you because he has rationalised it eg
> 
> "CM might be dealing drugs. I'll report him, and take the suitcase full of money. God directed me to find the suitcase, so as to bring CM to justice and to reward me !".
> 
> If I tell you I would be tempted around piles of money, then you know you can trust me in other situations when I say I am not interested in anyone's wife, over someone who admits to no weaknesses.
> 
> I don't know if I am making sense with these examples... could be something like "better the devil you know, than the one you don't (really know)".
> 
> Apparently this phenomenon actually exists in social science. People tend to trust the person who admits to some small weaknesses, when they then go on to say what their strengths are. I guess that's why they ask it at interviews, to compare honesty, regardless of the answer given.
> 
> Perhaps this is why the masses still trust Obama, and not Clinton. Clinton should have just said "yeah, I did that intern. She wouldn't take no for an answer. Now let's get back to talking about the economy."


Sandfly,

There are some lessons I've learnt in life the hard way.
But what is important is that Iv'e learnt them and nobody could take that away from me.

What you've stated above is something I've lived and experienced.,

I had this old friend , a guy I kinda grew up with in my late teens and he went astray , getting involved in dealing drugs etc.
I reconnected with him and helped he get back on the straight and narrow path. We went through some rough situations together, I defended him when others wanted to kill him.

He was the bestman in our wedding , that's how close we were.

Anyway, we started a small engineering company together dealing with hydraulics and industrial fasteners .
I was a director in that company.
I got some information from a female friend of mine that worked with Australian oil giant, BHP Billiton [ down here ] about some industrial services they required which we could offer. I gave him the information and we tendered for, and won the contract to supply, based on MY expertise.
He didn't know anything , my background is mechanical engineering.
The contract was worth about quarter million, and split into two phases to facilitate better project management.
At the end of the contract, money paid , trouble started brewing. The accountant hinted to me that something was wrong.
Long story short, he stole money from the company.
We had a huge fight , and I left the company, never showed up again or even spoke to him.
I cut his out of my life.

Funny thing is, I always knew what he was capable of.
I just thought that maybe I could change him.
He always has a bit of underhandedness in him.
But I never thought that he'd act underhanded _with me_.
That was his character flaw.

But all of this happened ten years ago.
Last week I got a registered mail from a company informing me that they were taking legal action against his company to recover a substantial sum of money.
They listed his name _and _my name in the lawsuit.

Apparently, he never removed my name from the company , neither did he inform the registrar of companies in our district that CM was no longer a director.


My philosophy in life is that a scorpion stings because it's in it's nature to sting. A scorpion cannot help itself but sting when exposed to different situations. That isn't it's defense mechanism, it is it's _default_ setting.


It is good to know a person's character defects , especially because some people tend not to be honest with themselves.
But it is best wherever possible,
To avoid such people.

These are lessons, that I've learnt in life,
The hard way.


----------



## Sandfly

"My philosophy in life is that a scorpion stings because it's in it's nature to sting. A scorpion cannot help itself but sting when exposed to different situations. That isn't it's defense mechanism, it is it's default setting."

I hear you! 

There is an Aesop fable about this, a carpenter who finds an adder shivering in the cold. He takes pity on it, and puts it under his shirt to warm it up.

After a while it has warmed up. It bites him on the chest... and as he lay there dying he asks the snake: "Whyjadoit?" and the adder replies that he's an adder, that's what adders do. 

Sadly, people don't advertise their wickedness !

Totally off-topic, but you might enjoy these sort of stories:

The Mullah was a judge and arbitrator in a dispute. First the advocate of the first side gave an eloquent discourse advancing his claims. The Mullah who had been listening intently agreed and said, "That's right." 

Next it was the other advocates turn and he was just as erudite. Once more the Mullah agreed adding, "That's right." 

His clerk listening to the Mullah's pronouncements commented, "They can't both be right." 

"The Mullah agreed by saying, "That's right!"

Mullah Nasrudin


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Sandfly said:


> "My philosophy in life is that a scorpion stings because it's in it's nature to sting. A scorpion cannot help itself but sting when exposed to different situations. That isn't it's defense mechanism, it is it's default setting."
> 
> I hear you!
> 
> There is an Aesop fable about this, *a carpenter who finds an adder shivering in the cold. He takes pity on it, and puts it under his shirt to warm it up.
> 
> After a while it has warmed up. It bites him on the chest... and as he lay there dying he asks the snake: "Whyjadoit?" and the adder replies that he's an adder, that's what adders do.
> *
> Sadly, people don't advertise their wickedness !
> 
> Totally off-topic, but you might enjoy these sort of stories:
> 
> The Mullah was a judge and arbitrator in a dispute. First the advocate of the first side gave an eloquent discourse advancing his claims. The Mullah who had been listening intently agreed and said, "That's right."
> 
> Next it was the other advocates turn and he was just as erudite. Once more the Mullah agreed adding, "That's right."
> 
> His clerk listening to the Mullah's pronouncements commented, "They can't both be right."
> 
> "The Mullah agreed by saying, "That's right!"
> 
> Mullah Nasrudin


I love that fable. I've always told it with a snake a turtle and a river with the snake convincing the turtle to take him across.

It ends with "You knew I was a snake when you picked me up."

I don't want to give people the wrong idea. Do I think SOME women will dump their husbands (or cheat or do something negative) under the OP's posted concept...Of course...and some won't. It's just another example of taking some negative behavior of the few and applying it to the many.

One of my biggest pet peeves is people who paint with a broad brush.

I can't stand when I hear "Oh men are this" or "Women do that". No, in the person stating it's opinion, some or ONE man or woman did that and it had an impact on them so they guard themselves by putting up a huge filter that covers all of one gender/race/culture etc. 

All we're doing here is just having another "is this stereotype true" argument.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> Sadly, people don't advertise their wickedness !


I think that some people choose bad partners for marriage and when they get burnt, they begin to cast blame on an entire gender.

Some men think with their d!cks instead of their brains , so they marry a woman with serious character defects or maybe a woman whose personality traits need a certain personality type to be mated with. Any other type she would not respect because she's wired like that.
Then maybe some men are ignorant of they way these things work.

The same can be said of some women.
The marry a man thinking they can change him from his cheating ways or his abusive,controlling ways. Their boundaries are non existent and just like a pig, the man goes back into the mud whenever he feels the " tug" and afterwards she cleans him up, they have passionate sex.
Wash , rinse , repeat.
Maybe like their male counterpart above, they're just ignorant of how these things actually work

But in the end , an entire gender gets the blame.

Reminds me of Billy Joel's " _Innocent Man_."


----------



## Sandfly

Mmm, it's just sometimes we start to notice a pattern, in our own relationships and in those of our friends, of:

Nice car + flash cash + muscles = good times

Just as the ladies notice that:

T*ts out + enthusiasm + act dumb = good times

And... these two stereotypes go together, I mean flash harry will be going out with pretend bimbo. Ken and Barbie is another way of putting it.

These are not all women/men. But they exist in droves, so there must be something in it. I'm open to the cultural argument, but so far biology is winning for me.

How often do you see the pretend bimbo ferrying flash harry around in _her _car? And _he _never gets his t*ts out..! OK, bad examples.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> These are not all women/men. But they exist in droves, so there must be something in it.* I'm open to the cultural argument, but so far biology is winning for me.*


:iagree:


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Sandfly said:


> Mmm, it's just sometimes we start to notice a pattern, in our own relationships and in those of our friends, of:
> 
> Nice car + flash cash + muscles = good times
> 
> Just as the ladies notice that:
> 
> T*ts out + enthusiasm + act dumb = good times
> 
> And... these two stereotypes go together, I mean flash harry will be going out with pretend bimbo. Ken and Barbie is another way of putting it.
> 
> These are not all women/men. But they exist in droves, so there must be something in it. I'm open to the cultural argument, but so far biology is winning for me.
> 
> How often do you see the pretend bimbo ferrying flash harry around in _her _car? And _he _never gets his t*ts out..! OK, bad examples.


Haha love it.

As I stated earlier, there's truth to the flash, superficial and/or materialistic attractors. 

A wife dumping her husband (either divorce, cheating whatever) because he doesn't make enough money is a decision based on materialism and/or superficial inspiration. 

Just like a husband dumping (figuratively or literally) his wife if she puts on 50 pounds during pregnancy is also superficial. 

They are the exact same issue and behavior, just with a different catalyst.

There are surface things we love about our spouse and deeper things we love. The determinant to our actions is what priority we place on those two things. Do we value the loyalty and/or commitment etc. our wife or husband shows us more or less than how hot their body is, or big their wallet is.

It's the pleasure/pain principle. Some people get more pleasure out of the superficial/surface stuff than the deeper things in a relationship. Some people get more pleasure out of the deeper things (loyalty, commitment, communication, trust etc). 

Right or wrong is going to be based on what camp you reside in. If you are a deeper person, than you'll see the surface behavior as wrong. If you're a surface person, then the deeper person is wrong.

It would be great if people had a sign that stated these things. I know I'm saying words that make the "surface person" sound bad and the deeper person sound good, it's just the words I'm using, so to balance the negative connotations....I'll leave with this morlocks shouldn't marry elois


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> And... these two stereotypes go together, I mean flash harry will be going out with pretend bimbo. Ken and Barbie is another way of putting it.
> 
> These are not all women/men. But they exist in droves, so there must be something in it. I'm open to the cultural argument, but so far biology is winning for me.


Why do you assume this is a product of biology and not culture?Women are taught that if they want attention, they should use their looks. And that their lives will be better if they have lots of stuff and status. Men are taught that they should flash cash or drive a hot car to attract women, and that the only thing that matters if whether she has hot tits or a tight ass.

Different cultures behave differently. The chimps and neanderthal we descended from behave differently.

And yet you still want to say it's all biology. Why?


----------



## LongWalk

Civilization ameliorates the harshness of our biological urges. It does not replace the fundamental drive to reproduce in competition with other species and other humans. Women are not taught to use their looks to attract male attention. It is in our nature.

Less natural is the covering of women in black sack cloth so that men cannot see their feminine shape or facial expressions.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> Why do you assume this is a product of biology and not culture?Women are taught that if they want attention, they should use their looks. And that their lives will be better if they have lots of stuff and status. Men are taught that they should flash cash or drive a hot car to attract women, and that the only thing that matters if whether she has hot tits or a tight ass.
> 
> Different cultures behave differently. The chimps and neanderthal we descended from behave differently.
> 
> And yet you still want to say it's all biology. Why?


Where is there a different culture?
Who is doing the teaching?
Why are you only _selectively _threatened by the biology argument?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> Where is there a different culture?
> Who is doing the teaching?
> Why are you only _selectively _threatened by the biology argument?



I think the biology argument is threatening to some because they see biology as a weakness.

But the reality is that humans aren't fully rational beings.
A fully rational being would be Star Trek's Mr Spock or Lieutenant Commander Data.

We are rationalizing beings and more often than not, our rationalizing is heavily influenced by our biology.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Always_alone, culture quite often is built on biology. I see them going hand in hand.

For example, think of the biology behind female genital mutilation.

That is, some cultures believe that if you make having sex a very unpleasant experience for a women, then she will remain chaste. And then she will be viewed, in the eyes of men from her culture, as more desirable as a long term mate than other women.

And this practice has not only endured up to today in the same locations where it got started, but it also persists among these same cultures even when they move to other countries, including the western world. (ie North America, Europe, Oceania.....)

So maybe biology started this practice ie some guy got the bright idea that if you made sex (even more) painful for women, they will seek it out / engage in it less at a time when a woman's "(sexual) virtue" was more valuable that anything else about her.......

yet, still these days, even after these social groups have moved to other areas of the world for greater economic and social opportunity, still many families, indeed many of the female relatives are willing and active participants in ensuring that the next generation of women in their cultural group have to experience this same kind of physical mutilation.

Yeah, it's cultural. But biology started it and still provides the grounds to support it......


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

Caribbean Man said:


> The contract was worth about quarter million, and split into two phases to facilitate better project management.
> At the end of the contract, money paid , trouble started brewing. The accountant hinted to me that something was wrong.
> Long story short, he stole money from the company.
> We had a huge fight , and I left the company, never showed up again or even spoke to him.


I been said that a marriage that goes bad takes a couple of years to get over but a business partnership that goes bad stings the rest of your life.
I’ve never been divorced, but I can speak to the second half of the equation. After seven years I still seethe with anger when I think about my bastard of an x-business partner and the crap he pulled. My only defense mechanism is to try to not think about it too often.


----------



## always_alone

I'm not disputing that our sex drive is biological. I'm disputing that things like genital mutilation to keep women in line or flashing cash to make oneself more attractive is biological.

In some cultures, eg, naked tits do not elicit even one quarter of the interest that they do in our hypersexualized yet oddly prudish culture. And there is certainly no biological imperative to respond to women's sexuality by castrating them.

Sex drive is natural, but what "pulls" us, or conversely what repulses us is highly informed by our culture.

Women seek men with more cash because they are taught to do so in a world where the memory of having no other options is still fresh, and they use looks because they live in a culture that evaluates women solely on looks and sex.

But we know it isn't their hardwired sexual biology, or they wouldn't be cheating on their alpha provider husband with the pool boy.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> Women are not taught to use their looks to attract male attention. It is in our nature.


This is so not true. Girls are taught from an impossibly young age that the way to get male attention is through their looks. It starts with Daddy's little princess and goes on from there.

We find these things so natural because they are prevalent. But we were taught much of it.

I kind of get why men are satisfied with the idea that they are biologically wired for young, dumb, and full of cum. It's so easy and all they need is a cool car, which they wanted anyway.

But do we really expect that women should be satisfied with this caricature of their sexuality? Especially given the evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> But we know it isn't their hardwired sexual biology, or they wouldn't be cheating on their alpha provider husband with the pool boy.


Your example says the opposite to me.

It is obviously not a sane thing to do to risk your mansion by getting caught with a penniless teenager.

If it's not rational, what makes 'em do it?

Chemicals.

Same reason people continue to eat at mc donalds and drink pepsi and eat the whole bar of chocolate in one go - feel good for a few minutes, pay the price over your lifetime.

I'm with you on the girl-cutting though. This is not an example of a widespread phenomenon, unlike the link between having property concentrated in a few hands and having harems, which is universal.

The male equivalent - chopping off your foreskin, may be normal for you guys (about 55%), but here in England that's freakish religious practice only (about 10%). Yet we are supposedly similar. Culture definitely...

But it's easy to tell the difference between biology and culture.

Do you get _urges _to chop off foreskins? No. (well, maybe a couple of Tammers do  )

Do you get _urges _to drink sugary products? Yes.

Some things seem to be universal.

Acting on urges is a separate issue. This is where culture may or may not make it viable. Currently, it's a viable urge to have sex with your teenage pool attendant, just don't get caught. So it happens more often. But the permissive or restrictive culture is not the _Cause_.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Sandfly said:


> It is obviously not a sane thing to do to risk your mansion by getting caught with a penniless teenager.
> 
> If it's not rational, what makes 'em do it?
> 
> Chemicals.


Human's are designed to make the healthiest babies possible, so as much as it's not socially sane to risk getting caught with the pool boy it's not biologically sane to constantly reproduce with someone who is not biologically not in their prime or who you never found attractive in the first place.
In a way it's completely rational, no amount of money someone has is going to change their genetics.


----------



## LongWalk

I thinks great that people have to struggle with choices. How boring life would be it were otherwise?

Regarding male and female behavior to excite sexual attraction, clearly there are culturally specific exhibitions of sexual fitness. What is the Brazilian carnival but a dance to show off endurance and beauty.

Women are certainly not going to choose men with money all the time. My SIL's step father is a cool old Black Jamaican dude who got through dental school in the US, driving a taxi to pay his way. He said that he couldn't get straight A's because he had to drive for the tips. I think it was in DC.

He was still a handsome deep voiced broad shouldered man in his 80s when he reminisced about those days. When drove the upper class White women home and they heard his island accent, time and again he got invited to house for something to drink. That was animal attraction.

I don't think he felt guilty about them cheating on their husbands.


----------



## JCD

I'm out.


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> unlike the link between having property concentrated in a few hands and having harems, which is universal.


This is hardly universal. True, those in power do like to keep everything for themselves, but are you aware that the greatest disparity between rich and poor ever to exist is now, in modern western capitalism?

And the harem thing is a common fantasy, but the reality is pretty much reserved for those who have the power to impose their will on other people's desires and inclinations.


----------



## LongWalk

Always Alone, you are quite PC, running down capitalism. Actually, the West is doing ok. Wealth distribution is not going the right direction but it is by no means the worst situation in human history.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> Always Alone, you are quite PC, running down capitalism. Actually, the West is doing ok. Wealth distribution is not going the right direction but it is by no means the worst situation in human history.


These days the top tier of "haves" literally have billions. This never used to be possible --there weren't billions to have. And that wealth was more decentralized.

The "have nots" in contrast are holding steady at zero.


----------



## Applejuice

I have to agree with always.. on almost everything she's ever said actually!.. and I am about as diametrically opposed to PC as it is possible to be.

But actually, I'm not about to launch into a diatribe; I just wanted to say, I love this forum and its patrons for being so civilised, so cerebral and so passionate!

Long may it continue!  x x x x


----------



## oldgeezer

Kahlil Gibran said:


> This site is a big proponent of the “No more Mr. Nice Guy” approach, which is fine... in theory. But, how does one pull that off if their wife makes more money? Theories are great, but in American reality, money talks and always has.
> Dr. Glover (two failed marriages) likes to throw out the premise that deep down women want to feel like their male counterpart “sets the tone and takes the lead”. Even if you are a 250 lb. wear-the-pants tough guy, good luck with that if the woman brings 3+ times of the money to the table. There is a cliche that women like to marry/date up. If that’s the case, men should stick with going after the waitress at the local diner. They both stand a good chance of being happy.


The first time the wife got a bigger paycheck than me, the sex all but stopped immediately, and it never recovered. No matter how they deny it, women are very mercenary, and if you don't make more money, well, they just tolerate you after that.


----------



## HeartbrokenW

I fit the profile.. I made 3x what my ex made and I never once mentioned it. He's the one who asked for the divorce. In discussions that followed, he said he felt like less of a man, that I didn't NEED him. He couldn't understand that I did need him. Now he's with someone who's unemployed and never held a serious job in her life. 

I'm proud of my accomplishments. I was going to school part time to improve my work life even more. But in discussions afterward, that was an even bigger turn off for him. When you look at it logically, I'm better of without him. But it broke our daughter's home... and I miss him.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

HeartbrokenW said:


> I fit the profile.. I made 3x what my ex made and I never once mentioned it. He's the one who asked for the divorce. In discussions that followed, he said he felt like less of a man, that I didn't NEED him. He couldn't understand that I did need him. Now he's with someone who's unemployed and never held a serious job in her life.
> 
> I'm proud of my accomplishments. I was going to school part time to improve my work life even more. But in discussions afterward, that was an even bigger turn off for him. When you look at it logically, I'm better of without him. But it broke our daughter's home... and I miss him.



I have to admit I would feel that way. I guess it's back to that whole too independent need to be needed and to feel like the man topic.


----------



## over20

Don't ever be ashamed to feel that way....we need more men like you in this crazy world.......

That's why I fell in love with my Dh he is a man's man and will never settle or conform to what society tries to do or say.......


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs bicycle” -1969-

Anyone with an ounce of foresight could see it wasn’t going to end well.


----------



## Caribbean Man

HeartbrokenW said:


> I fit the profile.. I made 3x what my ex made and I never once mentioned it. He's the one who asked for the divorce. In discussions that followed, he said he felt like less of a man, that I didn't NEED him. He couldn't understand that I did need him. Now he's with someone who's unemployed and never held a serious job in her life.
> 
> I'm proud of my accomplishments. I was going to school part time to improve my work life even more. But in discussions afterward, that was an even bigger turn off for him. When you look at it logically, I'm better of without him. But it broke our daughter's home... and I miss him.


It's sad that your marriage went south in the way it did. I know it must hurt because it seems simple .
But I was just like you early in our marriage, when things broke down and we decided on marriage counseling .
This is what the counsellor explained to me.
A huge part of life is about choices.
When two people get married these choices affect each other.
A problem that occurs in some marriages is when one partner feels lesser than the other in terms of inputs , whether intangible ,like having an equal part in the decision making processes , or tangibles , like monetary contributions.

To solve this problem , both parties need to first understand the concept of interdependence in marriage .

There a many different paths to happiness in marriage , but it is good if couples choose one together that best fit their expectations. They should both agree to long term and short term goal and work on it TOGETHER.

One of my dreams I gave up after it got married was that of furthering my studies and eventually joining an elite group of professionals in our country called
" The association of Petroleum Engineers." 
But in exchange , I started a successful business with my wife , and today, we are comfortable and happy.

For a marriage to work , both parties must be willing to do a whole lot of compromising .


----------



## jld

Heartbroken, you seem like a secure woman, and you need to be with a secure man. Your dh could not be that for you. That is on him.

Your daughter will be okay. I bet you are a great mom.

Now you need to think about how much better a fit the next man is going to be in your life, someone who can love you without feeling threatened by you.


----------



## jld

LongWalk said:


> Always Alone, you are quite PC, running down capitalism. Actually, the West is doing ok. Wealth distribution is not going the right direction but it is by no means the worst situation in human history.


The bottom is not as low as it used to be (think peasants starving while kings feasted).


----------



## jld

WorkingOnMe said:


> I have to admit I would feel that way. I guess it's back to that whole too independent need to be needed and to feel like the man topic.


It is good to be honest with yourself. We cannot grow if we are not honest with ourselves.


----------



## jld

Kahlil Gibran said:


> “A woman needs a man like a fish needs bicycle” -1969-
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of foresight could see it wasn’t going to end well.


Women protect themselves by telling themselves things like that. And for lesbians, it is undoubtedly true.

But most women love men, I think. Oh, not every one out there, but in general. And many of us are mothers of sons. How could we not love and feel concern for the opposite sex?

Try not to take what people say too literally. Try to read the sentiment hiding behind the words. There are many frightened, hurt people in the world, wanting to love, but scared of rejection.


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> Don't ever be ashamed to feel that way....we need more men like you in this crazy world.......
> 
> That's why I fell in love with my Dh he is a man's man and will never settle or conform to what society tries to do or say.......


Hi, over20. I am not sure who this was directed to, but I do think we need more secure men in this world. 

That would be a good subject for a thread, I think.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

HeartbrokenW said:


> I fit the profile.. I made 3x what my ex made and I never once mentioned it. He's the one who asked for the divorce. In discussions that followed, he said he felt like less of a man, that I didn't NEED him. He couldn't understand that I did need him. Now he's with someone who's unemployed and never held a serious job in her life.
> 
> I'm proud of my accomplishments. I was going to school part time to improve my work life even more. But in discussions afterward, that was an even bigger turn off for him. When you look at it logically, I'm better of without him. But it broke our daughter's home... and I miss him.


There are two sides to every story. 
Sure, you didn’t literally say: “hey, I make 3 times more money than you!” but _something_ was going on where he was made to feel inferior. Maybe he really is an insecure person to begin with, but that would have been evident before the income issues.
I’m not really arguing with you or sticking up for a person I don’t know but to simplify everything to a summation that he ruined your marriage and broke your daughter's home because you were ambitious and make 3 times more money seems to conveniently deny any self-reflection.


----------



## jld

Maybe he did not realize he was insecure on that issue before it came up, or how big of an issue it would prove to be.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

jld said:


> Maybe he did not realize he was insecure on that issue before it came up, or how big of an issue it would prove to be.


If that’s the case and he was completely secure in every other aspect of his life you'd think he’d be incredibly cut-throat and a big money maker at all costs.


----------



## jld

Kahlil Gibran said:


> If that’s the case and he was completely secure in every other aspect of his life you'd think he’d be incredibly cut-throat and a big money maker at all costs.


Okay, probably he was an insecure guy and she loved him anyway.

I don't know if anyone is completely secure, but some are more than others.

At any rate, the OP seems secure, and she needs to be with her equal. She will not have a happy marriage if the man is intimidated by her.


----------



## always_alone

Kahlil Gibran said:


> There are two sides to every story.
> Sure, you didn’t literally say: “hey, I make 3 times more money than you!” but _something_ was going on where he was made to feel inferior. Maybe he really is an insecure person to begin with, but that would have been evident before the income issues.
> I’m not really arguing with you or sticking up for a person I don’t know but to simplify everything to a summation that he ruined your marriage and broke your daughter's home because you were ambitious and make 3 times more money seems to conveniently deny any self-reflection.


Friends of mine, a couple --rather an ex couple-- worked in the same field. He had more education, a better position, and was confidently secure in his career. She did something innovative, which garnered a lot of attention, even a bit of fame. This ate him up inside, you could literally see it. He started undermining her success at every turn, ridiculing her efforts, dismissing it as luck, and just generally sulking about how it should've been him. Her self esteem dropped, she started sniping back at him, and that was basically the beginning of the end.

This thread seems to want to blame women for their hypergamy, but male hypogamy also plays a role here.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Kahlil Gibran said:


> There are two sides to every story.
> Sure, you didn’t literally say: “hey, I make 3 times more money than you!” but _something_ was going on where he was made to feel inferior. Maybe he really is an insecure person to begin with, but that would have been evident before the income issues.
> I’m not really arguing with you or sticking up for a person I don’t know but to simplify everything to a summation that he ruined your marriage and broke your daughter's home because you were ambitious and make 3 times more money seems to conveniently deny any self-reflection.


One of m wife's friend is a top dog in our region [ Central America and the Caribbean ] for a pharmaceutical company called Pfizer.
Her husband was also a top dog in a local telecommunication company when it suffered a hostile takeover from another group of companies.
He lost his job.
Now this woman took years climbing the corporate ladder, both she and her husband.
Both well educated , but she achieved her MBA , whilst working.

Husband became depressed and resentful after he lost his job and had to settle for a lesser paying job.
But he was a good father to their two boys , one in university and the other in college.
She tried everything to help him , she bought him a brand new car ,an Audi A7 sedan , she took him and the kids on expensive vacation trips, she paid for everything, she paid the mortgage and all the bills , she turned down higher paying job offers that involved more travel in the region ,but he just resented her more because he no longer felt valuable.

My wife told me that he stopped having sex with her. No third party was involved on either side , but he stopped having sex , and would turn her down whenever she initiated.
She wanted them to go to marriage counselling , but he didn't want to go.

Anyway, a breakthrough came when he mentioned that he was trying to set up a business consultancy to work as a private contractor for the new telecom giant, but the bank turned him down.
She financed his project, he got back on his feet and now owns his own business. Things began to even out after that , and their marriage got back on track.

IMO, most times, a lack of good communication is at the root of everything , when problems like that happen in a marriage.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> The bottom is not as low as it used to be (think peasants starving while kings feasted).


Would that it were so. Millions die of starvation and malnutrition every year. Even in the richest of nations, there are people without homes, without income, and who often want for a nutritious meal.


----------



## jld

Well, she was awfully patient, CM. I would not have been.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Yes she was!

But the lesson I learned is that sometimes it takes lots of patience and serious compromise in marriage to work through problems.


----------



## always_alone

Kahlil Gibran said:


> “A woman needs a man like a fish needs bicycle” -1969-
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of foresight could see it wasn’t going to end well.


This started a smartass one-off, not a deep philosophical commitment. But I'll grant you that there was a particular breed of 70s-80s feminism that traumatized a lot of men. 

And I can see why. But at the same time, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that actually believes this


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> IMO, most times, a lack of good communication is at the root of everything , when problems like that happen in a marriage.


A lack of communication, and I would add, recognition that one's worth is not in a paycheck or a title, but as a partner and decent human being.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> This started a smartass one-off, not a deep philosophical commitment. But I'll grant you that there was a particular breed of 70s-80s feminism that traumatized a lot of men.


It is unfortunate that the men who were involved in the movement were alienated when it took a toxic turn.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> It is unfortunate that the men who were involved in the movement were alienated when it took a toxic turn.



_" All movements go too far..."_
`~Bertrand Russell.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes she was!
> 
> But the lesson I learned is that sometimes it takes lots of patience and serious compromise in marriage to work through problems.


But I would not want to be with a man like that. He seems like a child she has to nurse along. I could not respect a "man" like that.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> This started a smartass one-off, not a deep philosophical commitment. But I'll grant you that there was a particular breed of 70s-80s feminism that traumatized a lot of men.
> 
> And I can see why. But at the same time, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that actually believes this


My sister is a lesbian, and I think she believes this.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> But I would not want to be with a man like that. He seems like a child she has to nurse along. I could not respect a "man" like that.


Well every marriage has it's own dynamic.
Now I don't think that he was the kind of man that we call " baby."
Because he was able to muscle his way up the corporate ladder and be on top.
His wife was able to do the same. They both educated themselves part time , at different stages in their marriage and were able to achieve their dreams , together.

But something unexpected happened , and they were unsure how to handle it. And initially the teamwork approach broke down. But when they approached the problem like a team, it was solved.

Sometimes even though a partner wants to help the other when in crisis , it takes a certain amount of empathy and understanding , for that help to be effective. Sometimes only an attentive , emotionally connected partner could reach the other in times of crisis. That in turn makes their connection stronger, _after_ the crisis.

That's why earlier in this thread I said that what happens after a woman starts making more money than a man depends on the dynamic in the relationship before she started earning higher.

The couple in the example , always had a good connection. They saw themselves as a team.


----------



## jld

I think that woman was extremely patient and loving and mature. Definitely a leader.

There is someone for everyone, and they seem to be that for each other.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> It is unfortunate that the men who were involved in the movement were alienated when it took a toxic turn.


Indeed. I became persona non grata at a women's center for arguing this point. Even with the right equipment, I had the wrong attitude.

But no regrets


----------



## Fozzy

Caribbean Man said:


> _" All movements go too far..."_
> `~Bertrand Russell.


Sounds like Bertrand Russell has been in my bathroom.

Thank you--I'll be here all week.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> My sister is a lesbian, and I think she believes this.


There had to be one. Maybe a few more hiding in the woodwork. But of the lesbians that I know, they all have male friends that they respect greatly. And one couple has now had two children.

I can't imagine that any of them would make a disparaging comment like that and mean it -- unless, as you said earlier, they were deeply hurt at one point, and speaking from that.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> There had to be one. Maybe a few more hiding in the woodwork. But of the lesbians that I know, they all have male friends that they respect greatly. And one couple has now had two children.
> 
> I can't imagine that any of them would make a disparaging comment like that and mean it -- unless, as you said earlier, they were deeply hurt at one point, and speaking from that.


I just know that she is the person I first heard that saying from. But I know she loves our brothers and nephews.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Would that it were so. Millions die of starvation and malnutrition every year. Even in the richest of nations, there are people without homes, without income, and who often want for a nutritious meal.


Well I think it is different than it used to be. You see the photos from the Depression? You see how many obese Americans there are now?

And I read a few years ago that worldwide, obesity is becoming a bigger problem than starvation.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Caribbean Man said:


> _" All movements go too far..."_
> `~Bertrand Russell.


Except bowel.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Well I think it is different than it used to be. You see the photos from the Depression? You see how many obese Americans there are now?
> 
> And I read a few years ago that worldwide, obesity is becoming a bigger problem than starvation.


It's complicated, to be sure, but food security is an issue the world over, even the US:

Hunger in America: 2013 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts



> In 2010,*17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven),*were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> It's complicated, to be sure, but food security is an issue the world over, even the US:
> 
> Hunger in America: 2013 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts


I am not unsympathetic to this issue, but I ask you, do Americans look like they are going hungry?


----------



## oldgeezer

Applejuice said:


> Old, I'm guessing by your nick that you're probably my senior and I respect chronological hierarchy but don't you think your conclusion was a bit broad-sweeping? Your wife is/was displaying conspicuous evidence of ars*hole'ness but to ascribe said characteristic to an entire gender seems a little uncharitable.


There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. But the number of marriages that work when the woman earns more money? Very small. Sometimes it's the man's fault, of course. But often, it's as my wife continues to say (and then denies she says it) that she feels "put upon" for having to work so we have enough money to live the way she wants. Of course, she's the one with the Master's Degree and a medical career (soon to have the PhD...). I have no degree, and it's not going to ever happen. 



> I submit that you were just unfortunate in your companionship and that, armed with a more robust skank-shield, you should be able to select a more worthy candidate in future!


Sorry, I think the reality is that it's biological in nature and only can be gotten past when both partners are self aware and work very hard at it. Certainly this has nothing to do anyone being a "skank" at all. 



> If I were you, I'd be rejoicing at your emancipation and looking to move on UP the ladder!


I am still married and we're staying that way, I presume. But life hasn't been the same since that first professional scale paycheck and it never will be the same again.


----------



## RandomDude

Fellas, its almost ALL about the money, no matter what the ladies say. A good 1% don't care sure - take my ex for example, she never cared.

Reason: She had/has financial support from her family which I forbad her from accepting money from them during marriage diminishing my pride as a man to provide. Still, she's never had to live a life in poverty, as I went bonkers on $$$ mode upon baby bells.

But the 99% - care in some ways, and within that 99%, 80% lie that they dont. Even those who truly don't, many will still care based on cultural/social/family expectations. So don't let all these compassionate and somewhat naive views fool you, make MONEY NOW!


----------



## wilderness

RandomDude said:


> Fellas, its almost ALL about the money, no matter what the ladies say. A good 1% don't care sure - take my ex for example, she never cared.
> 
> Reason: She had/has financial support from her family which I forbad her from accepting money from them during marriage diminishing my pride as a man to provide. Still, she's never had to live a life in poverty, as I went bonkers on $$$ mode upon baby bells.
> 
> But the 99% - care in some ways, and within that 99%, 80% lie that they dont. Even those who truly don't, many will still care based on cultural/social/family expectations. So don't let all these compassionate and somewhat naive views fool you, make MONEY NOW!


I don't think it's all about the money when it comes to actually hooking up with women- (having sex with them, not that I'm advocating that). But if you want to actually _keep_ a woman, you better have money. If you don't, or you lose what you have, you are history. That's the way of the world.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

ugh.unsubscribe.


----------



## LongWalk

Women who work stay with drug addicts and alcoholics who are not economically reliable contributors. So money is not everything.


----------



## wilderness

LongWalk said:


> Women who work stay with drug addicts and alcoholics who are not economically reliable contributors. So money is not everything.


Not any that I've ever known.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Okay, it must be my wife's family because here's a list of all of the HAPPILY married couples with no cheating (at least by the woman)

First Cousin 1 (female) makes 1.5x her husband. Husband and wife make equal decisions.

First cousin 2 (female) makes 30% more than her husband and the husband is the primary money spender and decision maker.

First cousin 3 (female) makes double her husband and is the primary financial decision maker

First cousin (male) 4 and his wife makes about 10-20% higher. Husband is the financial guy in that family.

My wife MBA makes double what I make. I set the monthly budgets etc while she does the leg work of sending out bills on time etc.

My wife's brother makes less than half what his wife makes. 

All of these marriages are a minimum of 10 years (except for mine which is 7)

My brother works and his wife is a SAHM and they're the most dysfunctional marriage of this list.

I guess my wife's family IS the 1%


Sorry but this whole issue centers around the woman's mentality. If she is someone who TRULY believes in the jointness or combination of marriage (two becoming one in everyway...etc) then who makes more becomes irrelevant with one caveat.

The husband must be a hard worker. If he's loafing around, working part time, jumping from job to job etc....THEN the wife will have issues, rightly so.


----------



## cons

I am a woman who is in my second marriage....and was/is the primary breadwinner in my household...

From my own perspective, I personally did not have money as a required attribute when dating...

But there IS a harsh reality due to cultural/social/family expectations.

My family (specifically my dad) would often add his two cents with regard to me "having" to support the family....as if it was something I was forced to do instead of it being just what it was.

My first husband had a very passive-aggressive attitude with regard to our disparate incomes .....on one hand he liked it (called me his "sugar mama") but on the other hand he often would make comments about how that made him feel inferior (an attitude that became pervasive in his life and brought about activities and choices that were detrimental to our marriage).

My current husband is also acutely aware of the differences in our incomes...he has been very honoring and grateful that I have the income to generously provide for us. But he is honest in that there are times he can feel "fleshy" about it and feels he is not bringing enough to the union. So, I offer reassurance that I just happen to enjoy a career that pays well... His gift is more in ministry, which doesn't carry a big payroll with it... but he does so well in his field. 

Do I resent giving him reassurance around this? Nope... not at all... I understand these influences/expectations that others have can invade and create doubt at times.

My take on our union is that we are equal contributors and therefore have equal right for input in our financial decisions. There is no lording over, veto power, etc. Just coming to a mutual agreement. All of this takes good communication....talking about it often and respectfully....being fully transparent...and speaking up when our insecurities/issues surface regarding money....and not letting these issues fester creating a passive aggressive dance where our feelings leak out sideways...


----------



## jld

I don't think we have to put SAHMs down. It is a contribution, too.

I never was in a position to make more money than dh. But if I were, I think I would consider it our common income, too. We are in this together. We want the best for our family, and for each other. We are a team.

I certainly value dh for more than just his money-earning skills. He is just a fine human being, a fine husband and father.


----------



## john1068

ScarletBegonias said:


> I hadn't realized money factored into not being a whiny,passive aggressive MrNiceGuy. I always thought this was something you did for yourself regardless of marital status or money status.


True...FYI, in NMMNG, _money_ is mentioned only 10 times. And in none of the references is earnings an issue in the H/W dynamic. It's referenced, however, as a Nice Guy will let earnings be only one of the toxic shames he feels.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

jld said:


> I don't think we have to put SAHMs down. It is a contribution, too.
> 
> I never was in a position to make more money than dh. But if I were, I think I would consider it our common income, too. We are in this together. We want the best for our family, and for each other. We are a team.
> 
> I certainly value dh for more than just his money-earning skills. He is just a fine human being, a fine husband and father.


Sorry if I came across that way. It wasn't my intention. I was just pointing out that, based on the sentiment in this thread, the SAHM and my brother should have the best relationship (or at least the wife with the most love and respect for her husband of all that are listed and that couldn't be further from the truth).

Frankly, if I had the ability to let my wife be a SAHM, I would. 

I was able to with my first wife, until our marriage fell apart, she cheated on me and began to resent that I worked longer hours...(you know in order to let her be a SAHM and provide for my family)....errr wait a sec.

Seriously though. Relationship dynamics are more about the individual people involved and how they respond. My ex wife would always be warm and loving to me IF I treated her POORLY....I couldn't do that long term, not my style. My wife now is the antithesis of my exwife in almost every way.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Dad&Hubby said:


> Sorry but this whole issue centers around the woman's mentality. If she is someone who TRULY believes in the jointness or combination of marriage (two becoming one in everyway...etc) then who makes more becomes irrelevant with one caveat.
> 
> The husband must be a hard worker. If he's loafing around, working part time, jumping from job to job etc....THEN the wife will have issues, rightly so.


:iagree:

The crux of the problem is in the conjunction.
Two simple words, *IF.*


----------



## jld

Dad&Hubby said:


> Sorry if I came across that way. It wasn't my intention. I was just pointing out that, based on the sentiment in this thread, the SAHM and my brother should have the best relationship (or at least the wife with the most love and respect for her husband of all that are listed and that couldn't be further from the truth).
> 
> Frankly, if I had the ability to let my wife be a SAHM, I would.
> 
> I was able to with my first wife, until our marriage fell apart, she cheated on me and began to resent that I worked longer hours...(you know in order to let her be a SAHM and provide for my family)....errr wait a sec.
> 
> Seriously though. Relationship dynamics are more about the individual people involved and how they respond. My ex wife would always be warm and loving to me IF I treated her POORLY....I couldn't do that long term, not my style. My wife now is the antithesis of my exwife in almost every way.


Well, I am sorry to be hypersensitive about being a SAHM, D&H. It is definitely one of my insecurities, that I do not bring in money. A lot of importance is put on that in our society, I think.

Our society is just not really set up for SAHMs anymore. 

It sounds like you are in a great relationship, and you appreciate your current wife even more because of what you went through the first time. You are able to be yourself now, and that is critical to having a happy life.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

jld said:


> I don't think we have to put SAHMs down. It is a contribution, too.


Conversely that’s almost never the case in reverse. “Mr. Mom” is used in a derogatory sense 90% of the time.
Case in point: back when my kids were in preschool, on occasion I would take off from work to go pick them up. There was one guy who was a stay-at-home Dad who I would always see picking his kids up. He drove the minivan, had the diaper bag, the stroller etc. From what others told me, his wife was a periodontist (and made more money) so they decided he would be the one to stay at home full time.
The SHAMs had no respect for the guy. They laughed about him being a “Mr. Mom” and wondered if it felt good to have the wife wear the pants. One of the most hypocritical things I have ever witnessed.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

jld said:


> Well, I am sorry to be hypersensitive about being a SAHM, D&H. It is definitely one of my insecurities, that I do not bring in money. A lot of importance is put on that in our society, I think.
> 
> Our society is just not really set up for SAHMs anymore.
> 
> It sounds like you are in a great relationship, and you appreciate your current wife even more because of what you went through the first time. You are able to be yourself now, and that is critical to having a happy life.


You AND your husband should be VERY proud that you're a SAHM. I wish I could provide the situation where my wife could be a SAHM, but honestly I know she wouldn't want to. She even recently said that she's a better working mom than SAHM (maternity leave) LOL. Being a SAHM is VERY difficult, from dealing with public perceptions (not just in your value to the family, but who you are as a person. A woman (or man) could be a PHD, olympic athlete, and if they're a SAHP, society thinks all they know how to do is change diapers, do laundry, cook and the extent of their social awareness is afternoon TV (which is ALL extremely false). Dealing with young kids 24/7 which can be tedious etc. It's not easy.


----------



## jld

Kahlil Gibran said:


> Conversely that’s almost never the case in reverse. “Mr. Mom” is used in a derogatory sense 90% of the time.
> Case in point: back when my kids were in preschool, on occasion I would take off from work to go pick them up. There was one guy who was a stay-at-home Dad who I would always see picking his kids up. He drove the minivan, had the diaper bag, the stroller etc. From what others told me, his wife was a periodontist (and made more money) so they decided he would be the one to stay at home full time.
> The SHAMs had no respect for the guy. They laughed about him being a “Mr. Mom” and wondered if it felt good to have the wife wear the pants. One of the most hypocritical things I have ever witnessed.


I have only known two SAHDs, and one was online, lol. Both got tons of attention from the SAHMs, really, more than their attitudes and actions deserved. They were a novelty, I guess.

As women earn more and more money, there will surely be more SAHDs. An article in the NYT recently seemed to indicate this is not very satisfying for marriages, but really, who knows? Maybe they were cherry-picking the couples they interviewed.

People adapt to their economic realities. SAHDs are an adaptation.


----------



## jld

Dad&Hubby said:


> You AND your husband should be VERY proud that you're a SAHM. I wish I could provide the situation where my wife could be a SAHM, but honestly I know she wouldn't want to. She even recently said that she's a better working mom than SAHM (maternity leave) LOL. Being a SAHM is VERY difficult, from dealing with public perceptions (not just in your value to the family, but who you are as a person. A woman (or man) could be a PHD, olympic athlete, and if they're a SAHP, society thinks all they know how to do is change diapers, do laundry, cook and the extent of their social awareness is afternoon TV (which is ALL extremely false). Dealing with young kids 24/7 which can be tedious etc. It's not easy.


You're sweet, D&H. Dh is very glad. He wanted the kids raised a certain way, and with me home, he can pursue his career to the fullest.

And I love the freedom. Dh is not very demanding, and really just wants me to be with the kids, wants them to grow up under my influence.

The things dh thought would be best, and which I accepted, require a SAHM: breastfeeding on demand and homeschooling. It has been a great investment, as the kids really do seem happy and responsible.

I think it is cool to hear about the lives of working moms, though. They have their own money, their own exciting days, interaction with other adults, recognition for their achievements, and just general societal approval. They have freedom by having their own income, health insurance, and retirement. My own dd is studying chem eng, and has no intention of being a SAHM.

Bottom line: Everyone wants to feel respected and have their activity valued. We probably all just need that as humans, male or female, earners or not.


----------



## See_Listen_Love

Faithful Wife said:


> sandfly...I wonder why you are addressing me as if you think I give a crap what you think?
> 
> I'll just put you on ignore to solve that issue. Bye.


Ha! Nice, the scientific approach...


----------



## LongWalk

I like this quote by on jld's signature



> One of the deepest feminine pleasures is when a man stands full, present, and unreactive in the midst of his woman's emotional storms. When he stays present with her, and loves her through the layers of wildness and closure, then she feels his trustability, and she can relax. -- David Deida, The Way of the Superior Man


This strikes me as true in the context of this thread. When a man is secure in himself then dissparity of income may not be an issue. A land surveyor who earns less than his wife who is doctor may have a good relationship and a strong bond. They both respect that the other is fruitfully employed.

A woman who risen in a company from web designer to busy senior PR executive may have a harder time relating to husband who is manager of lost baggage claims at the airport. 

Different professions, different personalities, different values, all of these will test a marriage. Inequality in earnings in favor of the wife will not improve the prospects of a couple staying together. 

I remember in college I had to girlfriends who worked in an ice cream parlor one summer. They told me that the manager was married to a beautiful woman who was bored with him. I went for an ice cream one day and the wife came in she was really hot, aloof and icy. 

I think they told me she left him and he had a breakdown.


----------



## Caribbean Man

LongWalk said:


> I like this quote by on jld's signature
> 
> 
> 
> This strikes me as true in the context of this thread. When a man is secure in himself then dissparity of income may not be an issue. A land surveyor who earns less than his wife who is doctor may have a good relationship and a strong bond.
> 
> *They both respect that the other is fruitfully employed.*


:iagree:

In that case, they both see each other as equals, so the power dynamics in the relationship are in a constant state of equilibrium.

This entire scenario is really a mental and emotional state of mind. And is subjective , based on the personality types, temperaments and the values of parties involved.


----------



## RandomDude

Good fking luck to equilibrium if I achieve my goals this year


----------



## vellocet

RandomDude said:


> But the 99% - care in some ways, and within that 99%, 80% lie that they dont. Even those who truly don't, many will still care based on cultural/social/family expectations. So don't let all these compassionate and somewhat naive views fool you, make MONEY NOW!


Well that's good to know. Because my x-wife's new H doesn't make Jack Schidt  She's feeling the pain.


----------



## Created2Write

Machiavelli said:


> Hypergamy was a fundamental fact of life even before humans invented science. It's pretty much the basis of all literature and human development. Ever heard of David and Abigail & Bathsheba? Paris and Helen? How about the English ladies who were disparaged (paired with non-knightly class men)?
> 
> Females are motivated by hypergamy. Are there exceptions? Sure. Are men likely to come across them? Not so much, because exceptions are exceptional. Every time a woman compliments her husband as being a good provider, she's acknowledging her own hypergamy.
> 
> And this is all borne out in the studies contained in the NYT articles I linked to.


I hear what you're saying, but there is a massive difference between the social structures of history and the social structures of today in America and other first world countries: women aren't seen as the lesser sex like they were then. In past generations women were judged on the marriages they made and whether or not they bore sons. A woman who married a man above her in status and bore him sons was considered "successful", for lack of a better word. It wasn't common for women to be valued beyond those two things, so of course they placed immense value on them.

Today, we(well, most of us) acknowledge that women are worth much, much more. Our success as women is no longer defined by the kinds of marriages we make, so I think, with respect, that your evaluation needs an update. When I chose to marry my husband he was penniless, didn't even have a running car, and I was the one bringing in the paycheck.


----------



## adriana

Created2Write said:


> I hear what you're saying, but there is a massive difference between the social structures of history and the social structures of today in America and other first world countries: women aren't seen as the lesser sex like they were then. In past generations women were judged on the marriages they made and whether or not they bore sons. A woman who married a man above her in status and bore him sons was considered "successful", for lack of a better word. It wasn't common for women to be valued beyond those two things, so of course they placed immense value on them.
> 
> Today, we(well, most of us) acknowledge that women are worth much, much more. Our success as women is no longer defined by the kinds of marriages we make, so I think, with respect, that your evaluation needs an update. When I chose to marry my husband he was penniless, didn't even have a running car, and I was the one bringing in the paycheck.



Created2write, you're wasting your time. What you're taking about is beyond the scope of comprehension of an average TAM poster. Sad but true.


----------



## Enginerd

adriana said:


> Created2write, you're wasting your time. What you're taking about is beyond the scope of comprehension of an average TAM poster. Sad but true.


Social structures evolve faster then humans evolve. To cite exceptions like personal experiences as evidence that traditional roles of men and women are only caused by misplaced social expectations is ignoring the biological aspect. It's a combination of factors and of course there is a natural distribution of relationships in any population . I would like to suggest that if the lights went out and the ATM's stopped working most of the remaining population in the first world would eventually return to traditional roles for survivals sake. To be clear I don't mean the church based Puritanical roles as defined by our uptight English ancestors.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Caribbean Man said:


> Do realize that you're contradicting yourself there ?
> 
> People , both men and women seek their equals in relationships.
> Yes?
> 
> Why would a wealthy woman marry you " _despite your entrepreneurial shortcomings _"?
> 
> For love?
> Can't she find another man who's her equal who loves her?
> Yes?
> 
> For security?
> Lol, she could afford ten times the level of security you could provide without having to was your dirty clothes.
> 
> For moral support?
> With wealth and affluence why would she _need_ support from a man who she doesn't consider as her equal especially if she's self made?
> 
> Why would she or why _should_ she even bother being with a man who clearly isn't her equal?





Caribbean Man said:


> ReformedHubby said:
> 
> 
> 
> * If money wasn't important to women. It wouldn't be important to us. We don't pursue money and power because we give a crap about it. We do it because we know what comes with it.*
> 
> 
> 
> :iagree:
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Most men would'nt be motivated to work if they didn't have to provide for a family or a wife.
> 
> And the average woman ain't getting married to a man who's not gainfully employed and whom she thinks isn't upward mobile or has the potential to be and is making every effort to achieve..
Click to expand...

I want to read this thread so badly, but it hurts so much to read every entry, I've had to skip around a little at a time. 

**I AM living proof of this.**


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

There's some kind of causality confound going on here.

Women out earning their spouses may not be the direct cause of more divorces.

Maybe it's a woman working harder than the man outside the home and then having to come home and also do more than 50% of the housework that eventually destroys the marriage.

Maybe it's that women who earn good money of their own feel like they can afford to get divorced if they want to, while many poorer women who would like to divorce stay economically trapped.


----------



## Enginerd

Hopeful Cynic said:


> There's some kind of causality confound going on here.
> 
> Women out earning their spouses may not be the direct cause of more divorces.
> 
> Maybe it's a woman working harder than the man outside the home and then having to come home and also do more than 50% of the housework that eventually destroys the marriage.
> 
> Maybe it's that women who earn good money of their own feel like they can afford to get divorced if they want to, while many poorer women who would like to divorce stay economically trapped.


Maybe its because life long monogamy is unnatural and once it became possible for women to work and divorce without social stigma they answer natures call more openly. The service industry is the only growth segment in the first world and women are more fit for that type of work. As women have gained economic independence it appears they lose the desire to sacrifice their own needs and preferences for that of their husbands.


----------



## 2ntnuf

> As women have gained economic independence it appears they lose the desire to sacrifice their own needs and preferences for that of their husbands.


Replace that with, "any man". Unless, she is needing a companion who is her, "equal", or controllable. 

Not an intentional flame, but a simple truth.


----------



## Mostlycontent

Enginerd said:


> Maybe its because life long monogamy is unnatural and once it became possible for women to work and divorce without social stigma they answer natures call more openly. The service industry is the only growth segment in the first world and women are more fit for that type of work. As women have gained economic independence it appears they lose the desire to sacrifice their own needs and preferences for that of their husbands.



Where do you get this idea? I've read this a few times from some TAM posters and just think it's nonsense. My folks and my W's folks were married for 55 to 60 years each. That sounds like life-long monogamy to me.

If some people can choose to live a life of celibacy then surely others can live a life of monogamy. It's a choice to be committed to another. Plain and simple


----------



## EleGirl

Hopeful Cynic said:


> There's some kind of causality confound going on here.
> 
> Women out earning their spouses may not be the direct cause of more divorces.
> 
> Maybe it's a woman working harder than the man outside the home and then having to come home and also do more than 50% of the housework that eventually destroys the marriage.
> 
> Maybe it's that women who earn good money of their own feel like they can afford to get divorced if they want to, while many poorer women who would like to divorce stay economically trapped.


This is part of what happened with me in my second marriage.

Why go to work as the breadwinner, the only one taking care of the children and the only one doing anything around the house. .. all the while he's sitting around doing nothing.

Who needs that?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Mostlycontent said:


> Where do you get this idea? I've read this a few times from some TAM posters and just think it's nonsense. My folks and my W's folks were married for 55 to 60 years each. That sounds like life-long monogamy to me.
> 
> If some people can choose to live a life of celibacy then surely others can live a life of monogamy. It's a choice to be committed to another. Plain and simple


:iagree:

I too , have seen that statement on TAM a few times and don't agree with it.
Non monogamy is as " natural " as wearing clothes , shoes or taking a vacation in Hawaii.

The only thing that is natural to human beings is survival.

Monogamy is as " unnatural " as getting a formal education and a job that affords food on the table and a roof over your head.
All of them being social constructs , that human beings have made for the long term survival of our species.

It is natural to eat food because we need it to survive. It is natural to sleep because we need rest. So we came up with a complex construct of agricultural and industrial systems , to make food and shelter available to the average person.

It is also natural to procreate , so we came up with a simple construct , that gives our offspring a good chance of survival via education and employment , when we procreate.

That construct is called monogamous marriage.


----------



## FormerSelf

I keep trying to respond, but also keep deleting what I am trying to say. Must mean my issues are being challenged!!! :smthumbup:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Enginerd said:


> Social structures evolve faster then humans evolve. To cite exceptions like personal experiences as evidence that traditional roles of men and women are only caused by misplaced social expectations is ignoring the biological aspect. It's a combination of factors and of course there is a natural distribution of relationships in any population . I would like to suggest that if the lights went out and the ATM's stopped working most of the remaining population in the first world would eventually return to traditional roles for survivals sake. To be clear I don't mean the church based Puritanical roles as defined by our uptight English ancestors.


Science and technology are evolving much faster than our social structures are . In a social context , we are leaving ourselves behind.


----------



## Enginerd

Mostlycontent said:


> Where do you get this idea? I've read this a few times from some TAM posters and just think it's nonsense. My folks and my W's folks were married for 55 to 60 years each. That sounds like life-long monogamy to me.
> 
> If some people can choose to live a life of celibacy then surely others can live a life of monogamy. It's a choice to be committed to another. Plain and simple


I get it from divorce rates, infidelity rates and studies on human sexuality. The exception is true monogamy. Its not the rule. The same goes for celibacy. Its a very small percentage. I choose to be monogamous, but its not what come natural. This is also a tendency on TAM to site personal experiences as proof a theory or belief is incorrect. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to take a medication that was only tested a few people. Wouldn't you want to see the drug tested on a large diverse population so you could be sure it was safe?


----------



## Enginerd

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I too , have seen that statement on TAM a few times and don't agree with it.
> Non monogamy is as " natural " as wearing clothes , shoes or taking a vacation in Hawaii.
> 
> The only thing that is natural to human beings is survival.
> 
> Monogamy is as " unnatural " as getting a formal education and a job that affords food on the table and a roof over your head.
> All of them being social constructs , that human beings have made for the long term survival of our species.
> 
> It is natural to eat food because we need it to survive. It is natural to sleep because we need rest. So we came up with a complex construct of agricultural and industrial systems , to make food and shelter available to the average person.
> 
> It is also natural to procreate , so we came up with a simple construct , that gives our offspring a good chance of survival via education and employment , when we procreate.
> 
> That construct is called monogamous marriage.


The statistics indicate most people don't remain monogamous. The monogamy part is from the church, but this has really never applied to the rich and powerful. The monogamy requirement was intended for serfs.


----------



## Kahlil Gibran

Great article that sums up the whole premise of this thread.

_...Her marriage fell apart after six years of supporting her husband, who had become unemployed. “Although he subsequently got work and we started to gain ground again, it wasn’t enough. I’d had the upper hand and all the responsibility for too long.”
With honesty, she says she feels the concern about a man’s finances is hard-wired.
“I think we haven’t evolved far enough for financial strength not to be attractive to women. We’re still turned on by a man who has more than we have.”..._

Few attractions for older, divorced men


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Kahlil Gibran said:


> Great article that sums up the whole premise of this thread.
> 
> _...Her marriage fell apart after six years of supporting her husband, who had become unemployed. “Although he subsequently got work and we started to gain ground again, it wasn’t enough. I’d had the upper hand and all the responsibility for too long.”
> With honesty, she says she feels the concern about a man’s finances is hard-wired.
> “I think we haven’t evolved far enough for financial strength not to be attractive to women. We’re still turned on by a man who has more than we have.”..._
> 
> Few attractions for older, divorced men


In the privileged world of women business execs, doctors, and the like, maybe that sort of evolutionary (decoded: class-based) "hardwiring" has any meaning to it. 

I have some advice for this Harry guy: why don't you try dating a different kind of woman than these financial snobs?

And by the way, I love this line from the article: “I know men who were hit hard by a divorce, with the GFC knocking out their super and those in service industries now struggling to find clients. The last thing these blokes need is some woman turning her nose up at them because only affluent men tick her boxes.” :smthumbup:

To make a long story short, women with that attitude ain't worth it. Move along and find yourself a better one.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Enginerd said:


> The statistics indicate most people don't remain monogamous. The monogamy part is from the church, but this has really never applied to the rich and powerful. The monogamy requirement was intended for serfs.


No. The statistics indicate that about 22% of men and 14% of women cheat on a spouse during their lifetime. that leaves a lot offaithful people left over. Now admittedly that is one particular study, but it is a well-repected, often referenced one.


----------



## chillymorn

nuclearnightmare said:


> No. The statistics indicate that about 22% of men and 14% of women cheat on a spouse during their lifetime. that leaves a lot offaithful people left over. Now admittedly that is one particular study, but it is a well-repected, often referenced one.


you can find stats all over the place on how much cheating is going on and by whom.


----------



## murphy5

I thought the accepted stats, like those published in the wall street journal, are more like 55% men and 40% of all women cheat.


----------



## chillymorn

i personally feel women cheat more then men and always have. its easy for them and they are more cunning and devious than men.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

chillymorn said:


> you can find stats all over the place on how much cheating is going on and by whom.


That's true. But I believe the current thinking among social scientists is that the more trustworthy studies come up with the lower rates. I think it's a pretty important question, what the actual cheating rates are. It can really affect how one perceives human nature, frankly. Most especially if one is a BS.

Wonder if there's a way we can request an expert opinion on a question like this. Does TAM have professional experts on tap to respond to specific questions?


----------



## lookinforhelpandhope

Kahlil Gibran said:


> This site is a big proponent of the “No more Mr. Nice Guy” approach, which is fine... in theory. But, how does one pull that off if their wife makes more money? Theories are great, but in American reality, money talks and always has.
> Dr. Glover (two failed marriages) likes to throw out the premise that deep down women want to feel like their male counterpart “sets the tone and takes the lead”. Even if you are a 250 lb. wear-the-pants tough guy, good luck with that if the woman brings 3+ times of the money to the table. There is a cliche that women like to marry/date up. If that’s the case, men should stick with going after the waitress at the local diner. They both stand a good chance of being happy.


In response to the original question, I always earned more than my SO and found that there was a simple way to handle the earnings gap. I just transferred money to him every paycheck (enough for my share of the bills plus some extra0 and he took care of finances, paying for dates or trips and still had plenty of his own money left too.

For me it didn't matter that he earned less. He had a lot more responsability than me and his job was (very) dangerous. In spite of the difference in pay I really felt he had achieved a lot more in his career and in working up to his position than I ever had and that meant more than the $ amount of compensation that our exployers chose to offer.


----------



## that_girl

ScarletBegonias said:


> I hadn't realized money factored into not being a whiny,passive aggressive MrNiceGuy. I always thought this was something you did for yourself regardless of marital status or money status.


Yea. I don't get that.

At the moment, I make more than my H. I have a steady income with a steady career.

He's in the car industry (was a service rep for 11 years, now back to wrenching). That industry got bad. In the 7 years I've known him, he's now making HALF of what he made when we met. Simply because of "bottom lines", change in cars (they don't need as much work), and all the ways the dealership not only sucks money from clients, but its employees as well. He was working 12 hour days, making crap. Things are better now that he's back in mechanics. More money, but still a bit less than myself.

Who cares.

Money comes and goes. I have to look at our relationship (which is rocky) and that has nothing to do with money.


----------

