N
Whats the difference I don't get it
Never heard the term shlubby hubby
I don't know what you're talking about, but both have a 99% chance of being the exact same thing. 
N
I don't know what you're talking about, but both have a 99% chance of being the exact same thing.
Schluby Hubby theory
The Schluby Hubby is a subset of Oofy doofy theory that describes a type of man that is typically married or in a long-term relationship. This new, controversial...
Schluby Hubby theory
The Schluby Hubby is a subset of Oofy doofy theory that describes a type of man that is typically married or in a long-term relationship. This new, controversial...incels.wiki
N
Wiki needs to be fixed how can we have two different terms to describe the same type of faggot ?
W
I vaguely got the sense that shlubby hubby is equivalent to oofy doofy i.e. when a woman settles for an average/mediocre guy so she has some control over him and doesn't have to worry about being cheated on. Betabuxx is just using a guy for money. There's at least some validity to the former since I've seen countless cases of it.
N
Its the most likely one cause nobody can betabuxx you need to be rich (and jewish)
Betabuxxing tends to focus on prostitution by proxy. Meaning that if the guy lost his high income job, or stopped providing, or stopped lavishing her with expensive gifts, she would bounce.
Schlubby hubby is more about a woman getting a guy who is below her looks level, because then she has more leverage in the relationship. Think like women with BPD, women with abandonment issues, etc. Its a lot easier to manipulate an average guy than a Chad, and women recognise this. The guy is also supposed to be docile, he's not argumentative, he's easy to control.
I think the theories can often go hand-in-hand. These theories also don't take into account the womans own attractiveness, because her attractiveness also affects how attractive man can she get. If a woman says "I don't care about money at all," it means nothing, because she may not even be able to get herself a rich boyfriend/husband. Sour grapes. Also see: women who say they don't care about muscles, its not that they think muscles are unattractive, she just can't attain a guy with that physique.
Not all women can get rich Chad husbands, and not all women can get rich husbands, therefore some are forced to settle with average men even if they resent them. And in that situation, which is not ideal for women, the best she can hope for is that at least the guy is malleable and easy to manipulate and control.
However HBTDL who created this oofy doofy / hubby schlubby theory goes even further and says that less attractive men have it better than attractive men in the dating market. In this sense, if you take his whole theory and accept the whole as true, the theory is even more ludicrous than blue pill theory. However I do agree with the point that women use their looks as leverage in relationships, but that doesn't mean that women prefer less attractive men to attractive men.
Schlubby hubby is more about a woman getting a guy who is below her looks level, because then she has more leverage in the relationship. Think like women with BPD, women with abandonment issues, etc. Its a lot easier to manipulate an average guy than a Chad, and women recognise this. The guy is also supposed to be docile, he's not argumentative, he's easy to control.
I think the theories can often go hand-in-hand. These theories also don't take into account the womans own attractiveness, because her attractiveness also affects how attractive man can she get. If a woman says "I don't care about money at all," it means nothing, because she may not even be able to get herself a rich boyfriend/husband. Sour grapes. Also see: women who say they don't care about muscles, its not that they think muscles are unattractive, she just can't attain a guy with that physique.
Not all women can get rich Chad husbands, and not all women can get rich husbands, therefore some are forced to settle with average men even if they resent them. And in that situation, which is not ideal for women, the best she can hope for is that at least the guy is malleable and easy to manipulate and control.
However HBTDL who created this oofy doofy / hubby schlubby theory goes even further and says that less attractive men have it better than attractive men in the dating market. In this sense, if you take his whole theory and accept the whole as true, the theory is even more ludicrous than blue pill theory. However I do agree with the point that women use their looks as leverage in relationships, but that doesn't mean that women prefer less attractive men to attractive men.
JoinedMar 15, 2023Posts374Online2d 20h 17m
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
