No matter how much you build yourself up, no matter how much

yeah

Basically.

nope. Hypergamy is real, but it's not an absolute ranking, I've left a few alpha widows behind.

>men have to constantly keep fighting to retain their women
>men have to constantly keep vigilant for competing men trying to steal women
>men have to constantly seem like the best thing available to their woman
>women complain and find excuses to leave them for better men anyway

tl;dr history of genders

>>16877953

itt: things that capitalist murrican men believe

Yes. If you don't like it go kill yourself, even niggers accept this rule.

File: 1454695906800.jpg (4KB, 173x155px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 173x155px

A brother might stab you in the back, a woman certainly will, but your livelihood will always be yours and yours only.

>>16877953
its true but he has to be a lot better, which simply doesnt happen that often since guys that are better than you will go for high tier women

>>16877953
Hard for me to say
Let's say I was both the best looking person on the planet and the richest. Do you honestly think I would stay loyal to one girl?
Then there's a lot of competition. Would I even look at your 6/10 girlfriend?

You might be the best a girl can get.

>>16877953
Everyone is like that, not just women.

Friends, family, dogs, everyone: once they have a net loss they'll abandon you.

>>16877988
I want to add that there's a lot of things that could happen. If a girl is dating you and a guy who is only slightly wealthier and slightly better looking than you came along she might just think "I already have a sure thing with (you) so I don't want to risk it on a slight upgrade"

I don't think it's safe to say every girl would leave you for an obvious upgrade.

File: 1325565089417.jpg (67KB, 215x280px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 215x280px

>>16877989
>dogs

Dogs are genetically inclined to stay indefinitely loyal to anyone who doesn't outright try to kill or starve them.

>>16877953
True, if you have a shit girlfriend. Solution: don't jump in the first hole you find. Remember: if you can't get a date because women only date up, that says much worse about you than it does about them.

>>16878007
>if you can't get a date because women only date up, that says much worse about you than it does about them

It's more profitable, more comfortable and way more easy to date a man, leave him and then marry the government.

No matter how much you build yourself up, no matter how much your boyfriend appears to love you, he will absolutely 100% leave you for a girl who is younger, better-looking, sexier and interested in him.

True or false?

>>16878053
false, many men men get hardwired into complete servitude of a woman once they fall in love

it wont matter that another girl is objectively more beautiful and throwing sex at them

>>16878351
but it could be true in general. even if you could prove there were "many" or just "some" men who are absolutely loyal it may still be a minority. we don't have good data.

i'll will admit to being a completely superficial, faithless man

>>16877953
just date down by a lot when you're ready to settle and you'll be fine

File: 1455124874297.jpg (65KB, 300x275px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 300x275px

>>16877989
Dogs will stay until you die and they start to starve. Very definition of loyalty.

>>16878395
its true its hard to know how many there are, but the record shows there are plenty of men who are straight up ready to literally die for a girl

For you probably because you lack basic empathy, so they will always be looking to move forward.

For people in strong relationships it's not particularly true. Why would you dump someone that makes you very happy because someone else could buy you more jewelry? Would you dump a chick for one that was richer? It also doesn't make sense as a question.

It's almost like saying, would you give up everything for some Walmart vouchers. Are you out of your fucking mind?

To be honest, you'll find that if you do get cheated it or replaced the dude could be even uglier and poorer than you.

People are lazy and if you can make her happy she's really not going to put much energy in to finding someone else. Why would she?

>>16878433
Most people here hate women so that's that.

>>16878433

I also want to add that money really doesn't mean shit. I might earn barely anything but my girlfriend can have every single penny of it if she wants.

I also don't work as much as some people much richer than me and after tax things balance out a lot. I'm also debt free and pretty good with managing money.

So basically someone would have to earn a lot more to actually be able to offer her anything new and a lot of rich people aren't that generous.

It's not the case that millionaires are dropping out of the sky trying to fuck her either.

>>16878423
die for? okay. live with for 60 years as they turn into an annoying raisin? i'm less sure

>>16878440
I know I fucking do!!!

>>16877989
>once they have a net loss they abandon you
My mom has had an extreme amount of problems because of me. It started the day before I was born when complications gave her serious leg problems to this day. Her body didn't heal well from my birth and didn't fix itself until my younger brother came.
My mom has gone through a lot of shit for me and now that I'm living at home and am being depressed. I've said I have concerns about costs for her. She just hugs me and tells me to never say that. She says I don't realize how important I am.

This is a net loss.

I agree with op though that in relationships I've been in its plainly obvious they're driving me towards their goals and are always on the lookout for better options. Wish I was gay honestly. These experiences aren't encouraging.

>>16878543
the thread is about womens relationship to men, not with their children

nobody would doubt a womans loyalty to her children

>>16878053
>physical appeal
I might leave if she was close to perfect. We share interests, values, extremely compatible personalities and so on. I wouldn't leave a girl just because I found someone who looks better. That's ridiculous. Why would anyone even think that? It's worse than leaving someone for someone who earns more.

>>16877953
true, sadly enough.
its best to just enjoy the ruse while it lasts. just dont bring any paperwork into the equation and the material damage should be minimal

I've turned down three relatively rich men for my boyfriend, who is a delivery boy. One of the men offered me $8k toward cosmetic surgery if I became his pet (I'm really into BDSM). The other offered me money, but didn't give an exact number. The third just told me he wanted me as a sugarbaby.

Personality does count for something, I don't want to be with anyone with that little respect, that they would try to buy me away from my boyfriend. My boyfriend, in the meanwhile, is affectionate, attractive, good in bed, and a delight to be around.

I'd say you all should stop pursuing shit-tier women, but it's probably all you can get. So I guess just work harder. Good luck.

>>16878433
>explains how op has issues/he's to blame
>no real basis for this
>it's just from being opposed op's views
I never got this. I see this a lot and it's become the way I identify women anonymously. I know it's hella sexist but my year on /adv/ taught me this.

You can motivate your stuff without insulting someone else I the first sentence. It didn't add anything really. Usually when I see insults in other situations it's because 'you're wrong' in response to an assertion or they've been bickering for a while and are clearly getting fatigued/their engagement has left them very partisan due to rhetoric/argumentative problems earlier on.
This isn't the same thing. Here op poses a question. You insult him and proceeds to state your view.

This is revolutionary activist tier of discourse. There's no interest in convincing anyone. They just want to be heard and be destructive.

I disagree with the way you put this. It uses many questions as rethorical ones but it doesn't really substantiate any of the ideas. Like why wouldn't wealth be a factor in relationships? If you had op and a clone of op who made more money the choice is obvious. The problem op describes is that he's not being compared to clones he's being compared to everyone and he thinks (presuming he stands behind the idea he proposes) that the threshold for moving isn't big enough. There's not enough loyalty.

>>16878003
>>16878419
Dogs only care about who is feeding them, they'll just as easy turn-coat to someone else that'll feed them.

>>16878547
Yes but anon mentioned family friends/whatever. Read what I replied to and the answer becomes clearer.

>>16877953
May I ask you: Would you leave your woman, if you found one, which is in anything better than your current woman?
Or: Why would you deny more happiness, with another woman if you could choose it without responsibilities?

>>16878567
yeah I didnt read who you replied to fair enough

>>16878053
False.
"Honor is a male abstraction. Don't expect women to understand." - Oldguyfag.
We have loyalty. They don't. Unless a woman changes drastically in some way we will be satisfied with what we have and try to help her improve and flourish, instead of blindly following our spur-of-the-moment emotions.

>>16878681
accurate

>>16877953
If it was true you'd not be existing. And every kid on the planet would be the handsomest/prettiest with the wealthiest parents around.

>>16878681
"Don't expect women to understand honor."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_suicide_bomber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_ace#World_War_II (Paragraph 2)
Subpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_ramming#Soviet_Union (Third paragraph)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks#Flight_93 (Fourth paragraph)

Alright, anything else?

>>16878711
ah thats right, the exception that proves the rule. I should have included those.

thanks

>>16878713
That's incorrect usage of that saying. An exception that proves the rule in the sense you're using it is just a false statement. Downgrade your claim to 'most women' if you consider those actions loyal/honoraburu.

>>16878713
Yes, women prepared to give their lives for their cause and for the innocent across history and service, definitely not honor in any way.

It makes me laugh how some men can call all women useless when those above do more for their causes than the men who call women useless could ever do, for anyone.

Pick up an AK and fight ISIS would you?

>>16878564
THIS
BOOM

>>16878053

Shit b8

Men are genetically hardwired to like women just for being women. This is why dating is easier for girls (yes, it is. Stop pretending otherwise).

Men OTOH are by default undesirable unless they do something.

>>16878717

I assume you support the draft for women right?

>>16877953

Manifestly not true.