It is something that has been observed across the board.

The point is that while women may be ‘hypergamous’ creatives, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for them to do so given what the statistics tell us about marriage. In other words, women aren’t ‘marrying up’ in the numbers that they used to.

Hooking up is a different story though.

“One last attempt. You wrote a 1500 word comment replying to my comment, but didn’t ‘write if for me’ …”

My comments are for the benefit of honest seekers.
.

“We also have uncovered something else. You don’t know the meaning of the word solipsism. It’s not “being selfish”, no it’s walking around with the delusion that others aren’t real.”

We have also uncovered something else: you can’t read.

I didn’t write “selfish”, I wrote “self-centered” (engrossed in oneself), because it is a practical equivalent for “solipsism”, whose dictionary definition is “The theory that the self is the only reality” (a definition that was also too cumbersome to use in figuring out why you were claiming that such people are unable to shop).

And I hate to have to tell you this, but solipsistic women are neither delusional nor conducting some kind of deep philosophical discussion in their heads (“Would Socrates think that these shoes are cute?”, LOL).

They act on their immediate feelings, because they are so engrossed in themselves that it never occurs to them (or they don’t have the capacity to consider) that other people should matter in any significant way.

Thank you for your kind words about my comment.

You are absolutely right that “Some women create a beautiful marriage, and some are all about themselves. You MAY have more of the latter when you are dealing with 9’s 10’s.. but definitely not always. Inner beauty really does matter”.

I emphasized the 7/8 and 9/10, not to imply that outer beauty was ever inversely correlated with inner beauty, but to remind people that outer beauty without inner beauty is of little value.

“… I go to a wives group JUST so that I can support my husband …”

Loyalty and looking out for each other is truly essential, and the one type of relationship that I have yet to see fail is an actual “two of us against the world” marriage.

At any rate, I don’t know a single man that purposely looked for high income or status in a wife. Most did their best to avoid taking on debt, which may be a contributor to their wives lower income. They dsidnt bring huge college debt with them into the marriage, but they also don’t make much.

I’d argue it’s about protection, and that’s certainly the case with most men I know. If you are a 6 in looks and you are looking for a 6-7 with the same money and assets as you, chances are that 6-7 is going to want a richer and/or better looking man, so it’s necessary for men to make trade offs in order to get what they want.

All i know is that better looking women with less money respond positively to me when they find out I own two properties without any debt at the age of 35. So my choice is basically to hook up with a broke cute girl who is between the ages of 28-35, or an ordinary looking one who owns her own home in her mid to late 30’s.

Decisions decision.

And let me just reiterate. While I don’t agree with some of your commentary, I very much take it as the kind of contribution to intellectual discourse and discovery that you intend it to be. I don’t find it self-serving or unnecessarily antagonistic. For example, when tangling with Dragon-Tatoo-Hamster, you chimed in that you absolutely understood what dressing up and going out and about does, and how you are intentionally arousing attraction when you do so. You don’t seem to have a problem with acknowledging much of what is basic and known here, and that is quite rare.

But I think the one thing you won’t let to of is what Rollo has called “equalism”. As an aside, I call it radical egalitarianism informed by socialists and marxists and progressives and social justice warriors – but we don’t discuss politics here. Rollo is far too meta for that, lol.

When he talks of equalism, he means the lie that women and men are the same inside, that our motivations and experiences are very similar, but I think you know that they are not. Yet when it comes to discussing say status or empathy, you seem to go to great lengths to claim that men and women are the same, just reacting to their environment and pursuing their aims in similar ways. But we’ve shown you that both from a status seeking and an empathetic perspective, you are incorrect about this.

Can you dive into this more deeply? Also, Rollo’s key comment here was about how women need men to believe that female sexuality is more moral, and that men should believe that women will want them if they are “good men”. This enables women to employ both of their sexual strategies at will and ensures there are plenty of Betas to provision for them when their SMV crashes. This also seeks to conceal women’s AF strategy and resist comparisions of it to male libidinousness. This last part you seem to have no problem with.

How do you square all that with your equalist ideas?

“Abby goes so far as to imply that the woman’s lack of sexual interest is a *good* thing, for her, in the long run. Abby basically says that even if the woman were sexually interested then that sexual interest would inevitably go away anyway.”

It would only go away for her husband. It would remain for other d1ck.