While I don’t disagree with the idea of women as natural “plate-theorists” or the concept of hypergamy, it is prudent to remember that men, too, have a biological stake in monogamy. As women need it to ensure the man doesn’t squander resources to support offspring of other women, so men need it to ensure that they wont squander resources to support another man’s offspring.

Monogamy is thus a two-edged sword for *both* sexes: It restricts options, yes, but it also guards against infidelity of the other partner. That infidelity has such negative connotations is not just a female imperative, it also hurts men’s biological self-interest. It is not in our biological self-interest to feed the offspring of another male anymore than it is in the biological self-interest of women to have their mate feed multiple women and their offspring.

Monogamy is thus a mutually beneficial compromise. Let’s remember that the concept of marriage (and the harsh punishments for breaking the wedding vows) were devised under extremely patriarchal and all-around male-dominated societies. It was not a feminist invention.

Many people misinterpret an abundance mentality as a disinterest mentality.

You can be way into the girl, and even quite in love. That’s attractive.

It’s only when you are exclusively interested and in a position where you lose hand to her where things fall apart. If the girl needs you more than you need her, you can be as into her as you want.

Just tend to show 1/3 as much interest as she does, and always keep your options open, or better yet see other girls – especially in the initial dating phases.

Disinterest does not equal attraction. Attraction is needing her less than she needs you.

I’ve had the same thing happen. Every time I get serious everything falls apart. I wrote about this here:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1874588&postcount=51