|
|
Post by N2thevoid on Oct 15, 2018 19:27:48 GMT
I teach people to identify attachment needs, and correcting attachment injuries resulting from their past (oversimplify and putting things in extremely vague terms) - this doesn't always involve me suggesting they stay in a relationship and I have made my opinions known in this regard particularly when abuse is involved. To paint a person's behavior with a broad brush stroke and present to them "this is YOUR nature" without looking at the context of their situation is grossly missing the point to helping people move forward.
Generally (and from what I've seen) a person will cheat when certain needs aren't being met in the relationship, wether that ends up being emotional cheating or physical or both. I am very much against labels, though I do understand some of their merits.
Case in point. If a client with a history (and diagnosis) of Bipolar came to me I can resort to the DSM and valence EVERYTHING they do through that diagnostic criterion. Is it helpful? Maybe on some level because it gives me a context, or frame, of understanding the behavior. However it does not help me see the person. In a sense it may actually disable my ability to see them more objectively. I can say the same of a lot of what evolutionary psychology puts forth - it can be quite damaging to view a person through such a black and white, dogmatic lens. I quite honestly wrestle with it at times because I do see the merits in understanding behaviours from a clinical view point.
I have also learned to let go of a world of definites and absolutes. As I experience life my understanding is it is often shaded with nuances of grey. That is my "resistance" to purely 'factual'/scientific ways of categorizing behaviour.
So most of my clients would tell you their appreciate my authenticity, and by also not adhering to an absolutist mindset I am open to other possibilities. Does that mean I am a proverbial fence sitter? No. Clearly I have my opinions , as evidenced in this post.
I can tell you one thing. I don't sell myself. I don't purport to hold a certain mindset for the sake of gaining an income. My clients come back to me because they find the value in what I have to offer (and those that dont returns - which is very few - I've been more than happy to offer other alternatives that don't involve my service at all).
As to your last assertion "no amount of therapy will fix a troubled relationship if the trouble has roots in the proposed notion of hypergamy." I see no evidence of this. But again, as you'd mentioned, it is simply anecdote - which perplexes me as to your posing the question to me as you already know the answer.
Your question is leading as it presupposes that hypergamy is the answer to everything. Answering "yes" or "no" is trivial.
|
|
Prince
MPUA Forum Addict
Posts: 175
|
Post by Prince on Oct 15, 2018 19:37:09 GMT
The statement does not presuppose the idea of hypergamy. It hypothesizes it.
And as a hypothetical that IF you are convinced it is true and IF the trouble of the relationship is a result of hypergamy then it could affect your career negatively.
Do you wish to answer under these hypothetical conditions?
|
|
|
|
Post by N2thevoid on Oct 15, 2018 19:42:21 GMT
Let's stay on topic to the post discussion. Also to remain true to your desire to "not continue this debate.
|
|
Prince
MPUA Forum Addict
Posts: 175
|
Post by Prince on Oct 15, 2018 19:45:58 GMT
Let's stay on topic to the post discussion. Also to remain true to your desire to "not continue this debate. I'll take that as a no. |
|
|
|
Post by N2thevoid on Oct 15, 2018 20:47:20 GMT
Take it however it suites you best:)
|
|
|
|
Post by JackZero on Oct 15, 2018 22:18:04 GMT
The whole hypergamy/monkey branching stuff is true. That being said, hypergamy is about relationship fulfillment or lack thereof. A woman will not leave or entertain another relationship when she is fulfilled in the relationship even if a richer or more physically superior male came along. However, if a guy uses his finances as a crutch to get women, then chances are he will find women that are attracted to men with superior finances and the relationship will always be at risk because of that. At this point, that makes it so that the guy with the fatter wallet will appear more attractive because that is what is causing her to be fulfilled in a relationship. Same when it comes to men who depend on physical attraction to get a woman.
The thing that keeps women around is how they feel about themselves with a guy. She's not going to be fulfilled in a relationship and turn around and say, "I can do better, so let me keep my eyes open," unless she has a disorder (Look up ROCD as an example...the R is for relationship). If she says, "he has a lot of money, but I'm bored," it means she's not fulfilled. Therefore, she is more susceptible to monkey branching to the next guy.
|
|
Prince
MPUA Forum Addict
Posts: 175
|
Post by Prince on Oct 15, 2018 22:43:20 GMT
Jack, let me know what you think about this. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by JackZero on Oct 15, 2018 22:52:02 GMT
Jack, let me know what you think about this. Better yet...tell me what your thoughts are on it. You have a point of context that already makes sense to you enough and is the reason that you referring to that chart. If I agree with that context, I'll be happy to say that I do. Remember, this chart is about divorce and divorce alone. To lump it into a hypergamy/monkey branching conversation is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by N2thevoid on Oct 15, 2018 22:55:26 GMT
Sits back watching this guy chase his own tail.
|
|
Prince
MPUA Forum Addict
Posts: 175
|
Post by Prince on Oct 15, 2018 22:58:22 GMT
Jack, let me know what you think about this. Better yet...tell me what your thoughts are on it. You have a point of context that already makes sense to you enough and is the reason that you referring to that chart. If I agree with that context, I'll be happy to say that I do. Remember, this chart is about divorce and divorce alone. To lump it into a hypergamy/monkey branching conversation is ridiculous. Before I give you my interpretation of the chart do we agree that break up rates between non-married couples are higher than married couples? |
|
|
|
Post by N2thevoid on Oct 15, 2018 23:09:42 GMT
Why are you seeking validation? Just state your thoughts, no need to ask a question especially when you're itching to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by JackZero on Oct 15, 2018 23:10:17 GMT
Better yet...tell me what your thoughts are on it. You have a point of context that already makes sense to you enough and is the reason that you referring to that chart. If I agree with that context, I'll be happy to say that I do. Remember, this chart is about divorce and divorce alone. To lump it into a hypergamy/monkey branching conversation is ridiculous. Before I give you my interpretation of the chart do we agree that break up rates between non-married couples are higher than married couples? Sure I'll agree to that with a couple of caveats. I've never been broken up with a girl due to not being able to provide financially even though other guys had a lot more money were trying to get her attention during an unmarried relationship. I've never been broken up with because I didn't look good enough when a more physically attractive guy came along during an unmarried relationship. I have many friends and I only know of one that broke up with a guy because he told her that she needed to get a job, so she broke up with him and moved back in with her parents (no monkey branching/hypergamy). I know of one guy that was married to a woman that only worked for the first 2 years of their marriage and he provided everything for her. The moment that he started his business and wanted to temper down her spending so he could invest his money into it, she left him and moved in with her cousin (no monkey branching/hypergamy). So what I'm saying is that financial issues can exist and destroy a relationship, it doesn't mean that your chart is saying that these divorces came because she found another guy that could provide more. |
|
|
|
Post by N2thevoid on Oct 15, 2018 23:12:58 GMT
That chart conflates so much I wouldn't even know where to begin so I'll save myself the bother.
Jack, this one's yours lol
|
|
Prince
MPUA Forum Addict
Posts: 175
|
Post by Prince on Oct 15, 2018 23:40:33 GMT
Before I give you my interpretation of the chart do we agree that break up rates between non-married couples are higher than married couples? Sure I'll agree to that with a couple of caveats. I've never been broken up with a girl due to not being able to provide financially even though other guys had a lot more money were trying to get her attention during an unmarried relationship. I've never been broken up with because I didn't look good enough when a more physically attractive guy came along during an unmarried relationship. I have many friends and I only know of one that broke up with a guy because he told her that she needed to get a job, so she broke up with him and moved back in with her parents (no monkey branching/hypergamy). I know of one guy that was married to a woman that only worked for the first 2 years of their marriage and he provided everything for her. The moment that he started his business and wanted to temper down her spending so he could invest his money into it, she left him and moved in with her cousin (no monkey branching/hypergamy). So what I'm saying is that financial issues can exist and destroy a relationship, it doesn't mean that your chart is saying that these divorces came because she found another guy that could provide more. The chart is not about you or your friends. That said, a lot of divorces and break ups happen as a result of cheating, which happens to be the subject at hand. A woman USUALLY cheats up, not down. Cheating up is much easier if you are low income. Little more difficult for middle income and much harder for high income. What is fulfillment anyway? You talk about a stable relationship where the woman is fulfilled. What does that mean? It is subjective. An example only: A low income woman who has always been poor will be "fulfilled" if she can travel once a year, eat out twice a month and if she has a 40 inch TV. Now after years of marriage she gets used to these things and therefore will not be "fulfilled" anymore. All she has to do to seek "fulfillment" elsewhere is to find a guy who owns a 60 inch TV and can afford to take her to a restaurant better than Del taco. This is just a simplified example of reality of course, but you can see how hard it can get for a woman at the top of the food chain who has already gotten used to her husband's private jet and mansion and is seeking "fulfillment" to cheat up. And before we idolize women for their "deep spiritual connection" with us we need to understand that women, due to their evolutionary nature, are 1000 times more materialistic than men. Fulfillment is a euphemism for access to resources, especially pronounced after the honeymoon phase has faded away. |
|
|
|
Post by N2thevoid on Oct 15, 2018 23:55:37 GMT
Actually most divorces happen not because of cheating, rather cheating is the symptom of needs going unmet and connection drifting as a result.
You spend a lot of time in your head. Shouldn't you be trying to pickup the young grocery clerk?
"And before we idolize women for their "deep spiritual connection" with us we need to understand that women, due to their evolutionary nature, are 1000 times more materialistic than men. Fulfillment is a euphemism for access to resources, especially pronounced after the honeymoon phase has faded away. "
Wrong again. Women cheat 'down' all the time, especially wealthy women. And often with guys who are piss poor; the personal trainer, the pool boy, the Ubereats guy, HeywoodJablowme looking for a vase for his mother at the local swap meet.
Your entire theory negates taking into account the most potent thing a woman can feel, DESIRE.
|
|
