A man's loyalty is tested when he has everything, and a woman's loyalty is tested when her man has nothing, agree or disagree?

[KrakenAttackin]

Agree.

Disagree.

[Screenwriter]

This is a fascinating adage! I've never heard it before, but the logical fallout is wonderful to consider.

If a man has everything, he can choose to DO anything, be with anyone, go anywhere. His possibilities are endless, his status is exceptional, or so the world says.

Therefore, he can hop from relationship to relationship, job to job, house to house, location to location, can afford any drug or alcohol. His life can be of stimulating, endless variety. Because he has so many choices, he may fail to settle for one, thinking the grass is always greener, because for him there will always be more and different grass.

Why be loyal to anything or anyone when you can have anything and anyone? Sounds like a lifetime of disaster to me. You can't settle for one thing when you can get everything.

The idea that a woman's loyalty is tested when her man has nothing is a different story. Since in American society there remains the bias that a man has to "support" his woman, and to be successful has to aspire to the six-figure, high powered job, life, big home: When a man doesn't have this, he is considered suspect.

What's wrong with him anyway? Why is she supporting him? Putting up with his low-status job? Small home, beater car.

But the man may have qualities of value to the woman that the world at large doesn't see. He loves her, his children, has time to spend with his family. She contributes to the family finances because she wants to have this man an whatever talents he has around her and their children.

This man and woman know a good thing when they see it. No one needs everything. But everyone needs to have the good sense to recognize what is valuable. The first man does not. The second woman does, and so does her man.

[whirled_up_girl]

I think loyalty of either party is probably tested when they other side loses everything. I mean I get where your going with men who have everything but that's probably that Chap persona that your always talking about. From what I can figure out about Chad, he doesn't have everything, he just wants everything that he can take and doesn't care who he hurts to get it. That's not the sign of a man who has everything great job, friends, nice house, faithful loving wife, children, maybe a few pets in the yard etc.. No, a man who has everything won't risk losing everything in a divorce, splitting up his family over a some fling with a floozy, unless maybe he is a Chad (but I don't think of successful men as Chads). And if it's not with some floozy and it's someone of high quality, then he didn't really have everything after all because something was going wrong in the marriage.

That's just my two cents though, sorry, that was a bit long to say I don't agree and that anyone can be disloyal but it takes integrity to fight against the urge to be disloyal when the going get tough.

[dynamicyandere]

I came up with a concept where I look at it as:


[His Attractiveness] x [Her Loyalty] = Fidelity


Basically, the more loyal she is, the less attractive you need to be for her to stay faithful.


The less loyal she is, the more important it is for you to compensate by becoming more attractive to her.


The best thing you can do is work on becoming the most attractive version of yourself (in all aspects of your life) and find a girl that is as loyal as they come.


That’ll minimize your risks of getting cheated on. To be the best man you can be, and find a loyal girl to begin with.


And as someone mentioned before, if a girl’s loyalty is way too low, then you’re SOL, no matter how attractive you are.

[worldscolide]

Most women only stuck around for the " for better" part, not the "or worse" part. Man gets sick, she's gone. Man loses his job, she's gone.. Women treat marriage like something they can wipe their ass with and flush down the toilet.

[KrakenAttackin]

@worldscolide. Yup, sum it up with "women want to get married but they don't want to be wives". Just like women want kids but don't want to be mothers.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

100% false. Humans regardless of gender by nature or circumstance aren't loyal regardless of what they claim or say; and sticking by someone because they possess something or something you desire from them you are benefiting from isn't loyalty but rather being an opportunistic to your benefit even though most will lie to themselves and say that isn't the case. lol.

Loyalty is a trait of the spirit of God and humans can't possess firm loyalty unless they have the Holy Spirit of God within them.

Without the spirit of God humans are only loyal to their options, if it no longer benefits them or gets seriously dark and uncomfortable they will abandon or betray you 100% guaranteed.

[KrakenAttackin]

So you contradicted yourself.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

How so?

[KrakenAttackin]

First line "100% false". Last line, "if it no longer benefits them or gets seriously dark and uncomfortable they will abandon or betray you 100% guaranteed". Your last line was exactly my point.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Being loyal to a circumstance or option that benefit you isn't loyalty.

I told you that's more of being a opportunistic to one's advantage.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Give you an example.

Say you have 100 million dollars and I hang around you as your friend, party with you on your yacht, eat your food etc.

2 years later you end up like that guy in the movie trading places walking the streets in rags, being ignored etc now I don't want you nowhere any me at all and look down on you for your failure.

Was I ever loyal to you as a friend? Of course not.

I was only loyal to a circumstance (not you) that was benefiting me.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

* near

[KrakenAttackin]

I guess that's the whole point. In most relationships people are as "loyal" as their options. Women tend to have a lot more options so they are less loyal.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Your definition of loyalty is different than mines.

Your definition is loyal to circumstance, mine definition is firm loyalty under all circumstances towards the person.

[KrakenAttackin]

I agree with you in that loyalty should be all or nothing, but we all know how flawed humans are.

[normalice]

i think it's one of those weird situations where there is causation but not correlation. Just because a guy is well off doesn't mean random women are going to throw themselves at him. But it is slightly more likely, so there is a causal relationship, it's just still rare enough to not be a factor for most successful men.

And the inverse situation only occurs when a woman is loyal to a provider instead of a "mate." But men must not actually have a problem with that, as they could avoid this sort of woman by simply ceasing to contribute to the socioeconomic norms that create them. Desperate people look for help before they look for love. That's just the way of things..

[AnotherDay88]

You know the guy who becomes successful and all of a sudden he needs a new wife or as he calls it " upgrade to a newer model". He means younger, of course.

You know the girl who dumps her husband the minute he gets in trouble or get fired from his job?

I know both of these types. Happens every single day.

[KrakenAttackin]

@AnotherDay88. Which of these two scenarios happen more often?

[AnotherDay88]

In my experience? It's an equal split.

[KrakenAttackin]

@AnotherDay88. That's bullshit. Women leave men between 70-90% of the time.

[AnotherDay88]

Not in my world so no point of arguing about it.

[KrakenAttackin]

@AnotherDay88. Your world is Chad chasing.

[ShesRad80]

Agree.

I have seen both sides of it at work in the last few years. I work in healthcare have seen Drs. who make it big, then dump the wife who stood by them from the start- for another woman. I have also seen one in particular guy fail out of med school, fall apart and the spouse left him. How I grew up- loyalty is everything without that in life you have questionable character and not someone to be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Disagree, and this fake “ultimate loyalty” thing is dumb like why would i stay with a guy who has nothing? You have duties as a husband/father you either meet them or f*ck off. Every responsible adult has to meet their duties and that’s what I expect and i accept no shortcomings especially those in his control. Its one thing if he got fired for no reason tomorrow and its another if he succumed to that and sat in the house. I don’t mind him sitting in the home either but he will still have to adhere to home responsibilities and become a house husband but I won't be tolerating a burdernsome husband.

[KrakenAttackin]

Anonymous, and if your husband hits the lottery should he tolerate a fat, wrinkly, wife?

[KrakenAttackin]

Didn't think so.

[Opinion Owner]

What does this even mean lmao? If he got a second wife we better be divorced lmao. I don’t believe in the lottery and its forbidden in my belief to take money that we didn’t work for, so guess what idc if he became a billionaire 💀 you thought you got me w that one.

[ohsheeT]

It sounds good on paper

But no it doesn't matter what you have and what you don't have it matters who you are what you're all about and if you are actually in love with that person if you're not actually 100% in love with that person the odds are you're probably going to cheat if you have the opportunity it's called being selfish
And you're just not in the relationship for the same thing

[Anonymous]

Don't know. A woman who Is a cheater will always cheat no matter how much her man has. She will invent a reason to justify it to herself and when caught will turn you into the villain rather than accept responsibility

[RingOfFire]

I always get a laugh when the voting percentages between men and women are nearly exact opposites. This is one of those questions. Funny! I had a feeling it would be that way. Women don't want to admit that they would dump a man if he went from riches to rags. But I personally know a few who have.

[jshm2]

Cut the romanticised bullcrap. This is real life, not a fiction novel. Loyalty largely doesn't exist. There are only "circumstances, contracts and alliances".

[inhua]

[ Loyalty largely doesn't exist ]

that's the whole point of the question

[Grovermint]

Either one's loyalty is tested all the time, not merely in those two instances. He could have everything and she could still be doing the two timing two step, similarly, he could have nothing and do the same. I do understand the premise, though as that does happen.

[Adaeva]

That is not too far from the truth. Moreover, I do not disagree with Hispanic-Cool-Guy.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

Agree. That’s what my ex told me once.

And he said he was lucky to have me.

[BADASS22]

He was lucky to have you?
Than why became ex?

Am I missing something.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

@BADASS22 His parents were against our marriage.

[LiamJHayden]

Probably true more often than most will admit. Below is a nice thought, but probably pretty rare.

[inhua]

explains why men with options dump and cheat more whereas men with limited options get dumped and cheated on more

[Unit1]

It seems to be proven time and time again.

This is not always the case but still.

[Unit1]

Men, who got their girlfriend by paying for her completely shouldn't be so surprised to become single again once they hit rock bottom and run low on money.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

yeah, we men tend to get cockier and dont mind showing who would we truly are when we have it all. women in the other hand their gold digger survival instincts start to kick in and take over when they are in desperate needs

[RavVid]

A man with everything will certainly be attractive to a woman whose man has nothing. So yeah I agree

[BigDog1989]

Basically, you're saying, does she like you for your money, or not

[Siri137]

Disagree, because this just isn't true in most cases.

[ConspiracyTheorist]

I agree with that to an extent... that also gives me an idea for a question I'll have to ask on here.