Discussion Men, women, and the big relationship lie!

[Dejected 55]

In the animal kingdom, only the top males get to mate for the most part. Females from the top to the bottom all want to mate with the top male, for all the reasons. But all the females can't mate with the top males as there are too many females and not enough males at the top. So there are some leftover females to go along with most of the males who are always leftover. There might be some mating in there, but no matter how you slice it most of the males are left out of the mating pool.

Despite humanity protesting otherwise, we are animals. And this largely holds true in our species if you really look at it. Increasingly moreso lately it would seem to be more and more obvious.

The top men (however you measure it either by looks or wealth or fame or power or whatever) tend to have their pick of women. All the women want the men at the top. Men do not want to share women with other men, men want their women exclusively. Women, however, are more than willing to share the men at the top with other women as long as they get their turn with the top men.

So you see men at the top sometimes with multiple women simultaneously or long strings of short relationships with different women over time. From the perspective of the women you see women choosing men who they know already have been with other women and might currently be with other women. Exclusivity isn't a goal for most of the women who want men at the top.

Top men are rare... so most men are not top men. Men are less picky as it turns out, and even men who think they mostly prefer top women will happily be with women nowhere near their perceived top. Perhaps the very bottom women are not desired by many men, but that's the very bottom extreme of women and even at that there are men at the very bottom who are their peers who can find companionship with those women.

Top women are rare... so most women are not top women. Women are more picky, however, than equivalent men. Women from the top to the bottom ALL prefer the top men. It is almost impossible to get a woman to look down at a man she perceives as less-than and consider him at all.

So we have this quandary of a situation where most women want the same small pool of men, and even with those men being interested in having a lot of partners and those women being willing to share, the majority of men are going to be left in the cold AND at least half the women are going to have problems finding a partner as well.

Discounting for the minorities like gay and lesbian relationships that cut into both sexes reasonably equally... the result is blowing a huge hole in the "there is someone for everyone" lie that is perpetuated.

I have come to believe that lie is essentially there for the same reason the rich tell the middle class they can be rich too if they just "work hard"... when the reality is they can't... sure a few make it every now and then just to "prove" the saying... much like a few outliers find relationships in the leftovers... but by and large you are where you are and you get what you get according to the rules I laid out in the beginning. The lies told keep the masses participating in society "just in case" they are one of the lucky ones to break through.

At the end of the day... most men could find happiness with someone, but most women don't want to "settle" for those men. Increasingly as women are (rightfully) able to take care of themselves and can choose relationships as they want and not out of survival needs... we see this manifest with women preferring to be single and wait their turn at the top men. Men have no similar option. All men, most men cannot be top men. Even if every man did his best, the top men would only increase in number very slightly. So most men are going to be invisible to most women no matter how you slice it.

Women would rather have 10% of a top man than 100% of any other man. Most men have far lower standards but would rather have 100% of a woman in the middle or to the bottom than 10% of a top woman. But men at the top know they have women lining up and they get the same skewed perspective that most women have, which is that they can and will take whatever they can get.

Men and women are both flawed, and most of both will take whatever they can get selfishly... its just that nature has skewed things in favor of women being the selectors.

This is how it is, no matter how you slice it. If you're a woman, you might have to wait your turn but at least half of you will get a turn for what you think you want. If you're a man, most of you will never get a turn at all.

Don't buy into the lie... there isn't someone for everyone. Nature doesn't work that way. The sooner you realize it, the sooner you give up, the less pain you will suffer before you take your exit.

 

[ma0]

Idk, I think there's some merit in this, especially considering how the "someone for everyone" motto is used to keep people working towards the "ideal life", having them remain complacent, but from my experience I've seen plenty of women who aim exclusively at the "loser" men.

It might just be the social media spaces I've lurked in, but I definitely have seen women willing, if not wanting, someone "less ideal". Whether it be because they might want someone similar to them, maybe to dominate them, or who knows.

Point is, stereotypically less ideal men certainly do attract a certain demographic. Is it a big demographic? No, not in the slightest, but I don't think it's negligible either.

Again, there is some truth to what you say, but I do think this is worth considering.

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

Not every woman gets to be a selector. She may have detriments that prevent her from going for who she perceives as an ideal mate. A lot of women fool themselves too as far as their marketplace value, because we have a society that blows a lot of smoke up women's asses.

The characteristics that allow her to easily enter into a relationship (for example her looks) may not be the ones that allow her to conduct a successful relationship ongoingly. Maybe she's bad at communicating, unfaithful, crap around the house, or batshit crazy.

Most people are average, in everything. That makes sense because it's the middle of the road. So if we apply that to the concept of entering into relationships, people will, on the whole, end up with someone comparable to themselves. The two people in a relationship are relatable to one another - that's how they became a thing in the first place.

I see a lot of internet-based rhetoric that talks about the top x percentage of men and women, but I don't think that's easy to apply to people in practice. Many have unique types or excel in certain areas while lacking in others, and it's often a specific combination of traits that appeals to someone else (which may not be ubiquitously desired).

That's why I never really went for the hypergamy thing. If it held up, we'd have women that were solely interested in celebrities, CEOs, and millionaires while the rest of the men get absolutely no play whatsoever. Which clearly isn't the case.

To me, this type of rhetoric seems pretty incel-adjacement and I'm not sure it's very accurate. It may be if you feel lonely, are hard up, or have been rejected a lot. But I'm not sure it's representative of the average person's experience.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I wonder how many people- either men or women who end up 'settling' in some way end up happy. I wonder if their partner does. That's not to say they can't be of course. If they didn't go for the obvious traits of looks, wealth, youth, status or whatever, they could still end up with someone kind and descent.

(Maybe the people I know are outliers. Not to be cruel but, their hubbies aren't exactly typically 'top men'. They married them for how kind and caring they are. My friends are smart.)

That said, how unflattering- to get the impression your partner 'settled' for you. What a slap in the face to your sense of self worth! Why couldn't it be that, that's putting people off? They don't want to feel like second or third best?

I do get the sense there's sometimes this resentment that people (women in particular) are 'picky'. Why is that bad though? They're assesing whether someone might make a good long-term mate perhaps? Shouldn't that be a careful decision? They may also be nervous about getting an STD or pregnant too or, even raped if it's looking more like a fling. I think there's more to worry about as a woman.

Whereas, men being less picky- that I tend to take a few ways. Either it's somewhere else to stick it. Another notch on the bedpost. Which, is fine of course if both people only want that. I still think sleeping around is more acceptable for men though so- another reason a woman may not want to leap into bed or anywhere else.

But, if it's just to give this person a go- I mean- maybe generous I guess but- a bit flippant perhaps too? I don't even bother trying to make friends with people I don't 'click' with! I'm on the serious side over any relationships.

So- 'trying' someone out who already doesn't feel like a match feels almost manipulative. What if they fall for you? (Third person 'you', not actually 'you'.) When, you were only giving them a test drive? Again, fine again if you're both aware but again- it comes down to- will both people be happy if one of them obviously 'settled'?

I actually find it a disgusting term to be honest. To basically say that one human being isn't good enough. That's not the start of a respectful relationship! The hope would be there would at least be something about them that the other person fell completely in love with. Not just because they were the only person left available who consented!

I absolutely think it's better to be single than to be with someone who at some level finds you unworthy. That's a gateway for bullying and abuse to creep in to my mind.

I think I'd prefer someone to be 'picky' about a decision that will- with any luck- be long-term though, rather than to just give it a whirl. Each to their own though. So long as everyone is aware of what they're getting in to then, it's up to them.

I really don't know if you're right. I know 'top men' with no one. I've known pretty average people fall in love with equally average people and live happily. I've known relationships at all levels fall apart.

I do agree though that a fair amount of women are choosing the single life. Me included, although that's no great loss to the male population! I suppose I find it curious that there do seem to be more lonely guys here rather than women although, maybe it's actually even. I thought men had the greater reputation for being content bachelors though. That's obviously not all that accurate. I guess it just depends on the person.

I did want all that desperately at one stage but truthfully, I'm glad to be without all those feelings now. I never know what to wish people really. I suppose obviously that they do meet someone and fall in love- not just settle! But then, if it doesn't happen, I suppose I hope they can begin to feel the calmness I feel now about it.

 

[Heartbroken Nurse]

In the animal kingdom, only the top males get to mate for the most part. Females from the top to the bottom all want to mate with the top male, for all the reasons. But all the females can't mate with the top males as there are too many females and not enough males at the top. So there are some leftover females to go along with most of the males who are always leftover. There might be some mating in there, but no matter how you slice it most of the males are left out of the mating pool.

Despite humanity protesting otherwise, we are animals. And this largely holds true in our species if you really look at it. Increasingly moreso lately it would seem to be more and more obvious.

The top men (however you measure it either by looks or wealth or fame or power or whatever) tend to have their pick of women. All the women want the men at the top. Men do not want to share women with other men, men want their women exclusively. Women, however, are more than willing to share the men at the top with other women as long as they get their turn with the top men.

So you see men at the top sometimes with multiple women simultaneously or long strings of short relationships with different women over time. From the perspective of the women you see women choosing men who they know already have been with other women and might currently be with other women. Exclusivity isn't a goal for most of the women who want men at the top.

Top men are rare... so most men are not top men. Men are less picky as it turns out, and even men who think they mostly prefer top women will happily be with women nowhere near their perceived top. Perhaps the very bottom women are not desired by many men, but that's the very bottom extreme of women and even at that there are men at the very bottom who are their peers who can find companionship with those women.

Top women are rare... so most women are not top women. Women are more picky, however, than equivalent men. Women from the top to the bottom ALL prefer the top men. It is almost impossible to get a woman to look down at a man she perceives as less-than and consider him at all.

So we have this quandary of a situation where most women want the same small pool of men, and even with those men being interested in having a lot of partners and those women being willing to share, the majority of men are going to be left in the cold AND at least half the women are going to have problems finding a partner as well.

Discounting for the minorities like gay and lesbian relationships that cut into both sexes reasonably equally... the result is blowing a huge hole in the "there is someone for everyone" lie that is perpetuated.

I have come to believe that lie is essentially there for the same reason the rich tell the middle class they can be rich too if they just "work hard"... when the reality is they can't... sure a few make it every now and then just to "prove" the saying... much like a few outliers find relationships in the leftovers... but by and large you are where you are and you get what you get according to the rules I laid out in the beginning. The lies told keep the masses participating in society "just in case" they are one of the lucky ones to break through.

At the end of the day... most men could find happiness with someone, but most women don't want to "settle" for those men. Increasingly as women are (rightfully) able to take care of themselves and can choose relationships as they want and not out of survival needs... we see this manifest with women preferring to be single and wait their turn at the top men. Men have no similar option. All men, most men cannot be top men. Even if every man did his best, the top men would only increase in number very slightly. So most men are going to be invisible to most women no matter how you slice it.

Women would rather have 10% of a top man than 100% of any other man. Most men have far lower standards but would rather have 100% of a woman in the middle or to the bottom than 10% of a top woman. But men at the top know they have women lining up and they get the same skewed perspective that most women have, which is that they can and will take whatever they can get.

Men and women are both flawed, and most of both will take whatever they can get selfishly... its just that nature has skewed things in favor of women being the selectors.

This is how it is, no matter how you slice it. If you're a woman, you might have to wait your turn but at least half of you will get a turn for what you think you want. If you're a man, most of you will never get a turn at all.

Don't buy into the lie... there isn't someone for everyone. Nature doesn't work that way. The sooner you realize it, the sooner you give up, the less pain you will suffer before you take your exit.

I am with a "top man" and I can assure you that the 10% that I get has put me on this website. That top man has ruined me so badly that the only comfort I find is knowing that I will be gone soon.

 

[Dejected 55]

I should have mentioned in my original post, but realize I did not... I was not equating relationships necessarily with happiness. As in, a woman might want to be with a top man and she might get to be with a top man but that doesn't guarantee she is happy or that he is happy either. It just means there is a greater opportunity existing there. You can't be in a happy relationship if you don't get a chance to be in a relationship at all. At least if you get a chance to be in a relationship you get to find out.

It might just be the social media spaces I've lurked in, but I definitely have seen women willing, if not wanting, someone "less ideal". Whether it be because they might want someone similar to them, maybe to dominate them, or who knows.

Point is, stereotypically less ideal men certainly do attract a certain demographic. Is it a big demographic? No, not in the slightest, but I don't think it's negligible either.

Again, there is some truth to what you say, but I do think this is worth considering.

The thing is... some of those "less than ideal" men is a matter of perspective. As the selector, the woman is the one deciding who the top men are in her opinion. The top man might not be rich, might not be handsome. He might just seem confident and at least slightly aggressive, which leads her to think he can "go places" and she wants in on the ground floor. She might see a better chance starting with him before he gets rich so she can be part of it when it happens, and she perceives him somehow as having the same qualities that she sees in rich men that are harder for her to get at the moment.

Not every woman gets to be a selector. She may have detriments that prevent her from going for who she perceives as an ideal mate. A lot of women fool themselves too as far as their marketplace value, because we have a society that blows a lot of smoke up women's asses.

The characteristics that allow her to easily enter into a relationship (for example her looks) may not be the ones that allow her to conduct a successful relationship ongoingly. Maybe she's bad at communicating, unfaithful, crap around the house, or batshit crazy.

Most people are average, in everything. That makes sense because it's the middle of the road. So if we apply that to the concept of entering into relationships, people will, on the whole, end up with someone comparable to themselves. The two people in a relationship are relatable to one another - that's how they became a thing in the first place.

I see a lot of internet-based rhetoric that talks about the top x percentage of men and women, but I don't think that's easy to apply to people in practice. Many have unique types or excel in certain areas while lacking in others, and it's often a specific combination of traits that appeals to someone else (which may not be ubiquitously desired).

That's why I never really went for the hypergamy thing. If it held up, we'd have women that were solely interested in celebrities, CEOs, and millionaires while the rest of the men get absolutely no play whatsoever. Which clearly isn't the case.

To me, this type of rhetoric seems pretty incel-adjacement and I'm not sure it's very accurate. It may be if you feel lonely, are hard up, or have been rejected a lot. But I'm not sure it's representative of the average person's experience.

But our society revolves around women as the selector, like it or not. Men are always expected to initiate interest and women get to accept or reject that man. Men almost always have to make the first move, and a woman doesn't have to give him a chance at all, for any reason. She owes him literally nothing, in some cases she doesn't even have to answer his request, she can just ignore him. That's what I mean by women being the selector.

Let me be clear too... it was bad the way it used to be when women were more "stuck" needing to link their fortunes to a man. When women were largely forbidden to work they literally could not support themselves without a man. This led to lots of women settling for men they didn't even like, much less love, and staying in abusive relationships with legitimately horrible men because the choice might have been being homeless if she left him. So, I've always been 100% as equal as we can get in society. Women shouldn't have to "need" a man and more than a man should have to "need" a woman to survive. I think it should be better in the long run for society that women increasingly have more autonomy and ability to have a life separate from a man. I don't want anyone to mistake my views on that.

BUT... what I don't think most people would have predicted is that it turns out if all things are equal and men and woman can support themselves without need of the other... women will absolutely be more picky about who they date than men will. I'm not just talking about sex, I'm talking about all aspects of the relationship. Take "need" out of the equation and make it all optional and men have a much harder time finding a mate than women do, on average. Men sometimes have to ask hundreds of women out just to get a date at all and that doesn't lead to a second date even half of the time on average.

Obviously men and women should have choice in who they date. The problem, though, is in practice men seem more willing to give a woman a chance if she is anywhere in the neighborhood of what he thinks he wants... while women are more often willing to casually. discard a man for almost any reason before even finding out if there is anything about him she might like more than the think she dislikes. Men are more willing to put in a few dates to get to know a woman than women are to get to know a man.

Again, nobody owes anyone anything. It's not about that. It's just if you look at things objectively... the average man is several steps back compared to the average woman if both want to be in a relationship. Women know they have more choice and control in this situation, and they obviously use it to their advantage.

It is fairly famous how much more attractive a man is to other women once he is in a relationship. It is much easier for a man in a relationship to attract attention of other women. Single women will wait or share time with a man in a relationship because he appears to be more attractive when he is more desired. Single men are considered less attractive because why should any given woman want him if clearly no one else does?

Flip this around for men... Men don't typically want a woman who is already with someone. It's not about being nice necessarily either, it's frankly tough to "win" a woman away from a man she is already with... as a man you're way better off trying to find a single woman than trying to be a home-wrecker even if you're an asshole man. Also, stereotypically men tend to want women with less experience on average, so again he is going to be looking for women who are already single, perhaps been single for a while.

So men and women are at odds here. The single/available women are setting their sights on men who aren't available to them because those men are seen as more valuable, while the available single men are fairly well overlooked unless they have some "top man" quality and the woman thinks she found a diamond in the rough willing to roll the dice.

Things like the Internet and cheaper travel fees have really shrank the world too. You aren't limited to people nearby. You might have five perfectly good people near you but you will hold out for the possibility of the awesome person in another state or country that you can interact with online.

Most of us are just fed a bill of goods about how we can be ourselves or whatever and do what interests us and we will eventually find someone. That's just not happening for most people. Even the people who do connect, 50% of marriages end in divorce... and most of those divorces are filed by women... again, women being the selector of who to partner with AND when to end that partnership most of the time on average.

 

[Zeir Anpin 729]

Women, however, are more than willing to share the men at the top with other women as long as they get their turn with the top men.

real

Reality is all scripted and you have identified the main archetype behind it.

 

[user938838383335]

Incel
Incel

 

[mirror_mercury]

This is why I believe the world should be majority women.

 

[Dejected 55]

This is why I believe the world should be majority women.

How would that help?

 

[mirror_mercury]

How would that help?

too many men, too much violence

 

[Dejected 55]

too many men, too much violence

I'm not going to disagree on men and violence... but there's not much evidence to suggest that if women were more in charge throughout the world that there would be any less violence. It might take a different form... but there's nothing that suggests women get along with other women any better on average than men with other men.

Without defending men AT ALL... I think humanity is quite flawed and history has shown us that whomever has power for very long eventually abuses that power.

 

[bankai]

This is why I believe the world should be majority women.

Off topic, but this post reminded me of something.
Have you read Y:the Last Man?

A virus kills off all the men on the planet except one. And the world is left with only women. There's a good TV show also based on this book. Maybe you want to try that. It's actually really, really interesting.

 

[mirror_mercury]

I'm not going to disagree on men and violence... but there's not much evidence to suggest that if women were more in charge throughout the world that there would be any less violence. It might take a different form... but there's nothing that suggests women get along with other women any better on average than men with other men.

Without defending men AT ALL... I think humanity is quite flawed and history has shown us that whomever has power for very long eventually abuses that power.

nah

i experimented with estrogen in the past

testosterone makes me aggressive and impulsive as fuck

i liked it when i was taking estrogen

i was softer, kinder, more empathetic

i was less cold

Off topic, but this post reminded me of something.
Have you read Y:the Last Man?

A virus kills off all the men on the planet except one. And the world is left with only women. There's a good TV show also based on this book. Maybe you want to try that. It's actually really, really interesting.

i don't watch western shows unless my girlfriend forces me to, sorry

there is "World's End Harem" the anime and manga though

 

[bpdwriter]

yikes ...

 

[Dejected 55]

nah

i experimented with estrogen in the past

testosterone makes me aggressive and impulsive as fuck

i liked it when i was taking estrogen

i was softer, kinder, more empathetic

i was less cold

That's very much anecdotal. There are men who are not aggressive in the world... a lot of them in fact, otherwise everyone would be at war all the time.

If you put one lone woman in a room full of men, it might seem sometimes like women are not as naturally aggressive because she is outnumbered. But flip it, put one man in a room full of women, where the women feel empowered and not in the minority, and you might be surprised where the aggression shifts.

You didn't just wish for more women in charge, which *I* would argue would be a good thing all around... you wanted a majority women, with most men gone. In that world, there's no reason to believe with women in charge of most (or all) things that there would be less aggression automatically. It just might take different forms... or maybe it wouldn't. It's hard to say for sure, it's just psychologically there is no definitive evidence that says women are inherently less aggressive under equal conditions.

Think of nature and all the other animals. Male animals in the wild do not fuck with females and their young. Some species of animals the females are hunters or leaders too. Humans are a bit fucked up in that we will intentionally do things that are counter to our own survival on a regular basis. That's not really natural.

Men get the blame for all the bad in the world mostly because they have been in charge for a lot of it AND because men have oppressed women in most of the world for quite a while. But in a lot of places, women are happy to go along with choices made by these men as long as they get theirs... no different than the other men not in charge making the bad decisions. Flip the script and put women in charge of everything, and I don't think the world goes a lot differently really.

 

[mirror_mercury]

That's very much anecdotal. There are men who are not aggressive in the world... a lot of them in fact, otherwise everyone would be at war all the time.

If you put one lone woman in a room full of men, it might seem sometimes like women are not as naturally aggressive because she is outnumbered. But flip it, put one man in a room full of women, where the women feel empowered and not in the minority, and you might be surprised where the aggression shifts.

You didn't just wish for more women in charge, which *I* would argue would be a good thing all around... you wanted a majority women, with most men gone. In that world, there's no reason to believe with women in charge of most (or all) things that there would be less aggression automatically. It just might take different forms... or maybe it wouldn't. It's hard to say for sure, it's just psychologically there is no definitive evidence that says women are inherently less aggressive under equal conditions.

Think of nature and all the other animals. Male animals in the wild do not fuck with females and their young. Some species of animals the females are hunters or leaders too. Humans are a bit fucked up in that we will intentionally do things that are counter to our own survival on a regular basis. That's not really natural.

Men get the blame for all the bad in the world mostly because they have been in charge for a lot of it AND because men have oppressed women in most of the world for quite a while. But in a lot of places, women are happy to go along with choices made by these men as long as they get theirs... no different than the other men not in charge making the bad decisions. Flip the script and put women in charge of everything, and I don't think the world goes a lot differently really.

nah, it's literally in men's genetics to be aggressive

that's why men are forced into solitary spaces most of the time

 

[Dejected 55]

Again, without defending violence by men... a lot of what is concluded to be absolute fact is merely evidence that we have been in a patriarchal society for a very long time. We don't really know how a matriarchal society would function because we haven't had enough evidence. But studies of human behavior strongly suggests that there is no reason to assume women would be inherently less violent than men if the world were turned the other way around.

I'm not saying it would be worse... I'm just saying I suspect it would be pretty much the same.

 

[Bunnymmm]

You are correct about woman nature as a woman herself. The problem is that I'm not a top woman so I can't satisfy my nature and I'm not willing to share. I'm white and seeing that I gotta compete with baddies of all races for white dudes makes me want to die more.

 

[Dejected 55]

You are correct about woman nature as a woman herself. The problem is that I'm not a top woman so I can't satisfy my nature and I'm not willing to share. I'm white and seeing that I gotta compete with baddies of all races for white dudes makes me want to die more.

For what it's worth, I hate when anyone speaks in absolutes, and that includes me... when I accidentally do it. All men and all women are not the same. There are certainly some common tendencies we seem to see in most people. But it's also true that we don't know how many people are able to behave as their genuine self.

For instance... when growing up I fit in better with the nerdy crowd than the jock crowd. I always looked like a jock, was always big for my age and naturally muscular even when I wasn't trying to be. So I fit the visual of a jock, but inside I felt more like a nerd. I also tend to have traits of how I think and how I behave that are more often attributed to women than to men... as in, I tend to be a thinker and cautious and plan before I act. I also tend to be more emotional and more empathetic with others, which is not a typical male thought process.

But... even in the nerd group, I didn't really fit in... because it turns out a lot of nerds wanted to be popular and if they got the chance, they would take it... and then I was alone again. My observations were that a lot of people are outgoing when in their natural environment but more withdrawn when outside their element. So, put a jock alone in the nerd group and he feels awkward just like the isolated nerd in a room of jocks feels... and so you get a lot of people in their daily lives unable to be who they feel themselves to be because of how society wants to label and lump people.

There has been lots of conversation on this forum about "masking"... and transgender people also deal with versions of this, either pre-transition when they have to hide who they feel themselves to be because people around them only see their physical appearance and traditional gender labels... OR when beginning to transition and presenting themselves as their real gender, they also have to still mask somewhat (or at least feel they do) because people don't always see them as they want to be seen.

All that is the longwinded version of responding to what you said about feeling one way but being unable to act on it as you'd like.

So... there are men and women who act as society expects because they want to act that way... there are other men and women who want to act that way too, but they either actually can't or at least feel they can't because they don't look the part... and there are men and women who do not at all want to act as they are expected because that is not who they are... also, not to be left out, some men and women don't want to act that way but feel like they have to in order to fit in or make it through the day, so they behave counter to how they want in order to fit in.

All of this is but one reason why lumping people arbitrarily is bad. So, even for me... I can write something here about how it seems most women want XXX or most men behave YYY... but in actual practice, I try and give every unique person a fair shot. I don't go into an encounter with a woman I like pre-deciding how she is going to react. I take my shot and whatever happens happens... usually bad things happen... but the point is, I try not to reject myself before at least giving her a chance to reject me because maybe she is finally the one who breaks the stereotype mold.

So the stuff about how woman operate in hypergamy, certainly seems to be a thing... and a lot of men seek to use women for sexual needs and don't care to look deeper. It's not everyone, though. And, however you slice whatever the experts say are the ways to "be" and "do" in order to find a partner... how come half or marriages end in divorce and most people who have any partners tend to have several partners in their lives and how come non-married people aren't having super long relationships as far as it seems these days? I mean, the people doing all the supposed "right" things aren't actually happy in long-term relationships any more than anyone else.

The difference that seems consistent as far as I can see, though, is... IF you're like me and don't want to play games. You want to be honest and open and liked for who you are AND treat people you meet the same... people like that, people like me, never seem to have anyone. We don't seem to get chances to fail or learn or succeed... and nobody owes me or anyone else anything... but it seems like all the people doing things wrong (not necessarily bad or evil, just incorrect) get way more chances than they people who haven't yet gotten to be wrong.