Conventional wisdom dictates that a girl shit testing you is always a tryst between you and her subconscious; I e, that she secretly wants you to pass and her hurdles are only crude ways to assess your ability to maintain state control under pressure. But shit testing in a relationship does not have a one-dimensional purpose the way it does in a bar engagement. For an executive summary:
(a) A girl shit tests a guy she thinks is a beta: To keep him in a qualifying mode of operandi, preserving her frame and keeping him as a beta orbiter to extract attention as needed.
(b) A girl shit tests a guy she thinks might be an Alpha: To gauge his congruency; check if he falls in line with all her attraction cues.
(c) A girl shit tests her boyfriend: To both gauge his Alphaness AND try to gain hand. A combination of both (a) and (b).
In light of relationship discussions, we’ve always held that this paradox was true as a matter of fact. Women want to turn their boyfriends and husbands into beta hubbies even though this process is ultimately self-defeating in terms of a stable relationship. And most of relationship game, on the side of the guy, is about dodging this mechanic by eluding shit tests while maintaining a desirable balance between attraction/rapport, security/dread, secksual tension/comfort, ecksetera. As time passes, a guy will beta-backslide more often lest he catches himself at opportune moments to reinvigorate attraction and become consciously aware of his sloping power. Otherwise, he continues to spiral down as she actively draws more and more beta blood. She initiates more jealousy shit tests, aggravates him more frequently, and embarrasses him in public with more zeal.
From a Darwinian perspective, monogamous relationships make no more sense for a woman than a man. Genetic variability requires not only for men with high reproductive value to fuck as many women as possible, but for women to fuck as many VIABLE partners as possible. A compulsion that allowed women to betatize their partners would encourage them to find a NEW Alpha whenever possible, falling in accord with the above principle.
Anyone familiar with the misandry bubble will recall that this spiel sounds very familiar. Female self-sufficiency combined with secksual liberalization and a culturally reinforced feminine imperative now allows women to indulge in this very exact system with a twist. Women can ride the Alpha carousel through out their peak years and settle for a beta provider post-coyote. The twist comes with the addition of contraceptives and blurs the obvious result of all this. Take condoms out of the equation, and you have a full manifestation of the hypergamous dystopia we’re currently in. Girl fucks 5 or 6 Alphas throughout her peak years. Ends up with 5 or 6 kids — all born from different Alphas, maximizing both reproductive value and genetic variability. Then settles for a beta provider for security; someone who would willingly get cuckolded out of a white-knight complex.
So, to the point, what does all this have to do with your relationship? If women are acutely aware of fluctuations in social dynamics, ESPECIALLY in their peak years, it means your status, not just your game, needs to be moving up on a fairly rapid scale. Even staying at a high point yet stagnant wouldn’t be enough; as hypergamy demands a girl get bored of her partner to encourage her to pusue something higher or at least different. Change must always be introduced, whether in the form of emotional turbulence, game induced complexes, or wealth and power. Hypothetically, you would only be able to “slack off” AFTER a girl has been removed from the secksual market; either through the wall or a lack of other opportunities.
And as we move towards an age where texting, networking, and online dating are allowing for the market to maximize surplus through over exposure to options, age will slowly become the ONLY equalizer. To explain further, take a look at this diagram (anyone with basic knowledge over economics will understand it better)
Imagine women as consumers and men as producers. At equilibrium, producer surplus and consumer surplus are fairly equal. When you have trade liberalization, the price drops and consumer surplus increases. This is akin to secksual market liberalization, where women have access to more options. It lowers the “price” (tradeoff between women and men) because more men are forced to compete with each other, washing out a larger number of betas and allowing a smaller number of Alphas to dominate the entire market. For a simpler demonstration:
Imagine a society with 10 women, 10 guys. 8 are beta, 2 are Alpha males. With secksual market liberalization, the 2 Alphas may only be able to contact perhaps 6 women in total. They don’t have access to Facebook or texting; they can only game the women AROUND them. We assume hypothetically that each has only 3 women around them. Now we have 2 Alpha males, each getting 3 women. 4 women are left, which leaves only 4 lonely betas.
With “free trade,” Alphas are given more flexibility to game more women. They have access to ones they are partially disassociated from and are thus able to monopolize all 10, leaving 8 lonely betas instead of our previous 4. All 8 wash each other out until the women are done “consuming” Alphas and must seek out stability instead.
Of course this isn’t how it literally plays out, only a basic demonstration. In peak years, the market will be more similar to the above raw diagram. Variable factors like contraceptives and the economic thesis of the misandry bubble will affect it in unpredictable ways; but the point remains clear.