Resources, the One's Women Look For.

[TitaniumFireBEAR]

I hear alot of the same thing from friends, both well-off and, well, not-so-well-off.

"Girls are all about the dough."

You're right. It's an undeniable fact. Accept it and move on. Have you ever wondered why, though?

Let's think back to our original structure of life from the days of Ug (female) and Chug (a male). They're living in prehistoric times where survival boils down to NOT being the slowest, dumbest, least skilled man out there. It's not a matter of being the Top Dog, simply it is a matter of being NOT the least skilled man. What of women?

During these times...women have a very short life expectancy and procreation and survival were of the main priority. But how did a woman who would risk everything in pregnancy, who would risk the safety of her offspring, and her own life after pregnancy judge a man?

By listening to what he said?

HARDLY!!!!

Communication was nil! Besides, women need MORE PROOF than empty words. She has bank EVERYTHING about herself on us, men. Everything. Procreation. Children. The rest of her life. Because even during pregnancy, other males would try to 'steal' your woman, since she was in a 'weakened' state. Moreover, she needed protection from predators, both male and animals. These were NOT safe times.

And so to test a man, to evaluate him, she needed to observe a few things...

RESOURCES & ACTIONS

Can he hunt?
Can he fight/protect me?
Can he provide for me?
Will he do these things?
Will he leave me?
Will he give his resources to me or will he father other children with another woman and deplete what resources we have?
Will he protect me during pregnancy and after the children are born?
Is he a strong man that can adapt?
Does he possess traits that will enable my children to become strong and resourceful?

She had to see what he had, as well as see what he is doing!

He can't say...

"Yeah, I'm the best guy here. All those guys, they're jerks. They're talking about having sex with you, and being all dirty. I want to love you, and take care of our children."

:::COUGH:::WUSS::::COUGH:::

You see, the real man who would do for the women what she desires isn't saying it, he's out doing! He comes home with the spoils of war, rather than talk of all the spoils he shall have. He cares not for talk, but for action.

But many men would say...but, but, but what of her "resource-digging" (aptly named Gold-digging, and possibly should be changed to Dollar-digging since the US went off the Gold Standard some time ago). She's only into me for what I have! Forget her.

Ok, stud. Ignore the basic premise of her needs, real smart. Emotionally speaking...that is what she craves. It is what she desires. It is what she wants, amongst other emotions.

The resources themselves are a means to an end, the demonstrate safety. I would present that many women who find themselves in situation or relationship (we're talking about good women) with men who "lack resources" typically end up hurt as well as her offspring hurt. She barely has funds to support the children, not to mention herself.

Fast forward to today...

Do we think millions of years of evolution has erased this?
Hell No!!

Now...what do us men do about it? Bytch. Complain. Try to change a 'system' that has been in place eons. Fact is...most women, despite their overwhelming amount of ******** desire a man to provide for them. The REAL issue sparks up when the woman...

Loves the doing, not the being. The doing is simply the "lifestyle". The being is you. Being means you can be resourceful no matter what. You gained the skills, the languages, the thoughts, the attitude, the connections, the intellect, and so on, to rebuild your empire should it crumble one day. The doing means you have what you have of circumstance, a judgement, illegal means, trust fund baby, a lottery. It wasn't created of your own mind, and should it be taken away or locked away, you'd have no clue of how to rebuild it legally.

A woman who loves the "doing" is not a good woman. A woman who loves the "being" will be attracted to you, because she "knows" the catch she has. There is a remarkable difference between the two women, as well as, who you have to be in your own life. Focus on "being" someone of purpose, of character, of substance, of honor, and the "doing" will be a natural consequence of the former.

Women do love resources, 1/2 because they can't do it on their own, and 1/2 because it's how they're wired. That fact won't change no matter how much women's rights pushes towards equality. Society will allow it to be more acceptable and possible to be a single mother, it however, does not mean she desire to be one and care for her young all along.

If YOU control the resources, and YOU control yourself, SHE will be the one chasing YOU. Yes, some will chase for Louie V bags, new boobs, Manolos', etc. But there will be women who desire men as their equal for what you can obviously provide. If you're a man when you meet her, you will see this fact, look beyond it, and know what to do and say to control the situation.


B.E.A.R.

 

[DJ_Dork]

it's not really about someone you like having lots of money - everyone is attracted to that whether man or woman. women generally go for guys that are resourceful (can get a job, can get good grades, able to do stuff to survive.)

 

[Cheiradawg]

Originally posted by DJ_Dork
it's not really about someone you like having lots of money - everyone is attracted to that whether man or woman. women generally go for guys that are resourceful (can get a job, can get good grades, able to do stuff to survive.)

Not so sure about this.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Being able to and have done are two diffrent things. Having lots of money is the proof that a man is resourceful and it is this proof that attracts women. From their point of view I would imagine that viewing a man who "tries" at life is not the same as a man who is successful at life. They could "guess" that the man who "tries" will eventually become the man who does but this is a risk that they will not take if there is a surer bet.

For example, a friend of mine made $50,000 before he graduated highschool. Freshmen year in college he drove a Camery that was about 7 years old. Needless to say chicks were more attracted to him after he bought a new 325i. The 325i was the proof so to speak. So in my opinion a man who can get a job ect. is a gamble and a man who is currently stable is a safer bet.

 

[Capi Crimini]

If you really want to get down to it. Most of the men took there ****s and shoved them into the *****. Women didn't really have a choice. Women clung to the man becuase they had no where else to go. Men only 'provided' for them because they birthed there offspring. Then becuase they were part of the clan. Women didn't choose men. Men choose the women.

You forget. Back then. Rape was legal. Unless that **** was another mans hot spot.

 

[Cheiradawg]

Originally posted by Capi Crimini
If you really want to get down to it. Most of the men took there ****s and shoved them into the *****. Women didn't really have a choice. Women clung to the man becuase they had no where else to go. Men only 'provided' for them because they birthed there offspring. Then becuase they were part of the clan. Women didn't choose men. Men choose the women.

You forget. Back then. Rape was legal. Unless that **** was another mans hot spot.

Hum.... I'm not familiar with when anthropologists think that occured. However there is evidence that early human females traded sexual favors for food and other resources.

 

[ShortTimer]

Originally posted by Capi Crimini
If you really want to get down to it. Most of the men took there ****s and shoved them into the *****. Women didn't really have a choice. ... You forget. Back then. Rape was legal. Unless that **** was another mans hot spot.

Yeah all this talk about what's "natural" for men and women and all that is mostly crap. When it comes right down to it RAPE is the natural state. What economic reason would a man in a "natural" environment have to waste his time and resources on seduction.

Women don't want money because of genetic programming, they want it becasue it buys them crap.

 

[Cheiradawg]

Re: Re: Resources, the One's Women Look For.

Originally posted by ShortTimer
Women don't want money because of genetic programming, they want it becasue it buys them crap.

Yes, but they want the crap becuase of genetic programming.

 

[ShortTimer]

Re: Re: Re: Resources, the One's Women Look For.

Originally posted by Cheiradawg
Yes, but they want the crap becuase of genetic programming.

Biologically drive aquisition of material weath only extends so far as to what we need. When a person is hungry his biology tells him to eat until he is full, it doesn't tell him to plant crops. When a person is cold his biology tells him to seek shelter / get warm, it doesn't tell him to invent matches. When a person is in pain his biology tells him to find an imediate way out of the pain, it doesn't tell him to invent surgery.

So the resources women biologically desire would only be for imediate need or short-term gain, everything else is greed; everything else they want has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution doesn't tell them they need a three story house, two $50k cars and a pool.

 

[tmcgee]

I'm mainly content to lurk here, but this post seemed unusually wrongheaded. I'm surprised it hasn't attracted a storm of criticism.

Originally posted by TitaniumFireBEAR
I hear alot of the same thing from friends, both well-off and, well, not-so-well-off.

"Girls are all about the dough."

You're right. It's an undeniable fact. Accept it and move on.

Even in the context of attraction, this statement is true but misleading. All things being equal, yes, woman X will choose the wealthier guy. The problem is all things are never equal. Ever. A rich AFC will not outperform a poor PUA. Skills are as valuable an asset as cash -- more so, since they don't ebb and flow the way cash will.

I've known many stone-cold AFCs who were quite rich. They got some women, because and only because of their cash, and they knew it. When the money ran out the women ran out. A former boss of mine was quite wealthy but stupid with women. He relied on his cash for his appeal, and regularly got his heart broken by women who left him for ex-boyfriends, etc.

Have you ever wondered why, though?

By listening to what he said?

HARDLY!!!!

And so to test a man, to evaluate him, she needed to observe a few things...

RESOURCES & ACTIONS

Can he hunt?
Can he fight/protect me?
Can he provide for me?
Will he do these things?
Will he leave me?
Will he give his resources to me or will he father other children with another woman and deplete what resources we have?
Will he protect me during pregnancy and after the children are born?
Is he a strong man that can adapt?
Does he possess traits that will enable my children to become strong and resourceful?

She had to see what he had, as well as see what he is doing!

He can't say...

"Yeah, I'm the best guy here. All those guys, they're jerks. They're talking about having sex with you, and being all dirty. I want to love you, and take care of our children."

:::COUGH:::WUSS::::COUGH:::

It's interesting that you qualify your criteria up there -- half of it relates to resources, half to alpha-male qualities in general. I think the distinction matters: women are attracted to alpha male qualities, and see (reasonably) resources as a sign of them. It matters because it puts the focus on the right things; other things are signs of alpha male qualities, too.

In general I think evolutionary psychology is interesting, but be careful not to fetishize it. After all, no psychologists were there, it's all speculative by design. Better, in fact, to leave such theory aside completely, and focus instead on the nitty-gritty details of laying this or that woman -- the psychology of today.

I don't even think an evolutionary psychologist would argue that his or her schema was determinative, by the way; no serious psychologist ignores the role of environment in shaping personality. That's important here, since there's plenty of stone-cold AFCs toiling away in white collar jobs. FIGHT CLUB should've taught you that, if nothing else.

You see, the real man who would do for the women what she desires isn't saying it, he's out doing! He comes home with the spoils of war, rather than talk of all the spoils he shall have. He cares not for talk, but for action.

Heh. I understand and even agree with you here, but somebody who just posted a whale of a theory post should be a little bit humble, at least, before decrying talk.

But many men would say...but, but, but what of her "resource-digging" (aptly named Gold-digging, and possibly should be changed to Dollar-digging since the US went off the Gold Standard some time ago). She's only into me for what I have! Forget her.

Ok, stud. Ignore the basic premise of her needs, real smart. Emotionally speaking...that is what she craves. It is what she desires. It is what she wants, amongst other emotions.

Even though you qualify this a little you need to qualify this a lot more. Despite your ridicule golddiggers do exist and in fact are rather common in some circles: pretending otherwise is denying reality. An attraction theory that praises ONLY the gathering of resources is AFC-stuff, bluntly: many of them bust their asses to get a good job, a nice apartment, and a nice car and wonder where the women are at.

That's not to say women don't respond to wealth; I agree with you that they do. It's to say women respond to a lot of things.

The resources themselves are a means to an end, the demonstrate safety. I would present that many women who find themselves in situation or relationship (we're talking about good women) with men who "lack resources" typically end up hurt as well as her offspring hurt. She barely has funds to support the children, not to mention herself.

Here again, you blur between "resources as a means to an end" and resources as determinative. I agree with the first, not the second. It's not hard to find women, even attractive women, with broke-ass guys. Obviously something else was the deciding factor.

Fast forward to today...

Do we think millions of years of evolution has erased this?
Hell No!!

No evolutionary psychologist would say that behaviors aren't conditioned by the environment, either. Again, don't make too much of this stuff. Evolution tells you to eat as much as you can to get as fat as you can, to stave off lean times when food's unavailable. Yet all sorts of people work out in gyms. Why? Hint: it ain't evolution.

Now...what do us men do about it? Bytch. Complain. Try to change a 'system' that has been in place eons. Fact is...most women, despite their overwhelming amount of ******** desire a man to provide for them.

In the context of a relationship....maybe. And even there you'd have to qualify it a bunch of ways, so much so that it'll be useless by the time you're done. Better instead, in my honest opinion, to toss all that stuff out and work with what you see.

The REAL issue sparks up when the woman...

Loves the doing, not the being. The doing is simply the "lifestyle". The being is you. Being means you can be resourceful no matter what. You gained the skills, the languages, the thoughts, the attitude, the connections, the intellect, and so on, to rebuild your empire should it crumble one day. The doing means you have what you have of circumstance, a judgement, illegal means, trust fund baby, a lottery. It wasn't created of your own mind, and should it be taken away or locked away, you'd have no clue of how to rebuild it legally.

This is not written well, I'm sorry to say, and doesn't make much sense. You seem to be saying that women value those attributes which lead to an accumulation of resources -- that's true. Focus on that, not the money. Focusing on money is very AFC.

A woman who loves the "doing" is not a good woman. A woman who loves the "being" will be attracted to you, because she "knows" the catch she has. There is a remarkable difference between the two women, as well as, who you have to be in your own life. Focus on "being" someone of purpose, of character, of substance, of honor, and the "doing" will be a natural consequence of the former.

I'm mainly interested in asf; I find the moralism here odd, frankly. I'm not overly-concerned with judging women as "good" or "bad", at least in the context of seduction -- that's VERY AFC. If you're saying here "focus on what you want out of life, and on being assertive, and you will gain resources and women" no one can disagree with that, I guess. But I prefer to focus on the behaviors, not the results.

Women do love resources, 1/2 because they can't do it on their own, and 1/2 because it's how they're wired. That fact won't change no matter how much women's rights pushes towards equality. Society will allow it to be more acceptable and possible to be a single mother, it however, does not mean she desire to be one and care for her young all along.

Better to focus on optimizing you. Actually, the best piece of advice I ever read about women was "Don't care what she's thinking". Just don't care. Whatever is going through her head, it has nothing to do with the matters at hand. People are unknowable, anyway.

Work instead on perfecting YOUR game. That's something you can control.

If YOU control the resources, and YOU control yourself, SHE will be the one chasing YOU. Yes, some will chase for Louie V bags, new boobs, Manolos', etc. But there will be women who desire men as their equal for what you can obviously provide. If you're a man when you meet her, you will see this fact, look beyond it, and know what to do and say to control the situation.


B.E.A.R.

Again, this is muddled, and seems to be saying "work on getting a lot of stuff" and "work on the inner you". Those two pieces of advice rub against each other, since often being alpha means going against the AFC lifestyle.

In short, while there's some valuable things in your post I think there's a lot of misplaced emphasis, too. It's also, in my opinion, not helpful to people without much money, who need advice on how to get moving beyond "get a good job". I think that's what my Mom would say, and she ain't no PUA.

tmcgee