Money for Pu$$y

[STR8UP]

I've been out of this thread for about a week, been very busy.

I see your point. You're saying the guy has to have it ALL(confidence, money, looks)...you're saying if it came down to a "wealthy" guy vs. a "middle-income" guy, who both had LOOKS and CONFIDENCE, she'd choose the "wealthy" guy.

If we could turn women's attraction into an algebraic equation, then yes, that would be the case. But you and I both know that there are many, MANY factors that play into a woman's attraction mechanism.

I say "all things being equal" as if it were that simple, but it isn't, of course. But if you COULD level the playing field all the way across the board (basically a clone) except for the wealth factor, then the woman would choose the wealthier guy.

 

[STR8UP]

You're saying a woman will leave the "middle-income" guy, once the "wealthy" guy comes along...or at least that's how I interpret your statement.

If the guy isn't providing efficiently or fully, then I could see the woman securing a relationship with a guy who CAN provide efficiently and fully(or as you would say provide, "better"). But if both the wealthy guy and middle-income guy are EQUALLY providing fully and efficiently, then I can't see how she would leave the middle-income guy.

Again, it isn't that simple.

A woman isn't going to automatically give up a secure investment just like that.

Stripped to its core, it's all about the cost/benefit ratio, but as I stated before it isn't ever cut and dried. There are SOOOOOO many factors that come into play it isn't like a woman gets a little attention from the rich guy she's automatically gonna jump ship from the guy she has been with and has proven himself.

That said, women are MASTERS at justification. At the end of the day, whatever her reason is, if her interest in another man increases causing her interest in you to decrease, it doesn't matter if it's that the other guy is better looking or richer or fukks her better or (in most cases) just gives her a better overall feeling, she will find a way to justify the move.

 

[jophil28]

An inevitable comsequence of the global financial meltdown is the shrinking worth of the pension funds of middled aged employees. This raises the specter of the "cougar" population becoming even more fierce in their pursuit of a man to provide for their whims and wants in their imminent old age.

So we guys of mature years need to be even more vigilant. I am polishing my "goldigger detector" as I write this.

 

[Vulpine]

(Edger, I never disagreed with STR8UP that women are attracted to men with the means to provide.)
I'm saying, throughout this discussion, you've disagreed with him on the premise that "attractive women specifically hone in on wealthy guys", THEN claimed the opposite.

Here it is:

(I agree, a woman might leave when a better provider comes along)

You're saying a woman will leave the "middle-income" guy, once the "wealthy" guy comes along...or at least that's how I interpret your statement.

If the guy isn't providing efficiently or fully, then I could see the woman securing a relationship with a guy who CAN provide efficiently and fully(or as you would say provide, "better"). But if both the wealthy guy and middle-income guy are EQUALLY providing fully and efficiently, then I can't see how she would leave the middle-income guy.

The key expression, which is common in both quotes, is "provide".

My point has been that "better provider" does not always or only mean "wealthier". Many things are "provided" to a woman by a man. Security, affection, quality, value, attention, comfort, strength, support... I could go on and on with "imaginary" things that women desire. Men "provide" far more to a woman than "food, clothes, shelter".

I understand, though, that guys generally think in terms of "tangible units". I sometimes have a hard time thinking past "food, clothes, shelter" when considering "needs". I can also see how "money can't buy masculinity" might make some guys' heads explode when they try to understand it. And, women "need" more than men do, and the things they seem to "need" are beyond a man's understanding sometimes (chicks are just flat-out looney to me sometimes).

Yes, money buys food, clothes, and shelter. Surely, MORE money buys MORE food, clothes, and shelter. More money very clearly buys more stuff. The $.02 I wanted to donate to this thread is here in this neat little box:

Women clearly need/want/are attracted to men who would be a good provider. Providing means supplying something useful or necessary. More wealth does not guarantee that more needs, or all needs, are met. More wealth, therefore, may not be more useful or more necessary. More wealth may not provide more.

I don't believe that I delivered that message very well originally. Others seemed to have "got the gist" and expanded on it. So, I'll leave it short and sweet.

 

[Mr.Positive]

I don't believe that I delivered that message very well originally. Others seemed to have "got the gist" and expanded on it. So, I'll leave it short and sweet.

In this day and age, women can earn money themselves. They don't need US to do it for them.

Yes, being a provider, is ingrained in their minds. But, once wealth is met, the provider mindset seeks strength. Women seek strength. First and foremost.

At the end of the day, women want to feel as though they are taken care of. Does money have to do with this? Well, maybe. Depends on the women. I've know quite a few women that have made their money themselves, and end up with a man that was less financially secure.

Was he still a man? You bet. Being a man isn't how deep your pockets are.
We are more than that.

Your financial wealth is not YOU! It doesn't make you a man.

That's the bottom line. Wealth can add to the 'security mindset' of women, but it's just an additional bonus. An added 'perk'.

If you seek to gain attraction by flaunting your wealth, you will be a lonely fool.

 

[bigjohnson]

Stripped to its core, it's all about the cost/benefit ratio

Amazing how many things essentially boil down to economics really. Opportunity cost, total cost of ownership, time value of n, etc.

 

[edger]

In this day and age, women can earn money themselves. They don't need US to do it for them.

I can see someone around here truly gets and understands what I've been saying. Mr. Positive, so many thumbs up to you my friend. Women can provide perfectly well for themselves in 2008. It's been this way for a while now. They are given the same opportunities as men. If you look back 100 yrs ago in history all around the world, this apparantly wasn't the case, THEREFORE women HAD NO CHOICE but to rely on a man for financial security. Now, if you go WAY back in history, where humans lived in hunter/gatherer societies, the women basically again needed a man to provide for her needs, because she was the weaker sex and could not hunt as efficiently as the man.

What's funny and f*cked up now in todays world, is that, women have capitalized from their past, in that they are STILL taken care of financially without trying or making an effort to earn their own money and provide for themselves. The past has carried over into the present, but only as as "custom" or "tradition" today. For so long(thousands of yrs), men have taken care of women, that it still continues to this very day, but like I said, only as a "tradition/custom". It is no longer the case that a woman needs a man to provide for her(unless she wants children, then that's a different story). But what's f*cked up, is that, women have taken advantage of this "tradition/custom" for their own selfish benefit, knowing very well that they don't need a man to provide for them. Not cool. But you know who's the BIGGEST to blame here? MEN..because men allow this sh*t to go on. I will say it for the hundreth time again, men are their own worst enemies when it comes to women. They have created and shaped the women of today, as well as these ridiculous laws that favor women and screw over the man. And then those same men will complain about how women are "this way, that way, etc. etc. etc". Well duh, a**hole, you create and advocate those situations, and now complain about it. ?? It's all supplication.

Yes, being a provider, is ingrained in their minds.

I wouldn't say it's "ingrained" in their minds or has anything to do with anything biological, it's just regular common sense and expected that if a woman wishes to have kids, she's going to need a man who can provide financially, because she obviously isn't going to be able to do it herself, unless she hires a caretaker to take care of her kids, but what husband and wife really wants a caretaker to take care of their kids? The healthiest way in my opinion for a kid to grow up, is with his own parents. Also, when she's pregnant, it's difficult to work as well.

 

[edger]

Just a thought for some of you guys who "believe" that a female isn't "biologically wired" to provide. Have you ever considerd the way Lions, Cheetahs, Tigers, etc. operate in the Animal Kingdom? The FEMALE always is the PROVIDER, always the one hunting for her young.

 

[STR8UP]

Just a thought for some of you guys who "believe" that a female isn't "biologically wired" to provide. Have you ever considerd the way Lions, Cheetahs, Tigers, etc. operate in the Animal Kingdom? The FEMALE always is the PROVIDER, always the one hunting for her young.

And what does that have to do with a completely different species? Nothing.

What's funny and f*cked up now in todays world, is that, women have capitalized from their past, in that they are STILL taken care of financially without trying or making an effort to earn their own money and provide for themselves.

So what you are saying is that you would rather have a woman who wants to get out there and compete in a man's world (a masculine trait) than a woman who would prefer to take on a nurturing, supportive role, which is more feminine? I don't see the attraction to women who want to be like men, but whatever makes you happy.....

I don't agree with a woman being a "leach". But that is completely different than a woman who is simply filling a feminine role in a relationship. Just because she doesn't earn as much money as you do doesn't mean that she isn't a contributor.

Yes, being a provider, is ingrained in their minds. But, once wealth is met, the provider mindset seeks strength. Women seek strength. First and foremost.

You are completely discounting the fact that the ability to provide is one thing, and financial security is another thing entirely.

Your argument (and everyone elses) is that anything over and above a woman's basic needs being met is superfluous.

Is there any difference between a guy who is worth $100million and a guy who is worth a billion? Of course not. But is there a difference between the guy who is worth $100k or $500k and the guy who is worth $10mil? There is a BIG difference. The difference being, the guy who is worth $500k could be wiped out with one health crisis. The guy who is worth $10mil has FINANCIAL SECURITY.

You guys might not understand the difference between the two, but women do. TRUST ME, they do.

Your financial wealth is not YOU! It doesn't make you a man.

It isn't YOU as a whole, but it is a much bigger part of YOU as society sees you than you will ever acknowledge. And like it or not, you are a part of society, and you ARE involved in the "game" to an extent.

You can make these kinds of statements and the crowd will get behind you and cheer, but it doesn't show anything but the fact that most people just think the same way (that your money, wealth, status, etc. isn't part of who you are)

That's the bottom line. Wealth can add to the 'security mindset' of women, but it's just an additional bonus. An added 'perk'.

Kind of like being a software engineer and being offered an identical package to go to work for one of two competing companies, except one of them offers you a $50k signing bonus. Which do you take?

I rest my case.

If you seek to gain attraction by flaunting your wealth, you will be a lonely fool.

Says your own personal self limiting belief.

Hef doesn't look too lonely to me....

Women clearly need/want/are attracted to men who would be a good provider. Providing means supplying something useful or necessary. More wealth does not guarantee that more needs, or all needs, are met. More wealth, therefore, may not be more useful or more necessary. More wealth may not provide more.

I would beg to differ based upon the difference between the ability to provide and the ability to provide TRUE security as I mentioned above.

I would like to hear how you get around this fairly important fact that you either missed or omitted?

Amazing how many things essentially boil down to economics really. Opportunity cost, total cost of ownership, time value of n, etc.

Points like this are completely lost on guys who are still invested in the idea that "love" is above all of this, blah, blah.

Fact is, all of these calculations are a part of a woman's sunconscious attraction mechanism, the same as us guys are careful who we marry to ensure the quality of our offspring and our own financial well being.

 

[thisishowitis]

Well, I agree with the last post a lot.

The only thing is, most guys don't have millions of dollars and will never have millions of dollars. So what do these guys do?

That's why my previous posts were centered around the fact that men who aren't rich can be wildly successful as well. And I spoke a lot about being confident and not hesitating when speaking to people, and not hesitating to change yourself, regardless of wealth.

You can be monetarily wealthy, happy, healthy, and get girls.

But I'm positive that for guys who will never be monetarily wealthy, you can also be happy, healthy, and get girls. (or get married or whatever else your goal might be)

If you believe that having more money can make more girls like you, than that's fine, but if you believe more money is necessary for people to like you, or for women to like you, than that is a self-limiting belief.

The truth is, most people in society don't have millions, yet still are important to the society. I mean, there would be crap on our bathroom floors if old mexican ladies didn't clean it up. The guy who did the plumbing for the bathroom is equally important. We would have to dump our crap out on the streets if the plumber didn't install the toilet, and then we would get sick.

Is a guy with millions, who depends on the custodian and the plumber, any happier? Does he have any more peace? Do people like the guy with millions more? Or can the custodian have wonderful grandchildren and a wonderful life. And the plumber can get married and have a beautiful family

Should the mexican lady and the plumbing guy not have the ability to be happy with their life? Just because they don't have much monetary wealth doesn't mean they can't be very successful and happy.

This post isn't anti-money, it's just acknowledging the fact that most people will never have millions and recognizing that they are capable of a lot.

So this is just my perspective and I hope it's useful for someone out there.

 

[Jeffst1980]

All this talk about women viewing men like a stock portfolio still fails to acknowledge that RATIONAL decisions have no place in "matters of the heart." I know 2 girls in particular that were heavily pursued by EXTREMELY wealthy men, and BOTH of them eventually broke it off with their respective sugar daddies after a month or so. These guys were total AFC's that believed that wealth could offset lack of a compelling personality. One of them actually bought his newly ex girlfriend an expensive watch in an attempt to "win her back."

This is just an anecdote, but I think it illustrates the point that a girl goes for guys that generate ATTRACTION in her--and wealth is but one factor. Certainly, it played a major role in initially attracting those girls, but it wasn't enough to keep 'em around. Those girls BOTH passed up a lifetime of upper class living. One of them now dates a buddy of mine, who works as a temp--go figure.

When a woman falls in "love" (substitute whatever nomenclature you prefer here), that alone is enough to justify her choice of a partner. Of course, it isn't really a CHOICE--if it was a choice, clearly she WOULD take provider capabilities into account and go with the best all around decision. We all know that chicks don't always go for the guys that are good for them; wealthy guys that just want to settle down and get married are no exception.

I will say that as a woman ages, her attractions to guys tend to be weaker and more based in rational thought. I think that this is not so much a part of the maturing process as it is a realization that the years in which she was a hot commodity are fading fast. In this situation, I see financial security being something of a big deal. However, knowing the mature man forum as I do, I'm assuming we're talking about women in their PRIME attractive years.

 

[edger]

And what does that have to do with a completely different species? Nothing.

Yes, we are talking about 2 different species, but the point is, as I've pointed out, a woman can pull her own weight in todays world because she has the same opportunities as men do. That is a fact which you don't want to recognize, because it conflicts with your "wealth" getting you hot women.

So what you are saying is that you would rather have a woman who wants to get out there and compete in a man's world (a masculine trait) than a woman who would prefer to take on a nurturing, supportive role, which is more feminine? I don't see the attraction to women who want to be like men, but whatever makes you happy......

Str8up, you really like to run these convesrations in circles, huh? Well, I've got news for ya, this is the last I'm discussing this with you, because you like to dodge certain points. I'm officially done with this thread. I'll say my last few pieces and then I'm done.

For the last time, a woman who doesn't plan on having kids, doesn't have kids at the moment, or isn't pregnant, should be out there trying to find a decent career orientated job like the rest of the human population. Simple. Otherwise she is a leach no different from those in the ghetto who purposely live off the system(gov't) and don't wanna pull their own weight. You get it? You treat women as if they're incapable of pulling their own weight, as if their helpless invalids. It's guys like you who f*ck things up for the rest of male population, because you send a "message of entitlement" to women. Str8up, you are a C H U M P if I ever seen one. I ain't the first one to say it.

It isn't YOU as a whole, but it is a much bigger part of YOU as society sees you than you will ever acknowledge. And like it or not, you are a part of society, and you ARE involved in the "game" to an extent.

Whatever dude. If you think your "wealth" is a much bigger part of you as society sees you, then you are not looking at things from a clear perspective. It goes to prove my point that you and a big portion of society is so engulfed by materialism, that it starts to distort reality for you.

Says your own personal self limiting belief.

Hef doesn't look too lonely to me....

Ahh, wait a second here..how do you know Hefner isn't one of those guys of "all things being equal"? Didn't you say in order for the wealthy guy to secure hot babes, all things have to be equal; he has to have the looks, confidence, game, and be wealthy? So what you really mean to say, is that Hefner has all four of those attributes and is the "all things being equal" guy.

I would beg to differ based upon the difference between the ability to provide and the ability to provide TRUE security as I mentioned above.

Str8up, that's why there's insurance out there, gov't assistance, collecting disability money from your job, etc. A man can still provide for a woman in the event he faces a health crisis. Stop trying to beat around the bush and create lame excuses to support your proposterous defense, cause it's really making you look sillier than how you've already made yourself appear.

Fact is, all of these calculations are a part of a woman's sunconscious attraction mechanism, the same as us guys are careful who we marry to ensure the quality of our offspring and our own financial well being.

Do you realize how everything that comes out of your mouth, every argument you try to make, is always attempted to be backed up with your ever so popular, only line that you know how to spew, which is, "Well it's how they're wired". That is all you know how to say. Dude, you sound ridiculous. Please, stop talking, do yourself a favor, yeah? I think the first words out of your mouth when you were a kid was, "Women are bilogically wired that way".

Anyhow, like I said, I'm packing it in, because Str8up likes to dodge issues and beat around the bush. One day he will be surprised, if enlightenment ever reaches him.

 

[edger]

I know 2 girls in particular that were heavily pursued by EXTREMELY wealthy men, and BOTH of them eventually broke it off with their respective sugar daddies after a month or so. These guys were total AFC's that believed that wealth could offset lack of a compelling personality. One of them actually bought his newly ex girlfriend an expensive watch in an attempt to "win her back."

This is just an anecdote, but I think it illustrates the point that a girl goes for guys that generate ATTRACTION in her--and wealth is but one factor. Certainly, it played a major role in initially attracting those girls, but it wasn't enough to keep 'em around. Those girls BOTH passed up a lifetime of upper class living. One of them now dates a buddy of mine, who works as a temp--go figure.

Sounds like these 2 women were never attracted to these guys to begin with. Sounds to me like these guys were used. You sure one of the guys wasn't Str8up?

 

[STR8UP]

Str8up, you really like to run these convesrations in circles, huh? Well, I've got news for ya, this is the last I'm discussing this with you, because you like to dodge certain points.

Thought I addressed pretty much everything, but I'm actually kind f glad you aren't wanting to discuss this anymore. C'ya!

You treat women as if they're incapable of pulling their own weight, as if their helpless invalids. It's guys like you who f*ck things up for the rest of male population, because you send a "message of entitlement" to women. Str8up, you are a C H U M P if I ever seen one. I ain't the first one to say it.

Resorting to name calling. Classy.

Black/White. Never grey. That's how it is with you.

Let me point out that not once did I ever say that it is ok for a woman not to pull her weight. It is YOU who insists pulling her weight means that she has to aspire to be the next CEO of Ebay or something.

I'll tell ya straight up.....you might want that kind of a woman, but I want nothing to do with her.

You say that she should "build a career" before you have kids.

You can have her dude. The woman who instead of taking care of your kids is fretting over financial reports and such. Oh, no, but when she has kids she STEPS AWAY from that, right? Yea, sounds like a balanced life to me. I'm sure her bosses or the shareholders will appreciate her trying to be superwoman.

Wife, mother, and conqueror of the free world. Where do I sign up?

You must not understand that a woman CANNOT be a good mother and a good "career woman" at the same time. No matter how much she THINKS she can be. That's the lie she's been told by our wonderful feminist society, but it's exactly that- A LIE.

Whatever dude. If you think your "wealth" is a much bigger part of you as society sees you, then you are not looking at things from a clear perspective. It goes to prove my point that you and a big portion of society is so engulfed by materialism, that it starts to distort reality for you.

Has nothing to do with materialism, but that's the only answer you have for it because once again you have been conditioned to believe this.

And for the record, you can stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes all you want, but the world is the way it is. You can choose to live IN it and make the best for yourself, or you can choose to b!tch and complain (like you do). I'll take the former and leave the complaining all to you.

Didn't you say in order for the wealthy guy to secure hot babes, all things have to be equal; he has to have the looks, confidence, game, and be wealthy? So what you really mean to say, is that Hefner has all four of those attributes and is the "all things being equal" guy.

What the hell are you talking about? Where did you get "all things HAVE to be equal"? I said, quite simply, ONCE AGAIN, with 100% confidence in the words I speak, "all things being equal a woman will choose the wealthier guy".

Str8up, that's why there's insurance out there, gov't assistance, collecting disability money from your job, etc. A man can still provide for a woman in the event he faces a health crisis.

Yea, cause we all know that women say to themselves "Well, he might not be financially secure, but worst case we can stand in line for government cheese!" Hahahahahaha......

Do you realize how everything that comes out of your mouth, every argument you try to make, is always attempted to be backed up with your ever so popular, only line that you know how to spew, which is, "Well it's how they're wired".

It's because you can't seem to get it through your head that our species has survived and thrived for thousands and thousands of years due to "the way people are wired". We as a species certainly adapt to new conditions, but if you think for a second that a woman's primary motivators have changed drastically over the past few millennia, you need to do some reading son, cause there are quite a few scientists that would disagree with you.

One day he will be surprised, if enlightenment ever reaches him.

One day I will wake up and say "Now I see exactly what that "looks and wealth don't matter to women" guy was talking about.

Hahahahahahahahahahhaha.

You're a piece of work. I love you man.

All this talk about women viewing men like a stock portfolio still fails to acknowledge that RATIONAL decisions have no place in "matters of the heart."

OMG....."matters of the heart"....please don't use those words....please....

The proper word is "attraction".

A woman isn't really "rationally" attracted to any traits a man might possess....it's mainly subconscious.

She isn't rationally attracted to his facial symmetry or his muscle structure, but she IS attracted to those qualities.

I know 2 girls in particular that were heavily pursued by EXTREMELY wealthy men, and BOTH of them eventually broke it off with their respective sugar daddies after a month or so. These guys were total AFC's that believed that wealth could offset lack of a compelling personality. One of them actually bought his newly ex girlfriend an expensive watch in an attempt to "win her back."

Never have I stated or implied that wealth is a SUBSTITUTE for other qualities women are attracted to, or that it is capable of producing attraction in and of itself.

Quite the contrary. If you're a chump, you're a chump. Women will use you before you get a chance to use them.

This is just an anecdote, but I think it illustrates the point that a girl goes for guys that generate ATTRACTION in her--and wealth is but one factor. Certainly, it played a major role in initially attracting those girls, but it wasn't enough to keep 'em around. Those girls BOTH passed up a lifetime of upper class living. One of them now dates a buddy of mine, who works as a temp--go figure.

I agree with you completely, and I don't blame the chicks for passing that up. Most would, because most women, no matter how materialistic, can only stand to look at a guy they aren't attracted to for so long before they are OUT, no matter now much money he has.

When a woman falls in "love" (substitute whatever nomenclature you prefer here), that alone is enough to justify her choice of a partner. Of course, it isn't really a CHOICE--if it was a choice, clearly she WOULD take provider capabilities into account and go with the best all around decision.

In the last paragraph you say that wealth IS a factor, now you say that it isn't?

You guys....you place way to much weight on the theory that there is no rhyme or reason behind a womans attraction. It isn't RANDOM, and neither is it a "choice" per se.

It is a series of factors that is individual to each and every woman, with a few common denominators that hold true for most women, such as, all things being equal she will choose the wealthier guy, or all things being equal she will choose the better looking guy, or the taller guy, or the more social guy, or any number of other factors that women are attracted to.

Make sense?

 

[edger]

Resorting to name calling. Classy.

Don't take it personally. I didn't mean it in a malicious, demeaning way. Relax. You do act like a chump though, I have to call a spade a spade.

 

[TheHumanist]

So much for ending with Fallen's post. I can agree with the idea that all things equal that a woman would chose the wealthier man (btw, if they don't, what other factor can they do? Coin flip?). I can agree that having wealth brings the feeling of attraction like how the curves of a girl makes us attract to those girls. I do think that you are leaning too much on nature on "nature vs nurture" debate. I can agree wealth influences, but the degree you seem to make it is that you have to be a millionaire to have a serious long term girl attract to you. Of course you agree there's obviously more than one factor and this is not a vaccum, but it seems that you have be all the other factors and be a millionaire or something. If you only speaking about financial security, than that should be a separate thread. If you are only speaking that fallen clarify, the need to gain allies one way or another and in your lifestyle, through the way your described. Basically, for women, they don't want a loser bum, but I would like to think that you don't have to be super well off for success in life (fulfillment and happiness), even though it make things much easier to gain it. I don't think you are saying that (despite what you said earlier), but it does seem you are and anyone whose not is a lesser man.

Edit: Just found this blog post, while you may say that does have some envy as she shows despise (which does make me hesitate to post it, but remember to be fair that the magazine is basically mocking those whose life is not like them, they are all envious and their readers lives are pathetic), but I do think it points out our human condition. Not everyone can reach there, and not because they have self-limiting thinking or because they avoid it, but because by the fate of their condition. Many people following their desires for certain fields have no way to make that much. I mean I know people who works in the UN, studied under well-traveled professors, and other people like them, and despite how good their job is, they can be only paid so much. I guess they failed. I guess if we aren't living like that, our lives just suck. I guess we should aim to be just like them. Again, I can agree that their lives brings many benefits, and in this thread, the benefit of having more women interested, both golddiggers and those who have more character and not just looking to leech off the man. I'm guessing your lifestyle have similarities to them and if it is than more power to you, but I do detect a sense that you think your path is the only way and those who aren't are doing something wrong with their lives. I do not think that when a person say another is being materialistic is that person is just being conditioned by society, they could be, but I do think that there can be a valid arguments that of being materialistic. As well as the argument that man people are conditioned by society to always want more and more stuff buying things and craving more money to do so, basically "being materialistic" and it seems you are saying that that does not exist and anything who disagree is just brainwashed.

 

[Jeffst1980]

STR8UP, the thing is--all things are NEVER equal. There are so many factors that are involved in a woman's attraction that are even external to the men she is attracted to. Things like timing, her peer group, a sense of intangible connection, her past dating recollections, etc. There isn't some kind of subconscious checklist--women are not computer programs. There are traits that are culturally or even universally favored, yes--but possessing those traits isn't necessarily enough.

One of the things I dislike about the PUA movement is the desire for some kind of "formula" in attraction. There seems to be a constant need to reduce complex human interactions down to mathematical equations. It stands to reason that Mystery brought his passions of video games and evolutionary psychology into modern PUA knowledge, but it's a bit of a stretch to reconcile all that soft science into real life interactions.

It also breeds some dangerous conclusions if you continue down this line of thinking. If your assertions are true, does it then follow that every woman, including your future wife, deep down wants to be with the best "catch" she can obtain, and that by being with you, or anyone, she's merely "settling?" Do you truly believe that all women are only with a guy for what he can provide for them, and that if some tragedy was to befall him they would leave in an instant?

These would be pretty depressing concepts if they were to be true.

 

[Andy_Dufresne]

One of the things I dislike about the PUA movement is the desire for some kind of "formula" in attraction. There seems to be a constant need to reduce complex human interactions down to mathematical equations. It stands to reason that Mystery brought his passions of video games and evolutionary psychology into modern PUA knowledge, but it's a bit of a stretch to reconcile all that soft science into real life interactions.

Bump.

There is a huge difference between PUA and being genuine. I view a lot of these PUAs...good with mechanics, but they're punks. They don't have life experience. They don't come across as genuine. A lot of these young rich kids are the same way.

Being genuine comes from life experience. Having had a difficult life on many fronts has helped me. I'm now at a point where I no longer view women as surficially attractive.

The young women I encounter through work, etc. aren't "hot" so much as I look for a maturity level that I can stand.

That in and of itself has made a big difference in how women view me as well.

Money helps. I think anyone can rationalize that all other things being equal that anybody of either sex would pick the wealthier partner, all other things being equal. But all other things are rarely equal.

 

[STR8UP]

STR8UP, the thing is--all things are NEVER equal.

I already addressed this point.

I said that things are never equal, but if you COULD make them equal (in other words if you could take everything else out of the equation) the wealthier man would get the girl. Obviously we CAN'T do this, but it has been shown that wealthier men have more options than less wealthy men.

We know this to be true, yet people want to argue about it. I don't get it???

They are so stuck on one point that isn't even being argued. The point that you don't HAVE to be wealthy to attract women. I never said you do, but that's all some people hear.

There isn't some kind of subconscious checklist--women are not computer programs. There are traits that are culturally or even universally favored, yes--but possessing those traits isn't necessarily enough.

If you re-read my posts you will clearly see that I agree with this completely.

One of the things I dislike about the PUA movement is the desire for some kind of "formula" in attraction. There seems to be a constant need to reduce complex human interactions down to mathematical equations. It stands to reason that Mystery brought his passions of video games and evolutionary psychology into modern PUA knowledge, but it's a bit of a stretch to reconcile all that soft science into real life interactions.

You can say what you want about the PUA community, but aside from the fact that it's all about "getting laid" and teaches you nothing about having or keeping a relationship, this distillation process is valuable because it allows you to recognize the core traits women are generally attracted to across the board and capitalize on them to get your foot in the door.

It also breeds some dangerous conclusions if you continue down this line of thinking. If your assertions are true, does it then follow that every woman, including your future wife, deep down wants to be with the best "catch" she can obtain, and that by being with you, or anyone, she's merely "settling?" Do you truly believe that all women are only with a guy for what he can provide for them, and that if some tragedy was to befall him they would leave in an instant?

These would be pretty depressing concepts if they were to be true.

Dangerous? Not dangerous......SCARY.

This is why most people put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala" because they can't handle the raw truth. They want to believe that true love will come their way and they no longer have to be part of the Big Picture, that they can retreat into their microcosm which is their home and family life and take comfort in knowing that their wife will "love them forever".

You might be one of those guys who chooses to stick his fingers in his ears, but rest assured, the chances of your future wife leaving you if a tragedy were to befall you are very real.

Yes, women are almost always "settling", for lack of a better term, and ALWAYS have their eyes on the horizon for the BBD, should her attraction toward you wane and the cost/benefit ratio leans in favor of another man.

 

[Warrior74]

really this thread should just be locked. you guys are going round and round over a subjective and moot point. Get your shyt in gear, pull the best tail you can pull and have fun. All this nerdy ass arguing is just lame and not becoming of men. Yup. thats a shaming tactic, cause yall dumb asses should be ashamed for continuing this crap.