Female attractiveness and male resources, an exchange

As explained by Monroe.

Don’t you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty?

You wouldn’t marry a girl just because she’s pretty….

But my goodness, doesn’t it help?

And if you had a daughter, wouldn’t you rather she didn’t marry a poor man?

You’d want her to have the most wonderful things in the world and be very happy.

Why is it wrong for me to want those things?

Telling a woman not to crave the security to raise her children is like telling men to have children with ugly women out of pity because don’t they deserve a chance? It’s unnatural and wrong, morally.

If you don’t like it, get a sex change.

These are evolved response sets.

Men want babies. They crave sex and companionship.

Women want babies. They crave love and commitment, and isn’t the last easier with a man who can afford to commit time, too?

“Women have all the dating power” and other broken records

hookingupsmart.com/2014/02/03/relationshipstrategies/myth-totalitarian-female-power-dating/

Neither sex holds all the power. Both sexes have the power to offer what the other sex wants. No one has an obligation to find someone attractive. No one is entitled to sex, and no one is entitled to commitment.

If you’re not getting what you want from the opposite sex, effective strategies include:

1. Lowering your standards.

2. Increasing your attractiveness.

3. Changing your environment to a place where the sex ratio is more favorable, improving your odds.

Ineffective strategies include:

1. Whining and complaining about the nature of men or women.

2. Feeling entitled to pity sex or just plain pity because you’re not having sex or getting asked out.

3. Submerging yourself in a full tank of confirmation bias.

Social exchange. If you aren’t offering what they want, no trade.
This is the key reason modern woman is so confused that men would give away their commitment (vow never to XYZ) as if that is a sign of value, as if that will draw us in? Fine, give away your bargaining chip with the opposite sex, see what happens.

Men and women are not the same.

Men and women are not the same.

Men and women are not the same.

They don’t want the same things.
Usurping the role of the opposite sex will not attract them. It will repulse them.
e.g. You want a commitment-phobe woman? Women don’t want that in a man.

Do not confuse traits signaled for and countersignaled.
Because of this or In spite of this?
e.g. Does she want the 10 because he’s a douchebag or can he afford to be a douchebag because he’s a 10?

This one line.

“men who seem to assume that they’re oppressed by the fact that the woman they like may not want to fuck them”

A slow-clap for the Dr.

rdj claps applause mhmm

They like to say women don’t have agency… then how come they can be rejected?

What is marriage? an economic exchange, a contract

http://no-maam.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html

Read the whole thing.

…Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed….

I think a lot of men in the manosphere fail to realize one thing about traditional real marriage vs. the new modern excuses. There can be no marriage without fidelity, this is a reason why ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t count, because they’re unfaithful. Yes, that goes both ways. You want to fuck around? Never get married. The decent woman who is worthy of marriage doesn’t deserve the pain, diminished social status (can’t satisfy her husband, something wrong with her or her selection) and STDs of a cheating husband, just as a good man doesn’t deserve a feminist. These differences in strategy (short promiscuous/long monogamous) are fine, but do not mix. A promiscuous husband is just as much of a liability as a cuckolding feminist, trying to reap the benefits of both strategies and tearing the social fabric apart.

It’s a commitment and a sacrifice and yes it is difficult, that is why longlasting marriages have value.

Understand the vows you take, “not to be entered into lightly”

http://www.myweddingvows.com/traditional-wedding-vows/christian-wedding-vows

“so I will be to you a loving and faithful husband.”

” I promise you my deepest love, my fullest devotion, my tenderest care.”

“And so throughout life, no matter what may lie ahead of us, I pledge to you my life as a loving and faithful husband.”