# Women and Hypergamy



## UpsideDownWorld11

Wandering across the internet, I came across this excerpt from the book Sexual Market Value by Chris Capetown. I wonder if any of you gentlemen have any insight, personal or otherwise, on this:

“Men’s instincts tend toward polygamy, women’s toward hypergamy. Hypergamy, for those who don’t know, is women’s congenital inclination to continually trade up in men. The word has Greek origins (hyper meaning ‘above’ and gamos meaning ‘marriage’) and originally referred to women’s tendency to “marry up”, but applies equally to non-matrimonial relationships.

Whereas all men have a natural urge to copulate with a great variety of fertile women (because, in our evolutionary history, such behavior improved our chances of gene proliferation), women have a corresponding biological drive to have relations with the highest quality man they possible can (for the same reason) and to gain exclusive commitment from that man. Briefly put, men want a lot of women, women want one really great guy."

More so, what I'm interested in is this natural tendency for women to trade up for men that they perceive have higher value, which is what I understand is Hypergamy...


----------



## sokillme

This may be how both sexes are at their most base instincts, but if you read the web you would think this is the majority of how people are. Thank God most of us are not sociopaths and therefore have things like emotion, love, loyalty and honor which we know are more important then whether the guy has a bigger house or we get to bang that new girl you met at the bar.


----------



## ConanHub

Never wanted more than one woman myself. Guess I'm not as evolved as others.

Hypergamy is just a term for crappy behavior and it can apply to anyone.


----------



## personofinterest

YAWN. Let me guess… U also read the red pill and M GTO W…


----------



## OnTheFly

personofinterest said:


> John. Let me guess… U also read the red pill and M GTO W…


Oh, THAT old chestnut……an attempt at shaming to silence an argument……dime-store feminist tactic, yeesh!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Sigh...


----------



## personofinterest

OnTheFly said:


> Oh, THAT old chestnut……an attempt at shaming to silence an argument……dime-store feminist tactic, yeesh!


It cracks me up that you think I am a feminist. It makes my day every time I read it.

Me, the conservative, Christian, Ephesians 5 believing wife who honors my husband, takes care of my home, and despises those rants vagina hat wearers.

Just because you roll your eyes at typical backhanded misogyny doesn't make you a misandrist. I love men. I love my father, my husband, my awesome brother...the great friends and family I have who are good men. I honestly believe that most men try to do the right thing and be good people.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to picture me with hairy armpits and a strident, whiny voice, have at it.

I'll enjoy the dinner I cook for my hubby tonight....and later I'll probably make him a sammich - for real <3


----------



## Bananapeel

I believe hypergamy is real and one factor out of many in women's decisions on which men they want to be with and whether they choose to be exclusive. But, at the core, everyone wants the best person they can get and I don't think it is gender specific. 

The way to use the hypergamy theory to your benefit is to realize that if women want the best man they can get you should do your best to be the best version of yourself and you should avoid complacency because that will drop you down a notch or two in your desirability level.


----------



## personofinterest

Bananapeel said:


> I believe hypergamy is real and one factor out of many in women's decisions on which men they want to be with. But, at the core, everyone wants the best person they can get and I don't think it is gender specific.
> 
> The way to use the hypergamy theory to your benefit is to realize that if women want the best man they can get you should do your best to be the best version of yourself and you should avoid complacency because that will drop you down a notch or two in your desirability level.



THAT'S NOT FAIR!!! I am socially awkward, live with my mom, have a neck beard, a part time job, and have a great relationship with a warrioress on WoW!! These women should give me a chance! I hold the door open! They OWE me a chance!!!

Just kidding

On paper, it would look like I "downgraded." my fist husband had a terminal degree, was more "refined," made a very slightly higher salary, had more hair lol

My current hubby went to community college, is blue collar, would rather fish or ride razors than go to "the theatah."

But my current husband knows how to love.

So I guess I did upgrade


----------



## PigglyWiggly

I haven't found this to be true. I know it is anecdotal but I haven't been dumped for upgrades and I've dated above my paygrade most of my life. I am a serial monogamist


----------



## uhtred

Humans are not very strongly driven by instincts anymore. We don't whack each other over the head when we get angry - at least not very often. We don't take a dump in the street when or bowels are full. 

It may be true that on average men would prefer more partners than would women or that women are more likely to marry for status, but I don't see it as very important since people don't date statistical partners.

I don't know any women who have "traded up". Not saying it doesn't happen, but it can't anywhere near universal.


----------



## OnTheFly

personofinterest said:


> Me, the conservative, Christian, Ephesians 5 believing wife who honors my husband, takes care of my home, and despises those rants vagina hat wearers.


True or not, I would have never guessed by the way you post.

Anyway, many wise folks on this board say, 'believe their actions, not words'


----------



## personofinterest

OnTheFly said:


> True or not, I would have never guessed by the way you post.
> 
> Anyway, many wise folks on this board say, 'believe their actions, not words'


Then it's a good thing that my husband, my family, and my IRL friends all see my actions.

While you ONLY see words 

By the way....do you like cats?


----------



## Bananapeel

Upsidedown - you look like you are on a mission for self improvement and are currently checking into a variety of theories. When I got divorced I wanted to learn more about human nature so I could better understand/influence future relationships. These men's books you're looking into can be really good but you have to decide what your relationship goals are to pick the best book. If you are just looking to get laid with lots of women then one set of teaching is beneficial but if you are looking for a committed and healthy relationship than another area would help you. 

For just getting laid you'd want to focus on the red pill stuff, MGTOW, rules from Leykis 101, etc. and then try to select for the subgroup of women that those styles work well with. 

For learning how to develop a healthy relationship and good interpersonal skills then How to be a 3% man, his needs her needs, how to win friends and influence people, etc. would be good choices, and you'd obviously want to try to select for a different subgroup of women. 

I actually draw from both camps, depending on who the woman is and the type of interest I have in her and I can tell you that both sets of theories work quite well. 

I have not ever had a woman trade me out for a better man as per the hypergamy theory, but my XW for some bizarre reason would have chosen her AP over me in a heartbeat. On paper there is no comparison between us and I'm vastly superior in every category (smarter, more successful, better looking, bigger wiener, better shape, more education, higher social status), but in her eyes he was superior so I think that would be an example of hypergamy. Again, I don't really think this is gender specific thing because you'll see the same behaviors out of men too.


----------



## personofinterest

> For just getting laid you'd want to focus on the red pill stuff, MGTOW, rules from Leykis 101, etc. and then try to select for the subgroup of women that those styles work well with.
> 
> For learning how to develop a healthy relationship and good interpersonal skills then How to be a 3% man, his needs her needs, how to win friends and influence people, etc. would be good choices, and you'd obviously want to try to select for a different subgroup of women.
> 
> I actually draw from both camps, depending on who the woman is and the type of interest I have in her and I can tell you that both sets of theories work quite well.


I like this. It is very balanced and factual. You kind of have to read for what it is you actually want. Notches on a bedpost require different philosophies than a healthy, long term relationship.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> I like this. It is very balanced and factual. You kind of have to read for what it is you actually want. Notches on a bedpost require different philosophies than a healthy, long term relationship.


INdeed! I often see advice that I think might be good for getting laid but not for a long term partner.


----------



## personofinterest

PigglyWiggly said:


> INdeed! I often see advice that I think might be good for getting laid but not for a long term partner.


True

Protip: If you hate women, you probably won;t have a relationship with one. And after awhile, you might not have as much luck getting laid either lol


----------



## Bananapeel

uhtred said:


> Humans are not very strongly driven by instincts anymore. We don't whack each other over the head when we get angry - at least not very often.  We don't take a dump in the street when or bowels are full.


You'd think that but....https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...cation-canada-survellience-footage/618333002/ 

:rofl:


----------



## dadstartingover

uhtred said:


> Humans are not very strongly driven by instincts anymore. We don't whack each other over the head when we get angry - at least not very often. We don't take a dump in the street when or bowels are full.


Somebody hasn't been to India... or China. :wink2:

Human beings are animals. We have so many instinctual drives embedded in us. Caveman Code, I call it. This little blip of time we call the modern age is just a fraction of a blink of an eye on the grand timeline of human history. What we do and how we act towards each other is so animalistic on so many levels... but we feel comforted by the fact that we have free will and a deeper understanding of ourselves that we overcome these animalistic actions and urges on a consistent basis. We're all individuals, gosh darnit! 

Yeah... no. We're so predictable, it's not even funny. 

Some people make a living out of sitting back and watching how people act (anthropologists, sociologists, pychologists, etc). and watch all the consistent and predictable behavior over and over again. A lot of people don't like being told they're predictable. "I'm special, gosh darnit! Not me! That doesn't pertain to me! I'm not like that! Therefore all your years of observations and 100,000 data points are false!"

Hypergamy falls under the "predictable behavior we see again and again but it sucks" category. It is what it is. Doesn't make women evil. Just means the best of the best get the spoils and the rest of us sit back and complain. Been that way since the beginning of time. Dudes can either play the game and elbow their way to the top of the pyramid where the high-quality women are, or they sit at home and jerk off to porn.

These days, most men choose option B. Then they get online and whine about it. A lot. "Can you believe these women!?" Usually, these guys have very little experience with women and put them on the highest pedestal. To think that their woman has CONDITIONAL love for him is a huge slap in the face. They want their woman to love them like their mommy does.


----------



## Married but Happy

Instincts are alive and well. However, as somewhat rational, self-aware beings, we factor in self-interest as well. Sure, upgrading may be instinctual and desirable, but there are risks - and competition - involved as well, so self-interest lets you settle for the assured situation you already have. Besides, if you take the risk and lose, someone else will probably have taken your place - your discard may be someone else's upgrade. Additionally, we also form bonds, create routines, and sometimes even fall/stay in love with an imperfect spouse. Familiarity can be a good thing.

Hypergamy may apply if you are unhappy with what you have and are certain you can do better. This can also apply to men - I wasn't happy with my ex and was sure I could do better, so I got rid of her and made a massive upgrade.


----------



## personofinterest

I've noticed a subset of men talk about this idea of putting women on a pedestal a lot. I would like to know exactly what they mean by that and what they would say the opposit of that is. Because honestly, what it sounds like to me is to make sure you don't think too highly of women, I. Be. Keep them in their less then place, because women like to be mistreated and it keeps them on their toes. If I'm wrong then I am thankful to be wrong


----------



## Faithful Wife

My thoughts on hypergamy.....

If you are a guy who reads and believes such nonsense, then it's true. Every woman you end up with is going to toss you as soon as a better man comes along. 

Likewise, if you are a woman who thinks all men want to bang as many women as they can because they are slavering dogs, then every man you end up with is going to be a complete Rover. 

Myself, I know these stereotypes are not anything I need to worry about in my actual relationships because I don't partner with people who have those types of negative feelings about the opposite sex. It's nice to partner with actual human beings who love and adore each other and don't live in fear of each other. Adulting.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

personofinterest said:


> I've noticed a subset of men talk about this idea of putting women on a pedestal a lot. I would like to know exactly what they mean by that and what they would say the opposit of that is. Because honestly, what it sounds like to me is to make sure you don't think too highly of women, I. Be. Keep them in their less then place, because women like to be mistreated and it keeps them on their toes. If I'm wrong then I am thankful to be wrong



It basically an affliction called "doormatitus", where the man bends or subjugates his desires, goals, dreams in favor of his oneitus (soulmate). Mainly, because he is attacked with scarcity mentality and she must be the one... Instead of a partnership where there is give/take, there is only take.

Basically if you know you'd be fine with or without your SO, you likely don't suffer from this tragic affliction.


----------



## personofinterest

Thank you for explaining that period that makes perfect sense. My husband loves and adores me and takes amazing care of me. However, hes not gonna take any SH… from me either. And if I became entitled and lazy or cheated on him or something I have no doubt I would be out on my butt.


----------



## Townes

personofinterest said:


> I've noticed a subset of men talk about this idea of putting women on a pedestal a lot. I would like to know exactly what they mean by that and what they would say the opposit of that is. Because honestly, what it sounds like to me is to make sure you don't think too highly of women, I. Be. Keep them in their less then place, because women like to be mistreated and it keeps them on their toes. If I'm wrong then I am thankful to be wrong


I think it's a bit of a misnomer because I don't think it's really about bringing a woman down as much as it is bringing yourself up in your mind to a position of equal worth and standing. A lot of guys that struggle with this are guys that had very little experience with women before their current relationship and/or are sexually/socially awkward.

Because of that they genuinely don't know if they'll be able to attract and keep another woman, so they'll put up with all kinds of abusive behavior to try and keep women from leaving them. A lot of these guys are the ones that are drawn to the red pill/ pick up artist stuff in the first place because they don't understand women, and relationships don't come naturally to them. 

The goal would be to become a healthy, interdependent adult that realizes his life won't be over if a particular relationship ends.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

uhtred said:


> Humans are not very strongly driven by instincts anymore. We don't whack each other over the head when we get angry - at least not very often. We don't take a dump in the street when or bowels are full.


That is kind of what interests me our biological drive vs the sociological conditioning of humans. We are all animals at our core and only through sociological programming do we become a rational being. But when it comes down to it, when are we likely to revert back to instinctual patterns and how does it differ between the sexes. Take the War Bride Syndrome:

"Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed at a moment’s notice. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women. Why should that be?

On the face of it you may think that men’s better ability to rationally remove themselves from the emotional would make them better at coping with psychological trauma, but the reverse is actually the case. Women seem to have a better ability to accept emotional sacrifice and move on, either ignoring those stresses or blocking them entirely from their conscious awareness. Women possessing a more pronounced empathic capacity undoubtedly served our species in nurturing young and understanding tribal social dynamics, however it was also a liability with regards to a hostile change in her environment. Stockholm Syndrome is far more pronounced in female captives (the story of Jaycee Duguard comes to mind), why should that be? Because women’s peripheral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism." -Rational Male, Rollo Tomassi

Its all theoretical, but I find it interesting. This is beyond the typical Red-Pill PUA arena.


----------



## BarbedFenceRider

While there seems to be both sides of putting the other sex "in their place"... I do feel that the majority of recognizing the differences in the sexes is just that! Recognition. There is nothing wrong with identifying (correctly ofcourse) behaviors and norms. You don't have to "hate" the other sex to identify patterns and behaviors in our current culture. Hypergamy is real. Monkey branching is real, so is serial cheating and misogyny....

By realizing this fact. Partners can better evaluate relationships and make wiser decisions concerning them. No, men don't need to keep "them women barefoot and in da kitchen!" Nor do we assume that women can berate and belittle men for being the dumb neanderthal. We can recognize our inherent behaviors and find better compatibility with partners before the 51% marriage/ relationship failure takes place. Wishful thinking anyway...

In my case, when dealing with a crisis in the marriage, hypergamy was and IS a factor that I had to realize. I could accept it and develop my own life towards happiness or I could deny it exists and be left wondering why my partner is behaving the way she is...Just my take of it, mind you.


----------



## uhtred

I go to China quite frequently - not really that different from the US, other than the lack of safety rules. (it was very different in the past) 

How would your theory explain that the women I know have generally stayed with their long term partners. That the men I know are mostly monogamous. 

I have no desire to jump up and down and pound on the ground to scare off other males, nor am I intimated by ground-pounding "alpha" *******s. I'm just not in that game at all. 




dadstartingover said:


> Somebody hasn't been to India... or China. :wink2:
> 
> Human beings are animals. We have so many instinctual drives embedded in us. Caveman Code, I call it. This little blip of time we call the modern age is just a fraction of a blink of an eye on the grand timeline of human history. What we do and how we act towards each other is so animalistic on so many levels... but we feel comforted by the fact that we have free will and a deeper understanding of ourselves that we overcome these animalistic actions and urges on a consistent basis. We're all individuals, gosh darnit!
> 
> Yeah... no. We're so predictable, it's not even funny.
> 
> Some people make a living out of sitting back and watching how people act (anthropologists, sociologists, pychologists, etc). and watch all the consistent and predictable behavior over and over again. A lot of people don't like being told they're predictable. "I'm special, gosh darnit! Not me! That doesn't pertain to me! I'm not like that! Therefore all your years of observations and 100,000 data points are false!"
> 
> Hypergamy falls under the "predictable behavior we see again and again but it sucks" category. It is what it is. Doesn't make women evil. Just means the best of the best get the spoils and the rest of us sit back and complain. Been that way since the beginning of time. Dudes can either play the game and elbow their way to the top of the pyramid where the high-quality women are, or they sit at home and jerk off to porn.
> 
> These days, most men choose option B. Then they get online and whine about it. A lot. "Can you believe these women!?" Usually, these guys have very little experience with women and put them on the highest pedestal. To think that their woman has CONDITIONAL love for him is a huge slap in the face. They want their woman to love them like their mommy does.


----------



## personofinterest

I think it depends on what you do with the information. For me, when there was strife and loneliness and such, my FIRST move was to look at myself. I bought a couple of marriage books that addressed what husbands typically need, used my own powers of observation, and changed MYSELF into a better partner first.

If focusing on the possible existence of widespread hypergamy motivates a man to be the best he can be, then I can see how that could be a good tool. If he uses it as a crutch because "those women always monkey branch to something better so it's not MY problem," then it becomes lazy victimhood. Just like if a woman focuses on "men and their baser instincts," they become whining shrews instead of using that knowledge to be better wives.

In other words, when we use sound bytes to absolve ourselves of responsibility, it is not good.

It's just like my earlier tongue in cheeks remark. It was mainly just a pebble I tossed out there, and the dog that yelped is the dog I hit. You can't successfully push a button if it's not a button.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

uhtred said:


> I go to China quite frequently - not really that different from the US, other than the lack of safety rules. (it was very different in the past)
> 
> How would your theory explain that the women I know have generally stayed with their long term partners. That the men I know are mostly monogamous.
> 
> I have no desire to jump up and down and pound on the ground to scare off other males, nor am I intimated by ground-pounding "alpha" *******s. I'm just not in that game at all.


You don't need to dress in a loin cloth and club women over the head to acknowledge basic biological drives. When you see an attractive woman dressed very form fitting, you turn your head. Why, you are happy in monogamy, but you still look with not so clean thoughts. I mean its not rational because you know you can't have her as you are married (if you are faithful), but you are still drawn to her.

Looks at societies that crumble through economic/government collapse. The society will decay into anarchy where instincts reign, strength will prevail, whether physical or through human innovation like guns/machines.

Blow away the social constructs, we are just animals conditioned to survive through our environment.


----------



## Bananapeel

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> That is kind of what interests me our biological drive vs the sociological conditioning of humans. We are all animals at our core and only through sociological programming do we become a rational being. But when it comes down to it, when are we likely to revert back to instinctual patterns and how does it differ between the sexes. Take the War Bride Syndrome:


I can't comment on the differences between the sexes in this regard. However, people revert back to instincts when they are in a stressful situation that they don't have the ability to reason through. It could be due to things as simple as food insecurity, relationship insecurity, loss of a job, or anything that breaks their normal comfort patterns. The reason we don't fight over food is because there isn't a shortage and we know if we don't have enough food we can just go to the grocery store and buy more. But, if we were in a different environment we might revert back to fighting. Same thing with relationships. If you are content in your relationship you are less likely to be looking for a different partner. It also goes with mate selectivity. If 99% of the male population died off suddenly the selectiveness women had for men all but disappear, but if 99% of the women died off the selectiveness women had for a mate would be magnified; and this goes back to the security/insecurity of knowing what your odds are of finding a mate. 

To think again with our lizard brains instead of our cerebral cortex humans just need to be put in a novel or stressful situation where impulse takes control over reasoning. If you follow the PUA strategy there are things that men can do to make women less comfortable and more likely to react emotionally because they are in an uncomfortable state.


----------



## Buddy400

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Wandering across the internet, I came across this excerpt from the book Sexual Market Value by Chris Capetown. I wonder if any of you gentlemen have any insight, personal or otherwise, on this:
> 
> “Men’s instincts tend toward polygamy, women’s toward hypergamy. Hypergamy, for those who don’t know, is women’s congenital inclination to continually trade up in men. The word has Greek origins (hyper meaning ‘above’ and gamos meaning ‘marriage’) and originally referred to women’s tendency to “marry up”, but applies equally to non-matrimonial relationships.
> 
> Whereas all men have a natural urge to copulate with a great variety of fertile women (because, in our evolutionary history, such behavior improved our chances of gene proliferation), women have a corresponding biological drive to have relations with the highest quality man they possible can (for the same reason) and to gain exclusive commitment from that man. Briefly put, men want a lot of women, women want one really great guy."
> 
> More so, what I'm interested in is this natural tendency for women to trade up for men that they perceive have higher value, which is what I understand is Hypergamy...


Although I don't have a problem with most Red Pill opinions, I've never really gotten what's supposed to be wrong about 'having a natural tendency to trade up for people one perceives as having a higher value'.

Wouldn't both men and women want to 'trade up' in this case (assuming that it was as easily done as it's made to seem)?

Of course, most don't do it because it's not easy in real life to 'trade up'. Also, it's entirely possible that you'd 'trade up' just to be 'traded out' soon after and be worse off than when you started. 

If there's a difference between the sexes that might affect this, it might be that men are more loyal (generally more of a masculine quality). 

It also seems that (in relationships) men are more easily satisfied and might, therefore, see less need to 'trade up'.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Bananapeel said:


> To think again with our lizard brains instead of our cerebral cortex humans just need to be put in a novel or stressful situation where impulse takes control over reasoning. If you follow the PUA strategy there are things that men can do to make women less comfortable and more likely to react emotionally because they are in an uncomfortable state.


Ha, that sounds a little rapey, but not too far off. PUA is simply about using qualities women generally find attractive (looks, affluence, confidence, humor) to your favor. It not about making them uncomfortable, just not becoming too comfortable. Comfort kills sexual desire. The nice guy will attempt to friend the girl as a way to gaming her, which a PUA would never do, since they understand mystery builds attraction, which equals sex.


----------



## Buddy400

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Briefly put, men want a lot of women, women want one really great guy."


An additional comment on the above.

Men may want a lot of women (to have sex with) but usually find that hard to accomplish and therefore find that the best way to have more sex is by committing to one woman (less of an option as women begin to care less about commitment). 

Women want one really great guy, _while they consider him to be a really great guy_. Also, since women rate most men as below average, there's a greater chance that they'll accept commitment from a guy they perceive as being less than great (therefore, increasing the chance of later regretting it).


----------



## personofinterest

> If you follow the PUA strategy there are things that men can do to make women less comfortable and more likely to react emotionally because they are in an uncomfortable state.


And why would this appeal to a really mature man with high character? I am not being ugly, I am serious. Who thinks like this?


----------



## Bananapeel

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Ha, that sounds a little rapey, but not too far off. PUA is simply about using qualities women generally find attractive (looks, affluence, confidence, humor) to your favor. It not about making them uncomfortable, just not becoming too comfortable. Comfort kills sexual desire. The nice guy will attempt to friend the girl as a way to gaming her, which a PUA would never do, since they understand mystery builds attraction, which equals sex.


Yeah, it's definitely a fine line to walk and there are all different sorts of techniques. A common technique is using an underhanded compliment to cause women to feel less comfortable so that the woman engages in approval seeking behavior. 

[before I get flamed - this is for the purpose of the discussion and I don't personally subscribe to the PUA mentality]


----------



## NextTimeAround

> Wouldn't both men and women want to 'trade up' in this case (assuming that it was as easily done as it's made to seem)?
> 
> Of course, most don't do it because it's not easy in real life to 'trade up'. Also, it's entirely possible that you'd 'trade up' just to be 'traded out' soon after and be worse off than when you started.


I agree. When I was divorced, I was adamant that I was not going to "trade down" with my second husband compared to my first husband.


----------



## Bananapeel

personofinterest said:


> And why would this appeal to a really mature man with high character? I am not being ugly, I am serious. Who thinks like this?


It doesn't appeal to a mature man. But like everything else there are a spectrum of men and values and some think like this. Some men are only looking to get laid with as many women as they can and are willing to utilize any strategy to get what they want. There are even books, internet forums, and courses that will teach guys how to do these things. I don't personally support that philosophy but have a biased viewpoint because I don't struggle in finding women. If I am looking for a purely sexual relationship I'm very direct and honest about it with the women so they can choose for themselves whether they want the same thing or not (usually they say yes). So even though I don't play those games I do know how they operate. It behooves women to know as well so they aren't surprised when they encounter guys that behave that way. If I had a daughter I'd make sure to teach her this stuff so she could identify and avoid guys like that.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Buddy400 said:


> An additional comment on the above.
> 
> Men may want a lot of women (to have sex with) but usually find that hard to accomplish and therefore find that the best way to have more sex is by committing to one woman (less of an option as women begin to care less about commitment).
> 
> Women want one really great guy, _while they consider him to be a really great guy_. Also, since women rate most men as below average, there's a greater chance that they'll accept commitment from a guy they perceive as being less than great (therefore, increasing the chance of later regretting it).


I sort of agree but sort of disagree with this. Ever heard of the 80/20 rule- 80% of women want to have sex and / or pair off with the top 20% of men. These guys can spin plates all the time and get more sex than you or I could ever dream of.

As for Monogamy equaling regular sex, sure, but how many times do we read here about duty sex or sexless marriages? Many of these men would find lots more sex single than they do with an unloving spouse. Women want a great guy that they find desirable. As long as that desire is there you will get the sex, once that desire slips (through comfort or whatever) you either get the sexless marriage or the ILYBINILY or "I'm not happy" speech. In other words she has checked out and you better find a lawyer...you can't negotiate back that desire once its gone. In a way, monogamy is hard because that consistent stream of sex you once enjoyed seems to trickle away as life happens.


----------



## personofinterest

> In other words she has checked out and you better find a lawyer...you can't negotiate back that desire once its gone. In a way, monogamy is hard because that consistent stream of sex you once enjoyed seems to trickle away as life happens.


I may sound like an old codger, but I wonder if this boils down to revealing someone's actual work ethic....

I mean, I think the reason things trickle is because people stop making an effort. They stop seeing the other person as special and assume they will always be there. This CAN be avoided, but not if you're lazy.

My parents have been married almost 60 years. They still flirt. She still brings him a snack at night. He still gets her little things (not expensive) that he knows she'll like. They kiss and hold hands. They prioritize each other. And yes, at times it is work. My dad's dementia can make him ornery.

It's called choice and commitment.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Bananapeel said:


> It doesn't appeal to a mature man. But like everything else there are a spectrum of men and values and some think like this. Some men are only looking to get laid with as many women as they can and are willing to utilize any strategy to get what they want. There are even books, internet forums, and courses that will teach guys how to do these things. I don't personally support that philosophy but have a biased viewpoint because I don't struggle in finding women. If I am looking for a purely sexual relationship I'm very direct and honest about it with the women so they can choose for themselves whether they want the same thing or not (usually they say yes). So even though I don't play those games I do know how they operate. It behooves women to know as well so they aren't surprised when they encounter guys that behave that way. If I had a daughter I'd make sure to teach her this stuff so she could identify and avoid guys like that.


You can still utilize this PUA in an honest way. Just don't commit to anyone and don't lie about your intentions. Most of these guys that are seeing multiple women at once don't even hide it from their women, because the theory is it breeds competition anxiety. Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much. Plates will spin off and they pick up another one. Just tell your daughter to not be one of those women.


----------



## Bananapeel

I'm currently spinning plates and I don't consider it doing the PUA thing. I tell the women upfront that I'm not looking for exclusivity or a committed relationship and then they can decide for themselves whether they still want to join me or not. 

One of my current women told me on our first date that she wouldn't sleep with someone outside of an exclusive relationship and I told that I respect that and we'd just part ways after we finished our drink... she then she invited me back to her place and we had porn star style sex. A couple dates later she told me she was worried I couldn't give her what she wanted in a relationship and I told that she was right and that I've been honest about it from the beginning. She got mad for an evening but came over for a booty call the following night. She's actually too much drama for me so I'm going to end things with her soon. 

One of the women I'm seeing is pretty amazing so I might stop spinning plates soon and just date her and see where it goes.

Edit: Forgot to mention. The 80/20 rule is only semi correct. Most guys that are really good with women only have about 3-5% success rate. They are just really good at quickly telling a woman's interest level so they know who to target and who not to waste their time on.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> I've noticed a subset of men talk about this idea of putting women on a pedestal a lot. I would like to know exactly what they mean by that and what they would say the opposit of that is. Because honestly, what it sounds like to me is to make sure you don't think too highly of women, I. Be. Keep them in their less then place, because women like to be mistreated and it keeps them on their toes. If I'm wrong then I am thankful to be wrong


I've seen what is being referred to a lot and spoken about it often.

It is a problem with the man and his inner workings and perceptions, not the woman.

Men who have their women on a pedestal have unhealthy expectations and view points that can cause a plethora of problems from getting walked on like a doormat to harming his woman emotionally over a less than ideal sexual history.


----------



## SunCMars

Earlier in the last couple of Centuries, these mate seeking tendencies were rather true with respect with many women.

If you read what today's women want it is, it remains:

a. A good sense of humor.
b. Intelligence.
c. A steady job/income
d. Honesty. 
e. Loyalty.
f. A nice guy..kind.
g. A man who is social minded.
h. A man who enjoys life, goes out, does things.
i. Likes kids.
j. Likes pets.
k. Enjoys intimacy.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Bananapeel said:


> I'm currently spinning plates and I don't consider it doing the PUA thing. I tell the women upfront that I'm not looking for exclusivity or a committed relationship and then they can decide for themselves whether they still want to join me or not.
> 
> One of my current women told me on our first date that she wouldn't sleep with someone outside of an exclusive relationship and I told that I respect that and we'd just part ways after we finished our drink... she then she invited me back to her place and we had porn star style sex. A couple dates later she told me she was worried I couldn't give her what she wanted in a relationship and I told that she was right and that I've been honest about it from the beginning. She got mad for an evening but came over for a booty call the following night. She's actually too much drama for me so I'm going to end things with her soon.
> 
> One of the women I'm seeing is pretty amazing so I might stop spinning plates soon and just date her and see where it goes.
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention. The 80/20 rule is only semi correct. Most guys that are really good with women only have about 3-5% success rate. They are just really good at quickly telling a woman's interest level so they know who to target and who not to waste their time on.


Just brag why doncha? LOL. I don't think its something you should be ashamed of or whatever, you can be an ethical PUA too. Just be honest, which you are doing. Sounds like the one that 'can't have sex outside exclusivity' wasn't such a special snowflake after all and has found out about competition anxiety. Your abundance mentality is getting her all crazy.


----------



## Andy1001

Bananapeel said:


> I'm currently spinning plates and I don't consider it doing the PUA thing. I tell the women upfront that I'm not looking for exclusivity or a committed relationship and then they can decide for themselves whether they still want to join me or not.
> 
> One of my current women told me on our first date that she wouldn't sleep with someone outside of an exclusive relationship and I told that I respect that and we'd just part ways after we finished our drink... she then she invited me back to her place and we had porn star style sex. A couple dates later she told me she was worried I couldn't give her what she wanted in a relationship and I told that she was right and that I've been honest about it from the beginning. She got mad for an evening but came over for a booty call the following night. She's actually too much drama for me so I'm going to end things with her soon.
> 
> One of the women I'm seeing is pretty amazing so I might stop spinning plates soon and just date her and see where it goes.
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention. The 80/20 rule is only semi correct. Most guys that are really good with women only have about 3-5% success rate. They are just really good at quickly telling a woman's interest level so they know who to target and who not to waste their time on.


Don’t know where you are getting your percentages from but speaking from experience you are way off.In my single days (Years ago)I worked off probably a ninety percent success rate and often higher.
When I am not proud of this I will accept I am maturing, but I often went thirty nights or more with a different woman each night.And these were seriously hot women.
There are only two rules when it comes to pick ups.
Those who can, do.
Thought who can’t,talk about it.

And I always put women under a pedestal lol.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

SunCMars said:


> Earlier in the last couple of Centuries, these mate seeking tendencies were rather true with respect with many women.
> 
> If you read what today's women want it is, it remains:
> 
> a. A good sense of humor.
> b. Intelligence.
> c. A steady job/income
> d. Honesty.
> e. Loyalty.
> f. A nice guy..kind.
> g. A man who is social minded.
> h. A man who enjoys life, goes out, does things.
> i. Likes kids.
> j. Likes pets.
> k. Enjoys intimacy.


Also, 
l. Assertiveness
m. Leadership (wears the pants so to speak)

Even though they're less mentioned, they are likely the most important. IMO.


----------



## Bananapeel

Andy1001 said:


> Don’t know where you are getting your percentages from but speaking from experience you are way off.In my single days (Years ago)I worked off probably a ninety percent success rate and often higher.
> When I am not proud of this I will accept I am maturing, but I often went thirty nights or more with a different woman each night.And these were seriously hot women.
> There are only two rules when it comes to pick ups.
> Those who can, do.
> Thought who can’t,talk about it.
> 
> And I always put women under a pedestal lol.


For a 90% success rate you need to have a lot of money, fame, or power, which most of us don't have. I'm a six figure earner not a seven figure earner, I'm not famous, and my range of power is limited to my job and some volunteer work I do, so while I have no problem with women I have never seen the success rate you are talking about. My buddy is AMAZING with women (easily slept with multiple hundreds) and even he's at 3-5%. But, being able to tell quickly who is and isn't into you means you have a much higher success rate than 3-5% because you don't waste your timewith women that aren't showing signs of attraction.


----------



## personofinterest

> And I always put women under a pedestal lol.


Ooooo I bet you're every woman's dream for a respectful partner.


----------



## Andy1001

Bananapeel said:


> For a 90% success rate you need to have a lot of money, fame, or power, which most of us don't have. I'm a six figure earner not a seven figure earner, I'm not famous, and my range of power is limited to my job and some volunteer work I do, so while I have no problem with women I have never seen the success rate you are talking about. My buddy is AMAZING with women (easily slept with multiple hundreds) and even he's at 3-5%. But, being able to tell quickly who is and isn't into you means you have a much higher success rate than 3-5% because you don't waste your timewith women that aren't showing signs of attraction.


I’m not sure if I understand what you mean.Even at the higher five percent you talk about does that mean for every twenty women he hit on,only one (at best) would succumb to his charms?
That doesn’t sound like a successful pua to me.
Maybe I have misunderstood what you are getting at.


----------



## ConanHub

Andy1001 said:


> I’m not sure if I understand what you mean.Even at the higher five percent you talk about does that mean for every twenty women he hit on,only one (at best) would succumb to his charms?
> That doesn’t sound like a successful pua to me.
> Maybe I have misunderstood what you are getting at.


I think he means that he mostly only hits on women that are interested in him.

I tend to lean towards your idea about it a little more however.

When I was young, bad and pretty, I never hit on anyone but had women doing strange things to get my attention and it was a full spectrum, from a neighbor lady holding her baby to girls in their teens trying to hit above their weight class.


----------



## Andy1001

personofinterest said:


> Ooooo I bet you're every woman's dream for a respectful partner.


I was being facetious with the pedestal comment.
Or was I......
Shouldn’t you be cooking dinner for your husband,get back into the kitchen woman!
And don’t forget his sammich for later.


----------



## Bananapeel

Andy1001 said:


> I’m not sure if I understand what you mean.Even at the higher five percent you talk about does that mean for every twenty women he hit on,only one (at best) would succumb to his charms?
> That doesn’t sound like a successful pua to me.
> Maybe I have misunderstood what you are getting at.


He's friendly and talkative to everyone he meets. Figure one out of twenty or thirty that he chats with shows signs she's willing and interested in F'ing him then and if he's interested too he sleeps with them. I'm not talking about him going to clubs, but meeting women in everyday life. 

A 90% success rate sounds impossible to me. Figure some women are in exclusive relationships where they have no desire to cheat, some women are there with their BF's or husbands which is an effective C-block, some are on their period and not feeling good, and some just have no attraction to you. How do you define 90% success?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Andy1001 said:


> I was being facetious with the pedestal comment.
> Or was I......
> Shouldn’t you be cooking dinner for your husband,get back into the kitchen woman!
> And don’t forget his sammich for later.


How is she suppose to get any of that done under a pedestal?


----------



## Andy1001

ConanHub said:


> I think he means that he mostly only hits on women that are interested in him.
> 
> I tend to lean towards your idea about it a little more however.
> 
> When I was young, bad and pretty, I never hit on anyone but had women doing strange things to get my attention and it was a full spectrum, from a neighbor lady holding her baby to girls in their teens trying to hit above their weight class.


There’s no challenge in only hitting on women who are hitting on you!
Reach for the stars,hit on the hottest woman in the building,that was my motto and I swear with hand on heart my success rate was at least ninety percent.
All in the past now.I’m looking after the baby tonight,my fiancée and her son and my sil are at the Lion king stage show.We are in London until Sunday.


----------



## Buddy400

Buddy400 said:


> An additional comment on the above.
> 
> Men may want a lot of women (to have sex with) but usually find that hard to accomplish and therefore find that the best way to have more sex is by committing to one woman (less of an option as women begin to care less about commitment).
> 
> Women want one really great guy, _while they consider him to be a really great guy_. Also, since women rate most men as below average, there's a greater chance that they'll accept commitment from a guy they perceive as being less than great (therefore, increasing the chance of later regretting it).





UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I sort of agree but sort of disagree with this. Ever heard of the 80/20 rule- 80% of women want to have sex and / or pair off with the top 20% of men. These guys can spin plates all the time and get more sex than you or I could ever dream of.
> 
> As for Monogamy equaling regular sex, sure, but how many times do we read here about duty sex or sexless marriages? Many of these men would find lots more sex single than they do with an unloving spouse. Women want a great guy that they find desirable. As long as that desire is there you will get the sex, once that desire slips (through comfort or whatever) you either get the sexless marriage or the ILYBINILY or "I'm not happy" speech. In other words she has checked out and you better find a lawyer...you can't negotiate back that desire once its gone. In a way, monogamy is hard because that consistent stream of sex you once enjoyed seems to trickle away as life happens.


Yes, I'm aware of 80/20. That;s why I said that women rate most men as below average. Also, that's why I said that having sex with lots of women is *usually* hard to accomplish.

And, sure, monogamy usually only equals regular sex until the woman's NRE wears off, but that's still more sex than the average guy would get otherwise.

And I'm aware that a woman's desire to have sex with her husband slips, which is why I said that 'woman want one really great guy,_ while they consider him a really great guy_" 

I just don't get why hypergamy is considered a uniquely feminine trait.


----------



## OnTheFly

personofinterest said:


> By the way....do you like cats?


Indeed. Our two present kitties adopted us by hanging around the back door looking cute. We're suckers and softies for the strays.


----------



## Andy1001

Bananapeel said:


> He's friendly and talkative to everyone he meets. Figure one out of twenty or thirty that he chats with shows signs she's willing and interested in F'ing him then and if he's interested too he sleeps with them. I'm not talking about him going to clubs, but meeting women in everyday life.
> 
> A 90% success rate sounds impossible to me. Figure some women are in exclusive relationships where they have no desire to cheat, some women are there with their BF's or husbands which is an effective C-block, some are on their period and not feeling good, and some just have no attraction to you. How do you define 90% success?


I traveled a lot when I was younger,my record is just over four hundred consecutive nights away from home and five nights was the longest I ever stayed in the same place.
Hotel gyms and bars were my hunting ground,if a woman was wearing a wedding or engagement ring I stayed clear.Everyone else was fair game. I have to admit I had no problem in splashing the cash if necessary.
This is going to sound ridiculous but I had a little trick I would use and I honestly cannot remember a time when it didn’t work.I would order a bottle of champagne,first checking that there were some attractive women in the bar and in top class hotels there always are.I would get two glasses and then just wait for one of the chosen ones to look in my direction.When she looked over I would tip the empty glass invitingly in her direction.
And it never failed to work.Ever.


----------



## Andy1001

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> How is she suppose to get any of that done under a pedestal?


Very carefully.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Andy1001 said:


> I was being facetious with the pedestal comment.
> Or was I......
> Shouldn’t you be cooking dinner for your husband,get back into the kitchen woman!
> *And don’t forget his sammich for later*.


It's Friday ... that means steak and BJ day.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> It's Friday ... that means steak and BJ day.


I’m very glad to hear that.We celebrated this auspicious day in March back home but seeing as I’m in the UK it is only fitting that I accept your traditional celebrations also.
When in Rome and all that.....


----------



## personofinterest

Andy1001 said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooo I bet you're every woman's dream for a respectful partner.
> 
> 
> 
> I was being facetious with the pedestal comment.
> Or was I......
> Shouldn’t you be cooking dinner for your husband,get back into the kitchen woman!
> And don’t forget his sammich for later.
Click to expand...

 Hey, dinner is in the crock pot Bud lol. But thanks for reminding me about the sandwich because we are out of bread so I need to go get some haha. No, really, I do need to go buy some bread


----------



## Red Sonja

A couple of questions for those of you on this thread who “spin plates” or have “high success rates” in sleeping with others:

Do you ever think about the quality of the human beings (beyond “hotness”) that you “pull”? 

Do you even think of them as human beings?

When (if?) you decide to pursue an exclusive (love, commitment) relationship, are you honest about your previous escapades and methodologies for accomplishing them?

I ask because I cannot imagine the type of person who would want to commit to someone who is so frivolous with their sexuality and in their attitude toward others. I am not speaking about number of partners here rather the mind-set involved and the pattern of behavior.

In my younger days I was pursued by these types of people from the entertainment industry (note where I live) and, no amount of “champagne glass tipping” could persuade me to sleep with them, much less date them. Why? Because the idea of being a bed-post notch was just icky and I had no illusions about what I represented to them.


----------



## Betrayedone

personofinterest said:


> It cracks me up that you think I am a feminist. It makes my day every time I read it.
> 
> Me, the conservative, Christian, Ephesians 5 believing wife who honors my husband, takes care of my home, and despises those rants vagina hat wearers.
> 
> Just because you roll your eyes at typical backhanded misogyny doesn't make you a misandrist. I love men. I love my father, my husband, my awesome brother...the great friends and family I have who are good men. I honestly believe that most men try to do the right thing and be good people.
> 
> But hey, if it makes you feel better to picture me with hairy armpits and a strident, whiny voice, have at it.
> 
> I'll enjoy the dinner I cook for my hubby tonight....and later I'll probably make him a sammich - for real <3


Hey, at least it wasn't me chiming in this time.......


----------



## personofinterest

Now I have to post something so I can have the last word lol. These pretzels are making me thirsty!


----------



## OnTheFly

personofinterest said:


> Now I have to post something so I can have the last word lol. These pretzels are making me thirsty!


Sorry, that was a weak performance……try it again, and this time make it seem like the pretzels are REALLY making you thirsty………and go!


----------



## ConanHub

Red Sonja said:


> A couple of questions for those of you on this thread who “spin plates” or have “high success rates” in sleeping with others:
> 
> Do you ever think about the quality of the human beings (beyond “hotness”) that you “pull”?
> 
> Do you even think of them as human beings?
> 
> When (if?) you decide to pursue an exclusive (love, commitment) relationship, are you honest about your previous escapades and methodologies for accomplishing them?
> 
> I ask because I cannot imagine the type of person who would want to commit to someone who is so frivolous with their sexuality and in their attitude toward others. I am not speaking about number of partners here rather the mind-set involved and the pattern of behavior.
> 
> In my younger days I was pursued by these types of people from the entertainment industry (note where I live) and, no amount of “champagne glass tipping” could persuade me to sleep with them, much less date them. Why? Because the idea of being a bed-post notch was just icky and I had no illusions about what I represented to them.


I hope the others answer.

For myself, I was never a PUA. I never cared or tried.

For whatever reason, a lot of women wanted to date/have sex with me. I never hit on anyone until I saw the future Mrs. Conan.

I was with around 60 women by the time I met my wife. I relented to being picked up by the women in every case. I was mostly a broken young man and only gave in to very aggressive, party type women who I hoped wouldn't want me for more than some fun.

Some just wanted to play and many wanted more and thought that having sex with me would lure me in.

Most of them were nice.

I definitely looked at them as human.


I am not broken anymore and would not behave that way again but I learned some things.

Some good and many things that are not, about people and their behaviors.


----------



## Etomidate

"Hypergamy" is a term neck-beards (very low-value males) have made up in order to make themselves feel better when their partner leaves them for someone who doesn't sit around all day playing video games.


----------



## Etomidate

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Also,
> l. Assertiveness
> m. Leadership (wears the pants so to speak)
> 
> Even though they're less mentioned, they are likely the most important. IMO.


In my experience, and in observing women around me, these are these are number 1 and number 2. It's so ingrained in their subconscious that they don't necessarily notice it, either.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

"I just don't get why hypergamy is considered a uniquely feminine trait."

Well, 70% of divorces are initiated by women. I bet quite a few of them are ended because they have a getaway car waiting, so as to speak.


----------



## Red Sonja

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> "I just don't get why hypergamy is considered a uniquely feminine trait."
> 
> Well, 70% of divorces are initiated by women. I bet quite a few of them are ended because they have a getaway car waiting, so as to speak.




Just because 70% of women _file_ (which is the only factual data available) does not mean that those women necessarily initiated the *break up *of the marriage. You cannot conclude anything from who "filed" and it is certainly not evidence of hypergamy.


----------



## Red Sonja

Thanks for the reply @ConanHub, the conclusions one can draw from your posts on TAM indicate that you value your wife and fellow human-beings ... not the traits of a PUA type.

Perhaps those who practice the behavior I questioned will yet answer, perhaps not ... it _was _a genuine question.


----------



## Andy1001

Red Sonja said:


> Thanks for the reply @ConanHub, the conclusions one can draw from your posts on TAM indicate that you value your wife and fellow human-beings ... not the traits of a PUA type.
> 
> Perhaps those who practice the behavior I questioned will yet answer, perhaps not ... it _was _a genuine question.


Ok I’ll answer you. This sort of behavior was in my younger days,as I said I was traveling all the time and didn’t have the opportunity or the need if I’m being honest to form long term relationships. Even when I returned to NY to live I still had to travel to Europe on a weekly basis. 
I lived with my lesbian best friend and we partied all the time,both of us had plenty of money and I owned the apt we lived in. 
When I met my fiancée seven years ago I put that part of my life behind me and I have never inappropriately touched another woman since.


----------



## Laurentium

Etomidate said:


> "Hypergamy" is a term neck-beards (very low-value males) have made up in order to make themselves feel better when their partner leaves them for someone who doesn't sit around all day playing video games.


It's not so much that they've made it up, more that they've borrowed it from social science, misunderstood it, and given it a new, almost unrelated meaning.


----------



## Laurentium

And then there's this: http://smbc-comics.com/comic/but-dad


----------



## personofinterest

Red Sonja said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I just don't get why hypergamy is considered a uniquely feminine trait."
> 
> Well, 70% of divorces are initiated by women. I bet quite a few of them are ended because they have a getaway car waiting, so as to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)" ></a>
> 
> Just because 70% of women _file_ (which is the only factual data available) does not mean that those women necessarily initiated the *break up *of the marriage. You cannot conclude anything from who "filed" and it is certainly not evidence of hypergamy.
Click to expand...

I like how no one gives thought to WHY these women are filing.

Maybe you were just a crappy, selfish husband lol


----------



## personofinterest

OnTheFly said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have to post something so I can have the last word lol. These pretzels are making me thirsty!
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that was a weak performance……try it again, and this time make it seem like the pretzels are REALLY making you thirsty………and go!
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/WxusPufsN4c


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> I like how no one gives thought to WHY these women are filing.
> 
> Maybe you were just a crappy, selfish husband lol


To be fair, a lot of those women are crappy, selfish wives as well.

I've personally witnessed many divorces,(I had a position in ministry), where the majority were initiated by selfish, self centered, mean, cheating, entitled little princesses that thought their personal happiness trumped their families well being.

They destroyed everything because they could and have their ex husbands pay for the ride.

I'm in no way stating hypergamy as a cause. Every one of the women I mentioned did not trade up. They just stuck it to their children and husband because their itchy crotch demanded a sacrifice.

Only one seemed happy after destroying her marriage and it was the husband that divorced her,(she cheated).

This is not a statement about women in general or hypergamy, just selfish behavior that I have witnessed by women who knew they would come out ahead regardless of the destruction their behavior did to their own children and ex husband.


----------



## personofinterest

ConanHub said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how no one gives thought to WHY these women are filing.
> 
> Maybe you were just a crappy, selfish husband lol
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, a lot of those women are crappy, selfish wives as well.
> 
> I've personally witnessed many divorces,(I had a position in ministry), where the majority were initiated by selfish, self centered, mean, cheating, entitled little princesses that thought their personal happiness trumped their families well being.
> 
> They destroyed everything because they could and have their ex husbands pay for the ride.
> 
> I'm in no way stating hypergamy as a cause. Every one of the women I mentioned did not trade up. They just stuck it to their children and husband because their itchy crotch demanded a sacrifice.
> 
> Only one seemed happy after destroying her marriage and it was the husband that divorced her,(she cheated).
> 
> This is not a statement about women in general or hypergamy, just selfish behavior that I have witnessed by women who knew they would come out ahead regardless of the destruction their behavior did to their own children and ex husband.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you dont try to hide your opinion of women.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> Well, at least you dont try to hide your opinion of women.


I'm very fond of women.:wink2:

I was just privy to a slew of divorces where the men were not at all at fault.


----------



## personofinterest

I know some too. In fact I have two friends who evil ex wives had them.investigated over completely made up allegations of abuse.

I was mainly speaking to this false assumption that if 70% of divorces are filed by women, that somehow means women were the problem.


----------



## ConanHub

personofinterest said:


> I know some too. In fact I have two friends who evil ex wives had them.investigated over completely made up allegations of abuse.
> 
> I was mainly speaking to this false assumption that if 70% of divorces are filed by women, that somehow means women were the problem.


Or hypergamy. One woman, I remember, couldn't have traded down. She divorced because her new husband, less than a year, would not have sex!

I was wholeheartedly behind her on that divorce.


----------



## Red Sonja

Andy1001 said:


> Ok I’ll answer you. This sort of behavior was in my younger days,as I said I was traveling all the time and didn’t have the opportunity or the need if I’m being honest to form long term relationships. Even when I returned to NY to live I still had to travel to Europe on a weekly basis.
> I lived with my lesbian best friend and we partied all the time,both of us had plenty of money and I owned the apt we lived in.
> When I met my fiancée seven years ago I put that part of my life behind me and I have never inappropriately touched another woman since.


Thanks for playing however you dodged every question I asked.


----------



## NextTimeAround

How about the hypergamy that we just witnessed today?


----------



## DustyDog

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Wandering across the internet, I came across this excerpt from the book Sexual Market Value by Chris Capetown. I wonder if any of you gentlemen have any insight, personal or otherwise, on this:
> 
> “Men’s instincts tend toward polygamy, women’s toward hypergamy. Hypergamy, for those who don’t know, is women’s congenital inclination to continually trade up in men. The word has Greek origins (hyper meaning ‘above’ and gamos meaning ‘marriage’) and originally referred to women’s tendency to “marry up”, but applies equally to non-matrimonial relationships.
> 
> Whereas all men have a natural urge to copulate with a great variety of fertile women (because, in our evolutionary history, such behavior improved our chances of gene proliferation), women have a corresponding biological drive to have relations with the highest quality man they possible can (for the same reason) and to gain exclusive commitment from that man. Briefly put, men want a lot of women, women want one really great guy."
> 
> More so, what I'm interested in is this natural tendency for women to trade up for men that they perceive have higher value, which is what I understand is Hypergamy...


What are you asking? Are you asking if other people accept this belief? Are you asking how to use this knowledge to improve your lot in dating?

From strictly anthropological and sociological perspectives, these two behaviors are predicable. Women are the natural born leaders in keeping the species going, since they alone are capable of bringing forth life. Therefore, their brains are optimized for knowing when is the right time and where is the right location and under what conditions it is most likely to successfully bear a child and raise it to adulthood. The only way this can possibly work is that once a woman makes this decision, she has as many sperm donors as needed in order for the decision to be hers, and hers alone.

So, naturally, men would evolve to become perpetually-available sperm donors.

Going along with the anthropologically-derived need for women to do the creation of next-generation life, she would also have an inborn natural inclination for creating the best environment. Humans are adaptable, so when humans created the first cities roughly 6,000 years ago, it became more or less obvious which men provided greater abilities within the city. Those who were naturally able to help the city defend itself better, those who were naturally able to lead hunting expeditions for food, and so on. Clearly, being attached to such a man improves the odds that the children born of this women would, themselves, make it to maturity and then be capable of keeping the human species alive.

So, science tell this that this situation occurs naturally and our nature still experiences it. 

But, what about evidence in today's society? Is it strong or weak?


Go to a bar, sit near a gaggle of women who don't know you can hear them. The discussion of men is so laced with the assumption - unquestioned - that there are "better" men, that it's hard to ever believe it's not true. In fact, there is a "better man" movement, and one of the highest compliments a woman can give a man is "you're a good man". Society is dripping with the notion of a "good man", and the definition of a "good man" comes from women, not men. This is immutable, it will always be this way.

My own observation is that the definition of a "good man" has evolved, as culture has allowed. It is no longer adequate for the man to be a "good provider". He must also be a great listener (never needed in the days when men spent their time foraging for food), and most women today strongly prefer a man who does all this:
- Provide for her and children
- Protect her and children (these days mostly by purchasing the correct insurance and knowing how to avoid cyber-crime)
- Be artistic in some way (music, poetry)
- Support all infrastructure, from pumping gas for her car to fixing the house
- Have visible athletic prowess.

Since men's original role, of creating a safe place and providing food, has become so easy that even men in poverty can do it, the definition of a "better man" has evolved, simply because it could.

I'm no expert and perspective is needed. I'm old, and the women with whom I associate are mostly my age to 20 years younger. Surely in my 20s, the definition of a "good man" was different, and probably still is for those in their 20s - but at that age, the woman's need for a "good man" is stronger, as she is operating more on chemistry than she will later in life.

So...have at it...did this answer your questions, or did I miss the actual question completely?

DDDDDDDDDD


----------



## Andy1001

Red Sonja said:


> Thanks for playing however you dodged every question I asked.


I didn’t really read your questions,I have better things to do with my time.lol.
I will be honest once a woman was hot that satisfied any criteria I had.As for treating them well,I always spoiled women and would bring them to the best restaurants,most fashionable nightclubs etc.When I say money was no object I really mean it.
Now your other point about discussing my past is a different story.I never asked my fiancée how many previous partners she had and she never asked me.She has a son from a previous relationship and now we have a daughter together.She did tell me once that she had three previous partners and she knows I had a lot more but she doesn’t have a clue about just how much more.
I don’t know how to bring this up or even if I should.I think selective amnesia is recommended in this case.
Hope that answers your questions.


----------



## SunCMars

The Host, RD and some of his male Headmates, including SunCMars are Martians.

They do not 'munk' around. If they see a female they like, they take em'.

Marry em'.

End of story.

There is no other way.
It cannot be.
It is not permitted.



King Brian-


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sokillme said:


> This may be how both sexes are at their most base instincts, but if you read the web you would think this is the majority of how people are. Thank God most of us are not sociopaths and therefore have things like emotion, love, loyalty and honor which we know are more important then whether the guy has a bigger house or we get to bang that new girl you met at the bar.


Yes... how important it is to put down some of our baser instincts that can truly complicate/ F up our lives & hurt others when we allow selfishness & unbridled lust (whether for a variety of women or riches) to run rampant....

A woman speaking here... sure I wanted a "working man".. but how much $$ he makes has always been far less important to me over how he treats me, is he faithful / devoted / wanted a family... will his love last a lifetime? ...these were paramount to me...wouldn't matter how much $$ he made if his past was filled with a variety of women, he would never be my type.. 

I've always felt...so long as we can afford to live & achieve a slice of the American dream, It doesn't have to be 1st class ... work together towards owning a home, have a few kids, pay our bills on time, as a family- enjoy a few small vacations a year, get off on some romantic trips just the 2 of us...what else does a woman need ?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

personofinterest said:


> I know some too. In fact I have two friends who evil ex wives had them.investigated over completely made up allegations of abuse.
> 
> I was mainly speaking to this false assumption that if 70% of divorces are filed by women, that somehow means women were the problem.


My guess is there are an even split of asshats among the genders. The most common reason for divorce seems to be infidelity, but nowadays women cheat just as much as men (according to statistics). 

All marriages have ebbs and flows, especially with kids and work, but it seems women are more likely to just 'check out'. It seems once a womans mind is made up its game over. They aren't happy (not alpha enough/not emotionally available enough), game over.

The 70% is clearly a lopsided number if we are to assume both sexes are equally to blame for the staggering amount of divorces. Seems women are clearly more comfortable walking away. Not sure if its biology, a more favorable court system or something else.


----------



## Wolfman1968

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> My guess is there are an even split of asshats among the genders. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> So...
> 
> Does a husband ditching wife #1 and getting a 20-year younger model count as male hypergamy?


----------



## personofinterest

Wolfman1968 said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is there are an even split of asshats among the genders. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> So...
> 
> Does a husband ditching wife #1 and getting a 20-year younger model count as male hypergamy?
> 
> 
> 
> Shhhhhh......you're messing up the anti- woman sour grapes flow.....
Click to expand...


----------



## Married but Happy

Wolfman1968 said:


> Does a husband ditching wife #1 and getting a 20-year younger model count as male hypergamy?


Sometimes. Or it could be serendipity.


----------



## ConanHub

Married but Happy said:


> Sometimes. Or it could be serendipity.


Maybe hyperdipity or serengamy?


----------



## Married but Happy

ConanHub said:


> Maybe hyperdipity or serengamy?


I've often thought that it was monotamy, not hypergamy, that was responsible for moving on.


----------



## OnTheFly

Wolfman1968 said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is there are an even split of asshats among the genders. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> So...
> 
> Does a husband ditching wife #1 and getting a 20-year younger model count as male hypergamy?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> There is no disputing that both genders (yes, only two) have an equal distribution of asshats. Nobody is denying that. What is being discussed is female asshattery and the generalities surrounding them. Start another thread about the bad traits of men, and I'm sure women AND men will contribute many examples. All this does not negate that many women have similar traits and they are observable to observant people. So, instead of trying to quell the discussion with shaming tactics, just accept the idea that woman can act in ways that are stereotypical……much like cheaters act in ways that are stereotypical. (not directed at anyone in particular)
Click to expand...


----------



## Bananapeel

Andy1001 said:


> Hotel gyms and bars were my hunting ground,if a woman was wearing a wedding or engagement ring I stayed clear.Everyone else was fair game. I have to admit I had no problem in splashing the cash if necessary.
> This is going to sound ridiculous but I had a little trick I would use and I honestly cannot remember a time when it didn’t work.I would order a bottle of champagne,first checking that there were some attractive women in the bar and in top class hotels there always are.I would get two glasses and then just wait for one of the chosen ones to look in my direction.When she looked over I would tip the empty glass invitingly in her direction.
> And it never failed to work.Ever.


Hey Andy, it dawned on my why the success rates were so different between you and my buddy. Your pattern was to approach women in areas where they were easy to pickup (single women sitting in a hotel bar is like having a neon sign saying they are looking to score). But, if you were to talk to women walking their dog, shopping at the grocery store, pumping gas, etc. then you'd never get anywhere near your 90% success rate and it would be closer to the 3-5%. I do love your champagne tactic and might have to try it on my next work conference when I travel out of town.


----------



## personofinterest

I'm chuckling at 2 things:

1. Someone actually called the Royal Wedding hypergamy.

2. Someone actually said a man dumping a woman for a younger model ISN'T hypergamy

The pretzel is strong......


----------



## Robbie1234

Bananapeel said:


> Hey Andy, it dawned on my why the success rates were so different between you and my buddy. Your pattern was to approach women in areas where they were easy to pickup (single women sitting in a hotel bar is like having a neon sign saying they are looking to score). But, if you were to talk to women walking their dog, shopping at the grocery store, pumping gas, etc. then you'd never get anywhere near your 90% success rate and it would be closer to the 3-5%. I do love your champagne tactic and might have to try it on my next work conference when I travel out of town.


I like your honesty in saying you would try Andy's pick up routine. Most people on tam just criticize men who talk about how to pick up women. I think there is a lot of jealousy involved. 
It's all about having the confidence to pull it off.


----------



## Bananapeel

Red Sonja said:


> A couple of questions for those of you on this thread who “spin plates” or have “high success rates” in sleeping with others:
> 
> I've lately been spinning plates. I'm not a PUA by any means but I have no problems meeting/talking to women and quickly identifying those that want to sleep with me. My actual nature was always to be a serial monogamist but the older I get the more realistic I have become about women's sexuality and I just want an equal playing field with equal rules/expectations.
> 
> Do you ever think about the quality of the human beings (beyond “hotness”) that you “pull”?
> 
> All the time and it influences whether I choose to let them sleep with me.
> 
> Do you even think of them as human beings?
> 
> Yes. I actually just friend zoned one over the weekend because I knew she was getting emotionally invested in me and I knew if I kept things going she'd end up getting hurt. I told her at the beginning that she needed to advocate for herself and her needs and to not do anything she wasn't happy with, but she still wanted to be with me enough that she was ignoring that and had some internal conflict going on that was making her unhappy. When I friend zoned her she asked about FWB and I told her no to that too because I know she'll tolerate for a little bit and then be unhappy.
> 
> When (if?) you decide to pursue an exclusive (love, commitment) relationship, are you honest about your previous escapades and methodologies for accomplishing them?
> 
> I'm always honest so there is no special methodology involved. I just ask them on a date and let them know upfront that I'm not looking for a relationship. What I've found is if you are direct with your intentions women will often agree to it. Realistically, women are horny and looking to get laid too (this happens all the time with single women), so if they find someone that offers it then they know what they are getting into.
> 
> I ask because I cannot imagine the type of person who would want to commit to someone who is so frivolous with their sexuality and in their attitude toward others. I am not speaking about number of partners here rather the mind-set involved and the pattern of behavior.
> 
> First of all it isn't a commitment. It is casually dating and both genders do it all the time. I know several people that met and dated casually and as they got to know each other better they developed a real relationship, with some of these people ending up happily married. Basically, it was the attitude that they weren't looking at a date with a preconceived notion that it was going to lead anywhere. The type of people that do this are less planned in how they live their lives and like to go with the flow and see what happens.
> 
> In my younger days I was pursued by these types of people from the entertainment industry (note where I live) and, no amount of “champagne glass tipping” could persuade me to sleep with them, much less date them. Why? Because the idea of being a bed-post notch was just icky and I had no illusions about what I represented to them.
> 
> Lots of women are like that too. There's nothing wrong with either way. However, I can tell you after being divorced that I've encountered a lot of women and their female friends that openly told me they have been in committed relationships and end up cheating and I'd never offer any sort of commitment to anyone like that. But if they are fun and have other good qualities they are suitable for casually dating.


I think you have a bit of a misconception about people spinning plates. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily a new person each night. I prefer to have a small group of people that I date and if one is really cool then maybe we'll decide to date exclusively and see where it goes. If it ends then I'll date a few more and if one of those women is amazing then maybe we'll decide to date exclusively and see where it goes. Basically, that's been the current cycle for me and women have always appreciated my honesty. I know that when this is happening the women are also often dating multiple guys to see whom they like the best, so it's an equal power dynamic. In my experience if a woman wants to latch on to me and try to be exclusive right from the beginning she probably has some self-esteem and abandonment issues, and is trying to force stability in her life through controlling a relationship; those relationships often do not work out well.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Bananapeel said:


> Hey Andy, it dawned on my why the success rates were so different between you and my buddy. *Your pattern was to approach women in areas where they were easy to pickup (single women sitting in a hotel bar is like having a neon sign saying they are looking to score).* But, if you were to talk to women walking their dog, shopping at the grocery store, pumping gas, etc. then you'd never get anywhere near your 90% success rate and it would be closer to the 3-5%. I do love your champagne tactic and might have to try it on my next work conference when I travel out of town.



I'm glad that's finally understood. these dating guides that claim you can find your soul mate even at the check out at the grocery store are over playing it. This is just the same as a telemarketer to call at the wrong time.


----------



## personofinterest

> I'm always honest so there is no special methodology involved. I just ask them on a date and let them know upfront that I'm not looking for a relationship. What I've found is if you are direct with your intentions women will often agree to it.


See, this is what separates the men from the....not men. There are no bait and switch manipulations going on here. You are who you are, you are up front, and you are honest. I don't consider this to be "spinning plates" or "pulling women for use." This is just one person being honest with another person, and they both agree to something.


----------



## uhtred

I haven't seem people complaining about non-deceptive, non-harassing pickup activities here. 

Nothing wrong with women or men signalling that they are up for sex. 




Robbie1234 said:


> I like your honesty in saying you would try Andy's pick up routine. Most people on tam just criticize men who talk about how to pick up women. I think there is a lot of jealousy involved.
> It's all about having the confidence to pull it off.


----------



## Buddy400

Red Sonja said:


> A couple of questions for those of you on this thread who “spin plates” or have “high success rates” in sleeping with others:
> 
> Do you ever think about the quality of the human beings (beyond “hotness”) that you “pull”?
> 
> Do you even think of them as human beings?
> 
> When (if?) you decide to pursue an exclusive (love, commitment) relationship, are you honest about your previous escapades and methodologies for accomplishing them?
> 
> I ask because I cannot imagine the type of person who would want to commit to someone who is so frivolous with their sexuality and in their attitude toward others. I am not speaking about number of partners here rather the mind-set involved and the pattern of behavior.
> 
> In my younger days I was pursued by these types of people from the entertainment industry (note where I live) and, no amount of “champagne glass tipping” could persuade me to sleep with them, much less date them. Why? Because the idea of being a bed-post notch was just icky and I had no illusions about what I represented to them.


Well, I never 'spun plates'. I'm guessing that was because, unlike Andy, Conan, et. al., I didn't have the opportunity.

But, if I had had sex with multiple women with whom I was only interested in having sex with, I would have primarily thought of them regarding their "hotness". If they were women with whom I was interested in having a relationship, then I would have considered other characteristics. It would be easy to say I didn't do this because I was virtuous but, never having had the opportunity, I can't say what I actually would have done if the opportunities had existed. 

Yes, I would have thought of them as human beings with as much agency as any other human. I would have assumed that they had the same right to have casual sex with hot males if they wished without considering anything other than their "hotness". I would have assumed that they were capable of dealing with the consequences of their actions.

I would not have thought that, as women, they were less agency than men.

I suspect that women really don't handle casual sex as easily as men do, but that's up to them to decide, not me.

As long as no one is lying about about anything, I don't see a problem.

I personally would not be interested in a woman who had done this on a regular basis, but then she (no doubt) wouldn't be interested in me either, so there wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## michzz

Not disregarding 7 previous pages nor the biological imperative to continue the species. 

But don't you think that relationships for breeding purposes are different from relationships just to have fun?

Since "the Pill" came around, I think women have become more like men when not worrying about pregnancy.

Fancy Greek terms aside, there is an effect that seems to coincide with when a mother can pay less attention to a baby>toddler>child. Does that correspond to the 7-year-itch?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

personofinterest said:


> See, this is what separates the men from the....not men. There are no bait and switch manipulations going on here. You are who you are, you are up front, and you are honest. I don't consider this to be "spinning plates" or "pulling women for use." This is just one person being honest with another person, and they both agree to something.


That is the definition of spinning plates. Spinning plates doesn't involve lying to women saying you are exclusive when you are not. That's just infidelity. Spinning plates is when you make no commitment and do not declare exclusivity. In fact, most plate spinners don't hide the fact to other plates that they are seeing multiple women. Thats where terms like 'competition anxiety' and 'dread game' come from.


----------



## Andy1001

NextTimeAround said:


> I'm glad that's finally understood. these dating guides that claim you can find your soul mate even at the check out at the grocery store are over playing it. This is just the same as a telemarketer to call at the wrong time.


Very early one Monday morning (five am) I went out for a walk,I finish work by five at the latest every day.There was a new health studio opening down the street from my apt and there was a girl cleaning the windows.She turned and looked at me and seven years later we are still together and have a daughter.
The stuff of romance yes?


----------



## Red Sonja

Bananapeel said:


> single women sitting in a hotel bar is like having a neon sign saying they are looking to score


So, single women alone in public establishments are "looking to score" huh? 

I suppose we should stay sequestered unless we have a male escort? 

You guys have wild imaginations.


----------



## personofinterest

Red Sonja said:


> Bananapeel said:
> 
> 
> 
> single women sitting in a hotel bar is like having a neon sign saying they are looking to score
> 
> 
> 
> So, single women alone in public establishments are "looking to score" huh? <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)" ></a>
> 
> I suppose we should stay sequestered unless we have a male escort? <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)" ></a>
> 
> You guys have wild imaginations.
Click to expand...

It's almost funny, isn't it?

Almost


----------



## Red Sonja

personofinterest said:


> It's almost funny, isn't it?
> 
> Almost


Yup, sort of funny but a bit sad at the same time. I just hope they're not teaching their children these attitudes.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Red Sonja said:


> So, single women alone in public establishments are "looking to score" huh?
> 
> I suppose we should stay sequestered unless we have a male escort?
> 
> You guys have wild imaginations.


He said hotel bar. I have no idea if his claim is true but just thought we should hold him to the claim he made and not one we misunderstood.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

I've heard lots of stories about hotel bars...


----------



## Red Sonja

PigglyWiggly said:


> He said hotel bar. I have no idea if his claim is true but just thought we should hold him to the claim he made and not one we misunderstood.


So, I travel for business and pleasure often (USA, Europe and China) ... can I not go in my hotel's bar for dinner, a drink or watch a game ... without an imaginary "neon sign" that says "you wanna ****?"


----------



## PigglyWiggly

Red Sonja said:


> So, I travel for business and pleasure often (USA, Europe and China) ... can I not go in my hotel's bar for dinner, a drink or watch a game ... without an imaginary "neon sign" that says "you wanna ****?"


I don't think you will have an issue at all. Women who want to be approached seem to give off that vibe to those looking for it.


----------



## Andy1001

Red Sonja said:


> So, single women alone in public establishments are "looking to score" huh?
> 
> I suppose we should stay sequestered unless we have a male escort?
> 
> You guys have wild imaginations.


Let me ask you this and I’m being serious.
If a man approached you in the hotel bar and asked you could he buy you a drink would it be the end of the world?
From your other posts I seem to remember you own a couple of businesses and spent time on Air Force bases working on upgrading data systems.(Maybe I have mistaken you for another poster,if so I apologize)
What I mean by this is you are an independent woman who knows what she wants,you are used to working in a mainly male environment and if you choose to have a drink with the guy or not that is all it would entail,having a drink.Unless you decide to take it further.
This thread has seemed to have gone down the road that these innocent girls are being forced into something that they don’t want.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I was hit on by women all the time and some of them made it clear that they wanted sex and nothing else.


----------



## Red Sonja

Your recollection of me is correct.

As for your question …



Andy1001 said:


> Let me ask you this and I’m being serious.
> If a man approached you in the hotel bar and asked you could he buy you a drink would it be the end of the world?


This happens on the regular, whether I accept (or not) depends on how social I am feeling in the moment. Either way, I am always polite in my response.


As for this …



Andy1001 said:


> This thread has seemed to have gone down the road that these innocent girls are being forced into something that they don’t want. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Nothing I said took it down _that _road. :scratchhead: I was addressing an earlier comment that single women alone in hotel bars are “looking to score” … which is a ridiculous assumption.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Red Sonja said:


> So, single women alone in public establishments are "looking to score" huh?
> 
> I suppose we should stay sequestered unless we have a male escort?
> 
> You guys have wild imaginations.


This attitude is a sad truth. When I was much younger, I had a uniform when eating out during work travel. I kept my suit on (remember suits?) and carried a copy of the Economist magazine to forestall approach. I looked for a seat, I looked for a seat without any nearby seats... Yuck.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Andy1001 said:


> Let me ask you this and I’m being serious.
> If a man approached you in the hotel bar and asked you could he buy you a drink would it be the end of the world?


For me it would be the beginning of very careful and calm defensive strategy. Walk a careful line between being polite and being "encouraging". 


> From your other posts I seem to remember you own a couple of businesses and spent time on Air Force bases working on upgrading data systems.(Maybe I have mistaken you for another poster,if so I apologize)
> What I mean by this is you are an independent woman who knows what she wants,you are used to working in a mainly male environment and if you choose to have a drink with the guy or not that is all it would entail,having a drink.Unless you decide to take it further.


And in some cases, this is the case. In many it is not. I have been followed to my room, and had to double back to the lobby and all kinds of nasty stuff.



> This thread has seemed to have gone down the road that these innocent girls are being forced into something that they don’t want.
> Nothing could be further from the truth. I was hit on by women all the time and some of them made it clear that they wanted sex and nothing else.


And this happens too. Rock it or not as you see fit.


----------



## NobodySpecial

PigglyWiggly said:


> I don't think you will have an issue at all. Women who want to be approached seem to give off that vibe to those looking for it.


The converse is not true. Women who don't want to be approached do not have control of what other people will see.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Red Sonja said:


> Nothing I said took it down _that _road. :scratchhead: I was addressing an earlier comment that single women alone in hotel bars are “looking to score” … which is a ridiculous assumption.


This. Ayuh.


----------



## Rowan

NobodySpecial said:


> For me it would be the beginning of very careful and calm defensive strategy. Walk a careful line between being polite and being "encouraging".
> 
> And in some cases, this is the case. In many it is not. I have been followed to my room, and had to double back to the lobby and all kinds of nasty stuff.


This.

When I travel alone, I usually get takeout or order room service if possible. If I do wind up in the hotel bar, I tend to avoid sitting at the bar. I'll always take a small table away from the bar if one is available, preferably in a corner with a good view of the surroundings. I'll also take a book or some files or something so that I can appear to be busy. I work in the construction industry so I already dress conservatively, wear a ring even though I'm not actually married, and do not give off any sort of "come talk to me" vibe. And, yet, I'm still approached by hopeful gentlemen on the regular. I have drinks sent to my table, I have offers to pay my tab, I have men come sit down uninvited 'just to chat'. Most guys are sensible enough to take a hint or a direct but polite "no, thank you". 

And, yet... I've been sneered at and sworn at by men who didn't like being rejected. I've been followed out of the restaurant/bar by men after I've declined the drink they've sent over or rejected their other advances. Most men don't do these things. But the ones who do make it really difficult to know where the balance point is between accidentally being too polite so you're seen as encouraging them, and being not polite enough so that you risk setting off an angry (and often drunk) nutjob.


----------



## Bananapeel

You women are in an argumentative mood and trying to twist around what I've said, but those bastardized arguments are utter nonsense. It's obvious if a woman wants to be picked up and there are certain locations/situations that have better odds than others. For example a woman sitting alone in an upscale hotel bar and looking around at single guys is hugely different than a woman sitting alone in a hotel bar with her face glued into a magazine. The odds of encountering an available single woman in an upscale hotel bar is significantly higher than in other situations like the grocery store. There's no mystery to this at all. That doesn't mean that every woman in the bar is looking to get picked up, but the unapproachable women are also easy to spot and not worth the time of talking with. As a man I can tell you that if I approach and talk with a women it usually takes less than a minute of talking to know if she's interested in me or just being polite, and guys that are good with women have no intent of wasting their time on women that aren't interested in them too. Seriously, if any of you were to meet me IRL and not show signs of high interest, I'd walk away within a minute of meeting you and forget you existed within a minute after that. The creepy stalkerish behavior that many women have unfortunately encountered is from guys that don't know how to read body language and also haven't had a proper male role model in their life to teach them how to interact with women or when to end their interactions with women. The argument that you were in a hotel bar and didn't want to be picked up is also a rubbish argument because your individual situation doesn't invalidate that is a common pickup place for the population as a whole (i.e. statistics do not apply to the individual but instead to the population as a whole).


----------



## uhtred

For the hotel bar thing, I think most people are capable of recognizing when someone wants to socialize, and when they don't, its just that some people will ignore that. 

Lots of business travelers end up getting a quick bite in the hotel bar because its the only, or at least best, option. It doesn't indicate any desire to hook-up.


----------



## personofinterest

Bananapeel, you get it because you have emotional intelligence and understand basic social cues.

A rapidly growing number of people don't, and their rejection temper tantrums can be epic.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Bananapeel said:


> You women are in an argumentative mood and trying to twist around what I've said, but those bastardized arguments are utter nonsense.


To you,, apparently. I am not sure what about 60% of my solo bar experiences would be a "bastardization".


----------



## Rowan

Bananapeel said:


> You women are in an argumentative mood and trying to twist around what I've said, but those bastardized arguments are utter nonsense. It's obvious if a woman wants to be picked up and there are certain locations/situations that have better odds than others. For example a woman sitting alone in an upscale hotel bar and looking around at single guys is hugely different than a woman sitting alone in a hotel bar with her face glued into a magazine. The odds of encountering an available single woman in an upscale hotel bar is significantly higher than in other situations like the grocery store. There's no mystery to this at all. That doesn't mean that every woman in the bar is looking to get picked up, but the unapproachable women are also easy to spot and not worth the time of talking with. As a man I can tell you that if I approach and talk with a women it usually takes less than a minute of talking to know if she's interested in me or just being polite, and guys that are good with women have no intent of wasting their time on women that aren't interested in them too. Seriously, if any of you were to meet me IRL and not show signs of high interest, I'd walk away within a minute of meeting you and forget you existed within a minute after that. The creepy stalkerish behavior that many women have unfortunately encountered is from guys that don't know how to read body language and also haven't had a proper male role model in their life to teach them how to interact with women or when to end their interactions with women. The argument that you were in a hotel bar and didn't want to be picked up is also a rubbish argument because your individual situation doesn't invalidate that is a common pickup place for the population as a whole (i.e. statistics do not apply to the individual but instead to the population as a whole).


My intent was not to argue that a single woman in a hotel bar indicating she's there hoping to be picked up, doesn't in fact want to be picked up. Obviously, she does. Also, obviously, upscale hotel bars are generally a hotbed of singles looking to mingle for some short-term romance. And more power to them. The problem comes when men assume - and far too many do - that every nicely dressed lone woman in a hotel bar is there looking to score. And, hey, even if you roll the dice and go hit on her anyway, if you're polite about it and take "no" for an answer, then no harm, no foul. 

But I think many respectable and sensible men would really be surprised at the numbers of seemingly also respectable and sensible men who absolutely suck at reading a woman's level of interest. There seems to be a appalling number of guys who not only assume a lone woman in a bar must be looking for a hookup, but also assume that she's looking for a hookup _with them_. Even if she's already said no. Many men are really, really, bad at reading women, at interacting with them, and at taking rejection in good spirits. And, honestly, I've had more trouble with the suits in hotel bars than I've ever had from the rough construction workers I encounter on my job sites. 

I don't discourage men from hitting on women. Rather, I strongly encourage men to learn to read actual social cues rather than relying on their own wishful thinking. And to figure out how to receive a polite "no" with good form rather than anger and entitlement.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rowan said:


> This.
> 
> When I travel alone, I usually get takeout or order room service if possible. If I do wind up in the hotel bar, I tend to avoid sitting at the bar. I'll always take a small table away from the bar if one is available, preferably in a corner with a good view of the surroundings. I'll also take a book or some files or something so that I can appear to be busy.


Me too, though I traveled for a week or more at a time. Take out and room service was just to bad to do day in and day out.



> I work in the construction industry so I already dress conservatively, wear a ring even though I'm not actually married, and do not give off any sort of "come talk to me" vibe. And, yet, I'm still approached by hopeful gentlemen on the regular. I have drinks sent to my table, I have offers to pay my tab, I have men come sit down uninvited 'just to chat'. Most guys are sensible enough to take a hint or a direct but polite "no, thank you".


Same. The frequent comment I got was how I must be lonely. No, not so much. I work in software. I was pretty young and traveled to big cities. My employer made sure I stayed in nice restaurants. A significant amount of time I was approached as if all business travelers do to pass the time is boink strangers. 

I would venture other places when I got a recommendation about good food. I had the same experiences there. I made sure, regardless of the distance back to the hotel, not to leave on foot, etc.. Guess how I learned that?!? Ah well. 



> And, yet... I've been sneered at and sworn at by men who didn't like being rejected. I've been followed out of the restaurant/bar by men after I've declined the drink they've sent over or rejected their other advances. Most men don't do these things. But the ones who do make it really difficult to know where the balance point is between accidentally being too polite so you're seen as encouraging them, and being not polite enough so that you risk setting off an angry (and often drunk) nutjob.


Of COURSE none of this happens. We must be imagining it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rowan said:


> My intent was not to argue that a single woman in a hotel bar indicating she's there hoping to be picked up, doesn't in fact want to be picked up. Obviously, she does. Also, obviously, upscale hotel bars are generally a hotbed of singles looking to mingle for some short-term romance. And more power to them. The problem comes when men assume - and far too many do - that every nicely dressed lone woman in a hotel bar is there looking to score. And, hey, even if you roll the dice and go hit on her anyway, if you're polite about it and take "no" for an answer, then no harm, no foul.
> 
> But I think many respectable and sensible men would really be surprised at the numbers of seemingly also respectable and sensible men who absolutely suck at reading a woman's level of interest. There seems to be a appalling number of guys who not only assume a lone woman in a bar must be looking for a hookup, but also assume that she's looking for a hookup _with them_. Even if she's already said no. Many men are really, really, bad at reading women, at interacting with them, and at taking rejection in good spirits. And, honestly, I've had more trouble with the suits in hotel bars than I've ever had from the rough construction workers I encounter on my job sites.
> 
> I don't discourage men from hitting on women. Rather, I strongly encourage men to learn to read actual social cues rather than relying on their own wishful thinking. And to figure out how to receive a polite "no" with good form rather than anger and entitlement.


I guess things have changed in 20 years. Upscale hotel bars is where business travelers went. ANd if you were looking to score, you looked for skankily clad people. Or not based on my experience.


----------



## Bananapeel

NobodySpecial said:


> To you,, apparently. I am not sure what about 60% of my solo bar experiences would be a "bastardization".


My point was an upscale hotel bar with single women is generally considered to be a good place to go to pickup women. Your individual experience of not wanting to be picked up there doesn't invalidate my point of it being considered a good pickup place. Trying to utilize your individual experience to invalidate a population based observation makes absolutely no sense, hence the term bastardization. Additionally, one could argue that if you are getting hit on that much then it is in fact a good place to pick up women, or the guys would flock to a venue that they've found to be more successful. 

Bastardize = corrupt or debase (something such as a language or art form), typically by adding new elements.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Bananapeel said:


> My point was an upscale hotel bar with single women is generally considered to be a good place to go to pickup women. Your individual experience of not wanting to be picked up there doesn't invalidate my point of it being considered a good pickup place. Trying to utilize your individual experience to invalidate a population based observation makes absolutely no sense, hence the term bastardization. Additionally, one could argue that if you are getting hit on that much then it is in fact a good place to pick up women, or the guys would flock to a venue that they've found to be more successful.
> 
> Bastardize = corrupt or debase (something such as a language or art form), typically by adding new elements.


I was responding specifically to your comment that people KNOW (and/or care) who is or is not approachable. I do not believe that that is as commonly true as you do. I am not sure what sharing my experience of a situation you described would be new elements. But there it is.


----------



## Robbie1234

I never had the opportunity or to be honest the confidence to try to pull women the way some of the guys on this thread have. But I'd like to know from the women on this thread is there a level of attraction that changes the rules. If a man is very handsome and is dressed well would he have a better chance with some of you than some of us ordinary Joe's.


----------



## personofinterest

Robbie1234 said:


> I never had the opportunity or to be honest the confidence to try to pull women the way some of the guys on this thread have. But I'd like to know from the women on this thread is there a level of attraction that changes the rules. If a man is very handsome and is dressed well would he have a better chance with some of you than some of us ordinary Joe's.


A handsome man might catch my eye. But if he came up to be and had that self-defeating fumbling wrapped in entitlement thing that a lot of "nice guys" have, I'd be turned off no matter what he looked like.


----------



## Bananapeel

Rowan said:


> My intent was not to argue that a single woman in a hotel bar indicating she's there hoping to be picked up, doesn't in fact want to be picked up. Obviously, she does. Also, obviously, upscale hotel bars are generally a hotbed of singles looking to mingle for some short-term romance. And more power to them. The problem comes when men assume - and far too many do - that every nicely dressed lone woman in a hotel bar is there looking to score. And, hey, even if you roll the dice and go hit on her anyway, if you're polite about it and take "no" for an answer, then no harm, no foul.
> 
> But I think many respectable and sensible men would really be surprised at the numbers of seemingly also respectable and sensible men who absolutely suck at reading a woman's level of interest. There seems to be a appalling number of guys who not only assume a lone woman in a bar must be looking for a hookup, but also assume that she's looking for a hookup _with them_. Even if she's already said no. Many men are really, really, bad at reading women, at interacting with them, and at taking rejection in good spirits. And, honestly, I've had more trouble with the suits in hotel bars than I've ever had from the rough construction workers I encounter on my job sites.
> 
> I don't discourage men from hitting on women. Rather, I strongly encourage men to learn to read actual social cues rather than relying on their own wishful thinking. And to figure out how to receive a polite "no" with good form rather than anger and entitlement.


I'm in 100% agreement with you.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Robbie1234 said:


> I never had the opportunity or to be honest the confidence to try to pull women the way some of the guys on this thread have. But I'd like to know from the women on this thread is there a level of attraction that changes the rules. If a man is very handsome and is dressed well would he have a better chance with some of you than some of us ordinary Joe's.


In a bar by myself? No. Never. That's just me though.


----------



## Bananapeel

NobodySpecial said:


> I was responding specifically to your comment that people KNOW (and/or care) who is or is not approachable. I do not believe that that is as commonly true as you do. I am not sure what sharing my experience of a situation you described would be new elements. But there it is.


I agree that lots of guys don't know how to read women. That goes back to the 80/20 rule and explains why some guys have much better luck with women than other guys have. It also explains why some guys have a ton of confidence because they know whom to approach and whom to avoid.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Bananapeel said:


> I agree that lots of guys don't know how to read women. That goes back to the 80/20 rule and explains why some guys have much better luck with women than other guys have. It also explains why some guys have a ton of confidence because they know whom to approach and whom to avoid.


Curious. Which describes the 80 and which the 20?


----------



## samyeagar

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> My guess is there are an even split of asshats among the genders. The most common reason for divorce seems to be infidelity, but *nowadays women cheat just as much as men* (according to statistics).
> 
> All marriages have ebbs and flows, especially with kids and work, but it seems women are more likely to just 'check out'. It seems once a womans mind is made up its game over. They aren't happy (not alpha enough/not emotionally available enough), game over.
> 
> The 70% is clearly a lopsided number if we are to assume both sexes are equally to blame for the staggering amount of divorces. Seems women are clearly more comfortable walking away. Not sure if its biology, a more favorable court system or something else.


I suspect they always have, it's just that the whole "sugar and spice and everything nice" presumption is losing its luster.


----------



## Bananapeel

@NobodySpecial - 80% of the women are interested in 20% of the guys. It's usually those 20% of guys that are more skilled at reading women because they've had more practice and success.


----------



## personofinterest

samyeagar said:


> the whole "sugar and spice and everything nice" presumption is losing its luster.


Now there's a winning line to use next time you practice your PUA moves 

Hubba Hubba


----------



## NobodySpecial

Bananapeel said:


> @NobodySpecial - 80% of the women are interested in 20% of the guys. It's usually those 20% of guys that are more skilled at reading women because they've had more practice and success.


Oh. Thanks.


----------



## Andy1001

NobodySpecial said:


> In a bar by myself? No. Never. That's just me though.


That’s what they all say😈😈😈


----------



## ReformedHubby

Bananapeel said:


> @NobodySpecial - 80% of the women are interested in 20% of the guys. It's usually those 20% of guys that are more skilled at reading women because they've had more practice and success.


Nice! More for me!  I guess I am in the 20%. In all seriousness though I don't believe its true. With that said if there is any truth to it I would say it applies to how men view women as well. Everyone wants a super hottie as a mate, but not all of us can get one.


----------



## Married but Happy

Wow! If 80% of the women are interested in 20% of the guys, and the other 20% are content with a guy in the 80%, then 60% of the women are settling for 60% of those remaining guys, who are settling for those disappointed 60% remainder women. No wonder so few couples are happy!

It's even more complicated if that top 20% of the guys don't ever settle for one of the top 20% of the women, and keep recycling.


----------



## Andy1001

Married but Happy said:


> Wow! If 80% of the women are interested in 20% of the guys, and the other 20% are content with a guy in the 80%, then 60% of the women are settling for 60% of those remaining guys, who are settling for those disappointed 60% remainder women. No wonder so few couples are happy!
> 
> It's even more complicated if that top 20% of the guys don't ever settle for one of the top 20% of the women, and keep recycling.


But of the 20 percent of guys who eighty percent of the woman are chasing,eighty percent of the twenty percent will settle for twenty percent of the eighty percent of women who chase them.That means twenty percent of the original twenty percent will have their pick of twenty percent of the women because the other eighty percent of the women are still chasing twenty percent of the guys.
It’s simple really when you think about it.Never settle.


----------



## Bananapeel

Andy1001 said:


> But of the 20 percent of guys who eighty percent of the woman are chasing,eighty percent of the twenty percent will settle for twenty percent of the eighty percent of women who chase them.That means twenty percent of the original twenty percent will have their pick of twenty percent of the women because the other eighty percent of the women are still chasing twenty percent of the guys.
> I think this is an incorrect statement. If 20% of the women aren't chasing after the men then it means those small group of men are chasing after women that aren't into them and thus they have no choice from that 20%It’s simple really when you think about it. Never settle.


I can't believe you're making me do math at the end of the day.

If 80% of women want 20% of men and
80 percent of the men will settle for those women
That means that 16% of men will get their choice of 80% of the women and 4% will have their choice of 20% of the remaining women that aren't chasing after them 
That basically puts that 4% of men back in the camp with the other 80% of men, so really only 16% of men are choosing from a large pool of women and 84% are getting whatever woman settles on them. 

So in summary the majority of women get to choose their partners and will pick from their best available pool of 86% of men, even if it isn't ideal, and 16% of men will pick from their best available pool and will be able to select their best match at the time. Ugh, this is getting confusing! :scratchhead:


----------



## michzz

I once was at a hotel bar and slid out my glass, you know, as a "signal."

The waitress come over and filled it with water.


----------



## Andy1001

Bananapeel said:


> I can't believe you're making me do math at the end of the day.
> 
> If 80% of women want 20% of men and
> 80 percent of the men will settle for those women
> That means that 16% of men will get their choice of 80% of the women and 4% will have their choice of 20% of the remaining women that aren't chasing after them
> That basically puts that 4% of men back in the camp with the other 80% of men, so really only 16% of men are choosing from a large pool of women and 84% are getting whatever woman settles on them.
> 
> So in summary the majority of women get to choose their partners and will pick from their best available pool of 86% of men, even if it isn't ideal, and 16% of men will pick from their best available pool and will be able to select their best match at the time. Ugh, this is getting confusing! :scratchhead:


It’s simple really.
Four percent of men will have their pick of ALL of the women.
Just make sure you’re in that four percent.

Now to narrow it down even more..Because those four percent are all good looking,charismatic,fit guys then the really hot women (The tens)will still want to narrow the field further.
So they will consider money,cars,watches etc.
And this is where someone who will drop a grand on a night out wins.
Like I used to do.
Hehehe😀😀😀


----------



## personofinterest

michzz said:


> I once was at a hotel bar and slid out my glass, you know, as a "signal."
> 
> The waitress come over and filled it with water. <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" ></a>


 I to know this mysterious game of having my glass refilled. 😄


----------



## ConanHub

@Bananapeel
You have your POV and for you, and those like you, it is true.

The POV of many women getting extremely unwanted and rude attention is quite real as well.

You are correct as well that there are a lot of women in situations already described, that are looking for an attractive playmate for a night or two.


----------



## Robbie1234

ConanHub said:


> @Bananapeel
> You have your POV and for you, and those like you, it is true.
> 
> The POV of many women getting extremely unwanted and rude attention is quite real as well.
> 
> You are correct as well that there are a lot of women in situations already described, that are looking for an attractive playmate for a night or two.


I think the previous poster who likened you to @Andy1001 had it wrong. You seem to deeply regret your past with women and you seem to feel like you hurt them in some way. I'm not just talking about this thread but others as well. 
Myself and Andy have mutual friends,he is my bosses boss in actual fact. He is different to you in that he considers his dating life as as just having fun and has said on tam on numerous occasions that he regrets nothing about his past. 
Have you ever considered that you overthink your past.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Andy1001 said:


> That’s what they all say😈😈😈


It's not a moral qualm. Pretty much the only time I am in a bar by myself is a hotel on business. Just not inclined. And as I said, not entirely safe. I am not getting this upscale hotel bar as a place for this though. Maybe that has changed in recent years. But the only people I saw there were business travelers.


----------



## SunCMars

Red Sonja said:


> So, single women alone in public establishments are "looking to score" huh?
> 
> I suppose we should stay sequestered unless we have a male escort?
> 
> You guys have wild imaginations.


Since when are wild imaginations a bad thing!

Dreams are 'often' much more fulfilling than real life.

Of course, one should not 'act out', based on those dreams!


----------



## SunCMars

Rowan said:


> This.
> 
> When I travel alone, I usually get takeout or order room service if possible. If I do wind up in the hotel bar, I tend to avoid sitting at the bar. I'll always take a small table away from the bar if one is available, preferably in a corner with a good view of the surroundings. I'll also take a book or some files or something so that I can appear to be busy. I work in the construction industry so I already dress conservatively, wear a ring even though I'm not actually married, and do not give off any sort of "come talk to me" vibe. And, yet, I'm still approached by hopeful gentlemen on the regular. I have drinks sent to my table, I have offers to pay my tab, I have men come sit down uninvited 'just to chat'. Most guys are sensible enough to take a hint or a direct but polite "no, thank you".
> 
> And, yet... I've been sneered at and sworn at by men who didn't like being rejected. I've been followed out of the restaurant/bar by men after I've declined the drink they've sent over or rejected their other advances. Most men don't do these things. But the ones who do make it really difficult to know where the balance point is between accidentally being too polite so you're seen as encouraging them, and being not polite enough so that you risk setting off an angry (and often drunk) nutjob.



Unfortunately, or fortunately that is the world we live in. 
Males seek out females. 
From little mice to birds to grizzly bears........... males chasing females.
It is what it is.

In your case, you would 'likely' be better off sitting in a cafe or a coffee house. No drinking men present.


----------



## Andy1001

NobodySpecial said:


> It's not a moral qualm. Pretty much the only time I am in a bar by myself is a hotel on business. Just not inclined. And as I said, not entirely safe. I am not getting this upscale hotel bar as a place for this though. Maybe that has changed in recent years. But the only people I saw there were business travelers.


I was just kidding you with my last comment but in all seriousness a lot of women have approached me over the years and the first thing they say is “I never usually do this but would you like to have a drink”. And this would have been in hotel bars usually.
It’s all in the past now,I’m getting married to my long term gf in October.


----------



## SunCMars

Andy1001 said:


> I was just kidding you with my last comment but in all seriousness* a lot of women have approached me over the years* and the first thing they say is “I never usually do this but would you like to have a drink”. And this would have been in hotel bars usually.
> It’s all in the past now,I’m getting married to my long term gf in October.


Yes, we have all heard this from you, read this from you..... about a gazzilian times.

Yes, you are hot stuff.... We get it...


----------



## ConanHub

Robbie1234 said:


> I think the previous poster who likened you to @Andy1001 had it wrong. You seem to deeply regret your past with women and you seem to feel like you hurt them in some way. I'm not just talking about this thread but others as well.
> Myself and Andy have mutual friends,he is my bosses boss in actual fact. He is different to you in that he considers his dating life as as just having fun and has said on tam on numerous occasions that he regrets nothing about his past.
> Have you ever considered that you overthink your past.


Some TAMmers compare us simply because we both had a high "success" rate for having sex with different partners.

Andy and my backgrounds are as different as night and day however.

He was a high flying gentleman that actively pursued women in a fun and genteel setting.

I climbed out of one of the lowest holes our society has to offer and was a bad boy who was trying to figure out if getting to the "right" side of the tracks was even worth it.

I never once pursued a woman until I met my wife because I really didn't care to. My number of partners and the variety of them still baffle me to this day.

Women were just a side dish or sort of a distracting presence to me. 

I deeply regret much of that part of my life because it did involve hurt feelings and broken hearts in many of the women and feelings of disgust for myself.

I was not a very nice guy. Honest and generally good, but not nice.

I was not behaving according to my nature either. I have, as far as memory serves, been geared for a one on one romance for life. I was behaving incredibly self destructive and the few women I allowed in my bed were a result of living on the edge of the blade.

I'm a researcher by nature and a thinker. I definitely geek out on topics occasionally but I don't over think the past. I just try and learn from it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Andy1001 said:


> I was just kidding you with my last comment but in all seriousness a lot of women have approached me over the years and the first thing they say is “I never usually do this but would you like to have a drink”. And this would have been in hotel bars usually.
> It’s all in the past now,I’m getting married to my long term gf in October.


Oh I know. And congratulations!


----------



## Andy1001

SunCMars said:


> Yes, we have all heard this from you, read this from you..... about a gazzilian times.
> 
> Yes, you are hot stuff.... We get it...


Wow!
A straightforward comment.
How cryptic.


----------



## ConanHub

Rowan said:


> This.
> 
> When I travel alone, I usually get takeout or order room service if possible. If I do wind up in the hotel bar, I tend to avoid sitting at the bar. I'll always take a small table away from the bar if one is available, preferably in a corner with a good view of the surroundings. I'll also take a book or some files or something so that I can appear to be busy. I work in the construction industry so I already dress conservatively, wear a ring even though I'm not actually married, and do not give off any sort of "come talk to me" vibe. And, yet, I'm still approached by hopeful gentlemen on the regular. I have drinks sent to my table, I have offers to pay my tab, I have men come sit down uninvited 'just to chat'. Most guys are sensible enough to take a hint or a direct but polite "no, thank you".
> 
> And, yet... I've been sneered at and sworn at by men who didn't like being rejected. I've been followed out of the restaurant/bar by men after I've declined the drink they've sent over or rejected their other advances. Most men don't do these things. But the ones who do make it really difficult to know where the balance point is between accidentally being too polite so you're seen as encouraging them, and being not polite enough so that you risk setting off an angry (and often drunk) nutjob.


This POV is often hard for most men to have the first clue about.

There is a well hidden world that women have to learn to navigate from childhood.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ConanHub said:


> This POV is often hard for most men to have the first clue about.
> 
> There is a well hidden world that women have to learn to navigate from childhood.


It is not that hidden, alas. I swear I wish I had not been dumb and naive having to learn each freaking lesson the hard way. DOH!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Andy1001 said:


> Wow!
> A straightforward comment.
> How cryptic.


There are definitely posters on any board who have confirmation bias so hard that they just cannot accept experience different than their own. The responses range from defensiveness to insults... It is what it is.


----------



## ConanHub

NobodySpecial said:


> It is not that hidden, alas. I swear I wish I had not been dumb and naive having to learn each freaking lesson the hard way. DOH!


It is hidden from most men. We aren't generally privy to a woman's perspective on it and really don't have an inkling.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ConanHub said:


> It is hidden from most men. We aren't generally privy to a woman's perspective on it and really don't have an inkling.


Oh yah, I hear that. DH just looks at me with consternation when I tell him these stories. He has a hard time thinking that walking down the street as a young person was just a different thing for me than it was for him. It seems even kind of hidden from the men who do it in a weird way. They seem to believe that it is what women want. They don't THINK they are being creepy, or annoying or worse.


----------



## SunCMars

NobodySpecial said:


> There are definitely posters on any board who have confirmation bias so hard that they just cannot accept experience different than their own. The responses range from defensiveness to insults... It is what it is.


You talkin' to me, Willis?


----------



## SunCMars

NobodySpecial said:


> Oh yah, I hear that. DH just looks at me with consternation when I tell him these stories. He has a hard time thinking that walking down the street as a young person was just a different thing for me than it was for him. It seems even kind of hidden from the men who do it in a weird way. They seem to believe that it is what women want. *They don't THINK they are being creepy, or annoying or worse.*


These are the male attributes acting out.
They are 'not' acting in an unnatural manner.

This is very natural. 

Yes, it certainly might be unpleasant for the lady that is at the receiving end of this.

It is a conflict felt inside most men. 
Behave as a civilized man [as taught], or act like a horny goat [as felt].

If all men were 'very' civilized, life would be boring.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SunCMars said:


> These are the male attributes acting out.
> They are 'not' acting in an unnatural manner.
> 
> This is very natural.


I don't care if it is natural or not. Most of us don't operate exclusively from our brain stem anymore.



> Yes, it certainly might be unpleasant for the lady that is at the receiving end of this.


Right. Unpleasant. 



> It is a conflict felt inside most men.
> Behave as a civilized man [as taught], or act like a horny goat [as felt].


Oh poor baby. Stupid ass excuse to be a stupid ass. 



> If all men were 'very' civilized, life would be boring.


Oh poor men and their over active sex drive that makes them insane in the pursuit of the poon tang. You are singing to the wrong chorus, dude. I have met (and married, dated, loved, been sister, friend, daughter and mother) people who don't use their animal nature to be jerks.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't care if it is natural or not. Most of us don't operate exclusively from our brain stem anymore.
> 
> 
> Right. Unpleasant.
> 
> 
> Oh poor baby. Stupid ass excuse to be a stupid ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh poor men and their over active sex drive that makes them insane in the pursuit of the poon tang. You are singing to the wrong chorus, dude. I have met (and married, dated, loved, been sister, friend, daughter and mother) people who don't use their animal nature to be jerks.


Are you referring to all men that see an attractive lady in a bar and approach her? Because you know many women go to bars to meet eligible men. 

Or are you referring to men that can't take a hint and don't take rejection well? Because I can understand that, once you know she isn't open for business, time to move along and stop wasting your time and continue to annoy her.

But how is a man to know if she will be receptive or not unless he approaches her? Most women I have observed in bars alone aren't there reading a Nora Roberts novel.


----------



## NobodySpecial

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Are you referring to all men that see an attractive lady in a bar and approach her?


No. I was responding to specifically what was written only.



> Because you know many women go to bars to meet eligible men.
> 
> Or are you referring to men that can't take a hint and don't take rejection well? Because I can understand that, once you know she isn't open for business, time to move along and stop wasting your time and continue to annoy her.
> 
> But how is a man to know if she will be receptive or not unless he approaches her? Most women I have observed in bars alone aren't there reading a Nora Roberts novel.


Different experiences for sure. There are different people. Why a person or people would think I was approachable in my business suit reading the Economist I cannot fathom. I don't get to know.


----------



## Bananapeel

Andy1001 said:


> It’s simple really.
> Four percent of men will have their pick of ALL of the women.
> Just make sure you’re in that four percent.
> 
> Now to narrow it down even more..Because those four percent are all good looking,charismatic,fit guys then the really hot women (The tens)will still want to narrow the field further.
> So they will consider money,cars,watches etc.
> And this is where someone who will drop a grand on a night out wins.
> Like I used to do.
> Hehehe😀😀😀


I'm honestly quite a bit jealous. I was a late bloomer with women and really didn't discover how slated things were in my favor until after I got divorced. I'm not in the 4% and never will be, but still manage to have a good time in the 20%.


----------



## Andy1001

Bananapeel said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s simple really.
> Four percent of men will have their pick of ALL of the women.
> Just make sure you’re in that four percent.
> 
> Now to narrow it down even more..Because those four percent are all good looking,charismatic,fit guys then the really hot women (The tens)will still want to narrow the field further.
> So they will consider money,cars,watches etc.
> And this is where someone who will drop a grand on a night out wins.
> Like I used to do.
> Hehehe😀😀😀
> 
> 
> 
> I'm honestly quite a bit jealous. I was a late bloomer with women and really didn't discover how slated things were in my favor until after I got divorced. I'm not in the 4% and never will be, but still manage to have a good time in the 20%.
Click to expand...

All in the past my friend. The only girls I’m interested in now is my fiancée and daughter.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Bananapeel said:


> I'm honestly quite a bit jealous. I was a late bloomer with women and really didn't discover how slated things were in my favor until after I got divorced. I'm not in the 4% and never will be, but still manage to have a good time in the 20%.


I'm sure I'll catch hell for this, but since I started this thread, I'm gonna say it. 

Men typically reach their peak SMV in their 30's, while women typically reach their peak SMV in their early to mid 20's. Most men don't realize this and get married before their 30's and then discover after divorce (if its within 10 years) that its a whole lot easier to get women than it was when they were some recent college grad. That has been my experience too.


----------



## 269370

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Wandering across the internet, I came across this excerpt from the book Sexual Market Value by Chris Capetown. I wonder if any of you gentlemen have any insight, personal or otherwise, on this:
> 
> “Men’s instincts tend toward polygamy, women’s toward hypergamy. Hypergamy, for those who don’t know, is women’s congenital inclination to continually trade up in men. The word has Greek origins (hyper meaning ‘above’ and gamos meaning ‘marriage’) and originally referred to women’s tendency to “marry up”, but applies equally to non-matrimonial relationships.
> 
> Whereas all men have a natural urge to copulate with a great variety of fertile women (because, in our evolutionary history, such behavior improved our chances of gene proliferation), women have a corresponding biological drive to have relations with the highest quality man they possible can (for the same reason) and to gain exclusive commitment from that man. Briefly put, men want a lot of women, women want one really great guy."
> 
> More so, what I'm interested in is this natural tendency for women to trade up for men that they perceive have higher value, which is what I understand is Hypergamy...




You just have to make sure you are the very up to date version of the latest upgrade and you will be fine 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Edmund

Bananapeel said:


> I have not ever had a woman trade me out for a better man as per the hypergamy theory, but my XW for some bizarre reason would have chosen her AP over me in a heartbeat. On paper there is no comparison between us and I'm vastly superior in every category (smarter, more successful, better looking, bigger wiener, better shape, more education, higher social status), but in her eyes he was superior so I think that would be an example of hypergamy.


Read the thread by Donesies for a similar situation.

I always wondered why, among young women, the most desireable of them always select the biggest losers for dates / boyfriends. Some writings describe this as a biological imperative to select alpha males. It seemed to me they always thought they could tame or control the "bad boys", and this rarely ever worked.


----------



## personofinterest

Edmund said:


> Read the thread by Donesies for a similar situation.
> 
> I always wondered why, among young women, the most desireable of them always select the biggest losers for dates / boyfriends. Some writings describe this as a biological imperative to select alpha males. It seemed to me they always thought they could tame or control the "bad boys", and this rarely ever worked.


They DON'T always pick the losers. The unhealthy ones do, but not most of us.

A certain subset of men tell themselves this (or read it on reddit) to feel better.


----------



## 269370

Andy1001 said:


> I was just kidding you with my last comment but in all seriousness a lot of women have approached me over the years and the first thing they say is “I never usually do this but would you like to have a drink”. And this would have been in hotel bars usually.
> 
> It’s all in the past now,I’m getting married to my long term gf in October.



I never had a woman use that line on me. I often had a woman ‘confuse’ me with someone else, to strike up the conversation. I always have to laugh.
Congrats on getting married.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Edmund said:


> Read the thread by Donesies for a similar situation.
> 
> I always wondered why, among young women, the most desireable of them always select the biggest losers for dates / boyfriends. Some writings describe this as a biological imperative to select alpha males. It seemed to me they always thought they could tame or control the "bad boys", and this rarely ever worked.


They do up to a certain age, then they choose a beta provider to settle down with. Then she gets bored with her beta and finds an alpha to cheat with. Its a vicious cycle. At a certain point, you got to kill the beta inside you.


----------



## Edmund

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> They do up to a certain age, then they choose a beta provider to settle down with. Then she gets bored with her beta and finds an alpha to cheat with. Its a vicious cycle. At a certain point, you got to kill the beta inside you.


Exactly. Except not all women cheat after they get bored with their beta. The three enigmas book is about how to prevent the boredom / cheating.


----------



## Robbie1234

SunCMars said:


> You talkin' to me, Willis?


Who rattled your cage. Or should it be cages. Who are we dealing with today,the queen or one of the typists.


----------



## Robbie1234

inmyprime said:


> I never had a woman use that line on me. I often had a woman ‘confuse’ me with someone else, to strike up the conversation. I always have to laugh.
> Congrats on getting married.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is hilarious. This is exactly how Andy met J, she thought he was someone else. Or so she says. Lol.


----------



## Bananapeel

Edmund said:


> I always wondered why, among young women, the most desireable of them always select the biggest losers for dates / boyfriends. Some writings describe this as a biological imperative to select alpha males. It seemed to me they always thought they could tame or control the "bad boys", and this rarely ever worked.


The way I rationalize it is because the "bad boys" are honest with their intentions unlike the "nice guys" that will hide their true intent as part of approval seeking behavior. By being honest and direct a man is displaying a high level of confidence (essentially espousing a take me as I am attitude). Also those men aren't putting the women on a pedestal but are treating them more like equals. Both of those are things that many women respond positively towards and associate with masculinity. The true alphas that many women hope to find have that quality of being direct/honest but also have other great qualities that women like too such as social status, success, etc.


----------



## SunCMars

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't care if it is natural or not. Most of us don't operate exclusively from our brain stem anymore.
> 
> 
> Right. Unpleasant.
> 
> 
> Oh poor baby. Stupid ass excuse to be a stupid ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh poor men and their over active sex drive that makes them insane in the pursuit of the poon tang. You are singing to the wrong chorus, dude. I have met (and married, dated, loved, been sister, friend, daughter and mother) people who don't use their animal nature to be jerks.


Sigh!

One can assume that @Andy1001 is hot. 

You?

You seem not.

Me nigh-ther!

Beat you to your' next... 
Your' next probable retort!
................................................................................

You ARE an angry woman, though.
Why is that? ~~~~~ Hmmm?. :|


----------



## Faithful Wife

Robbie1234 said:


> I think the previous poster who likened you to @Andy1001 had it wrong. You seem to deeply regret your past with women and you seem to feel like you hurt them in some way. I'm not just talking about this thread but others as well.
> Myself and Andy have mutual friends,he is my bosses boss in actual fact. He is different to you in that he considers his dating life as as just having fun and has said on tam on numerous occasions that he regrets nothing about his past.
> Have you ever considered that you overthink your past.


You stalked Andy on TAM .....and you actually know him in real life? Wtf?


----------



## 269370

Robbie1234 said:


> This is hilarious. This is exactly how Andy met J, she thought he was someone else. Or so she says. Lol.



I thought it's a superior line to the 'standard' pick up line because it doesn't put the woman in the role of asking for something she might be directly rejected about. 

For the first few times, I was the one who felt like an idiot for not being able to remember having ever been to 'that' event where that woman apparently saw me, but now I get it and play along sometimes, just for the giggles.


----------



## SunCMars

NobodySpecial said:


> No. I was responding to specifically what was written only.
> 
> 
> 
> Different experiences for sure. There are different people. *Why a person or people would think I was approachable in my business suit reading the Economist I cannot fathom.* I don't get to know.


:|:|:smile2::smile2::grin2::grin2::surprise:


----------



## SunCMars

Faithful Wife said:


> You stalked Andy on TAM .....and you actually know him in real life? Wtf?


Holey Schmoley! :surprise:


----------



## NobodySpecial

SunCMars said:


> Sigh!
> 
> One can assume that @Andy1001 is hot.
> 
> You?
> 
> You seem not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what it matters. Andy may well be hot. He also seems very nice. I could tell you I am hot, or so people tell me. You won't believe me as with anything else I say.
> 
> 
> 
> Me nigh-ther!
> 
> Beat you to your' next...
> Your' next probable retort!
> ................................................................................
> 
> You ARE an angry woman, though.
> Why is that? ~~~~~ Hmmm?. :|
Click to expand...

So you say. I don't feel angry. I am not at odds with my nature. I have a wonderful family, at the front being my very nice, kind, loving, hot husband. Not much to complain about here. I like this board as it gives me a place to divert myself in between other stuff when my work brain needs a break. Of course I share my own experience. It is funny how often that comes with a lot Oh No that is not how it really is. Not my monkeys. Not my circus. Posters who like to divert, accuse and excuse for their weird points of view are not new. C'est la vie. Cheers.


----------



## personofinterest

Bananapeel said:


> The way I rationalize it is *because the "bad boys" are honest with their intentions unlike the "nice guys" that will hide their true intent as part of approval seeking behavior.* By being honest and direct a man is displaying a high level of confidence (essentially espousing a take me as I am attitude). Also those men aren't putting the women on a pedestal but are treating them more like equals. Both of those are things that many women respond positively towards and associate with masculinity. The true alphas that many women hope to find have that quality of being direct/honest but also have other great qualities that women like too such as social status, success, etc.


Yes to the bolded part. This subset of men who I call "bitter nice guys" are not any less bad than the bad boys at their core. They just hide it behind politeness and entitlement. The true bad boy might expect you to put out, but when you say no, he'll move on. The "nice guy" will blame the woman for being too picky, call her a princess, say she led him on because she smiled at him, go on a whiny men's site and rant, and then generalize their dishonest lack of success to the entire gender.

Kind of like we've seen from a few posts in this thread lol


----------



## Robbie1234

Faithful Wife said:


> You stalked Andy on TAM .....and you actually know him in real life? Wtf?


When I first found tam my daughter had just been dumped by her fiance because she got a tattoo. One of the first stories I read was about this wealthy guy who had done the same thing. I started giving him some crap and even got banned for it. On another thread about stag party's he was posting about a stag party that he was at in Spain that went on for two weeks. I work for a contractor who had a two week stag in Spain and it didn't take long to figure out it was the same party. I asked my boss about the party and was any American s at it and he said only his main customer. This stag party is famous in Ireland and not one picture was ever taken at it. Phones were locked away . People were coming and going all the time for a few days or so. 
I messaged Andy and apologize to him and he was ok about it. He gives my boss a lot of work and it trickles down the line to me. 
I know who he is but we have not met. Anything that I wrote here he has posted himself so I'm not giving any secrets away.


----------



## Red Sonja

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Men typically reach their peak SMV in their 30's, while women typically reach their peak SMV in their early to mid 20's. Most men don't realize this and get married before their 30's and then discover after divorce (if its within 10 years) that its a whole lot easier to get women than it was when they were some recent college grad. That has been my experience too.


Meh ... SMV is in the eye of the beholder ... not some formula.


----------



## Red Sonja

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> They do up to a certain age, *then they choose a beta provider to settle down with.* Then she gets bored with her beta and finds an alpha to cheat with. Its a vicious cycle. At a certain point, you got to kill the beta inside you.


The bolded is a loooong outdated "fact" in the western world (and most of Asia) ... I don't know why people keep spouting it as "truth".

Keep up with the times.


----------



## BarbedFenceRider

SMV clinically is actually the prime age for females for ability to breed. While carnal lust can be anywhere in the scale. 

SO, females that are usually over 35-37 years old will have a lower sexual marketplace value than the 19-27 yo female. That is just the lizard brain working here mind you. Best chances for ability to breed and carry children. 

For males, it is generally older but with different criterion. Monetary, ability to father children, and ofcourse physical traits that usually go with it. Kinda like the strongest cave man with the best position for wealth and security for the female..


I do think that both sexes over 35 in our current culture generally do not adhere to these values as time goes on. We all get baggage along the way, and our world experiences play a factor into our emotional response as well.


----------



## ConanHub

SMV?

Sexual Market Value?

Can't be right....


----------



## uhtred

Why do you think so? From what I've seen, different women (just like men) want different things. There are men who are on average more attractive to more women, but I doubt there is that much overlap.

Even if I take your "ALL" as "most" I doubt there are any men that a very high percentage of women would want to sleep with.

Similarly I expect we are interested in very different women. Your idea of a "10" and mine may have very little overlap. 



Andy1001 said:


> It’s simple really.
> Four percent of men will have their pick of ALL of the women.
> Just make sure you’re in that four percent.
> 
> Now to narrow it down even more..Because those four percent are all good looking,charismatic,fit guys then the really hot women (The tens)will still want to narrow the field further.
> So they will consider money,cars,watches etc.
> And this is where someone who will drop a grand on a night out wins.
> Like I used to do.
> Hehehe😀😀😀


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Red Sonja said:


> Meh ... SMV is in the eye of the beholder ... not some formula.


True, but I'm speaking in generalities and only on a superficial level.

Also, as related to male vs female SMV and why a man tends to peak in their 30's is because in your 30's more women are available and the man has the greatest power in relationships at that age. For instance a 24 year old male has a possible pool of legal age to 24. But a man of 34 has a pool of women legal age to 34. And that is mainly because the cougar phenomenom is relatively small.

Of course, this is all things being equal. You also have to have your life together, take care of yourself and have more wealth power. If your fat, poor and have no game, you are likely going to have little SMV whatever age.


----------

